Does the business vote matter?

Whatever the various parties have on offer, what matters most to small companies like ours is real firm orders that we can fulfil and generate profits from.

Our main markets are in the UK, rail and utilities, all who have cut back enormously on capital spending in the last few years.

Until those capital project budgets are rolling out again, all the gloss in the world isn't going to do much for UK manufacturing.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

> to what extent has that tarnished the entire private sector

The private sector has always had more than its share of twisters and
crooks, and the obsession with self-promotion and greed is hardly proper
in a Christian society. And now we finally know how weak and corrupt the
free market model is. It's as if the blindfold has been removed... and
we can all see the bunch of twits who have led the private sector to
financial ruin.

Remember - the teachers and nurses didn't cause the credit crunch!

The anti-business vote matters more; politicians and the public regard business as a cash-cow at best and grasping exploiters at worst.

Hopefully, we will learn to cherish and support business - our life blood - before it is too late.

Osborne's plan is completely flawed. If you want to sack a shed-load of civil servants you have to go through the consultation process, 60-90 days, pay holiday pay -5 weeks and then redundancy which is very generous for civil servants - I believe 2-3 years for long service employees. This may stretch if the unions go to court and say that the government is not carrying out the consultation process in good faith.As a government you then pay unemployment benefit. So in year 1 you spend a lot more and it is year three before you see any signs of saving.

# 4. At 09:28am on 07 Apr 2010, bill wrote:

> we will learn to cherish and support business - our life blood - before
> it is too late.

There is no such thing as business. There are individual men and women, and
there are families. And no business can do anything except through people,
and people must look to themselves first.

If a "business" doesn't benefit its customers, its workers and its lenders,
then break it up.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The business 'vote' matters as these are the paymasters of the parties.

Politicians are not honest because none of the others of their cadre are honest, particularly about money, their own or ours. This situation gets an order of magnitude worse during elections, when they will say anything and do anything to get into power so that they can line their own pockets. We get the politicians we deserve.

We borrow money without the slightest understanding that we need to pay it back, so we can hardly expect our politicians not to do likewise. They have destroyed the 350 year history of the Bank of England. They have destroyed saving and turned the Nation into a bunch of borrowers that have mortgaged their future income to a far higher proportion than is either sensible or rational, just like the country - but the country can recover, unlike many of the overly indebted in our population!

The Government used to understand this and instituted caps on hire-purchase and limits on mortgage multiples to prevent our stupidity destroying the Nation, but they have deliberately forgotten these basic rules of economics, just for the short term gain of the bankers!

4. At 09:28am on 07 Apr 2010, bill wrote:

"Hopefully, we will learn to cherish and support business - our life blood - before it is too late."

How is it our life blood? - production maybe, but the idea of making profit from labour exploitation is nobody's lifeblood - unless of course you're a vampire or parasite - then I guess it is.

Labour to note - there is no loyalty in endorsement by big business who want to pay less tax both corporately and individually by management. What is needed is an industrial strategy and policy that orchestrates the economy to a more balanced structure valuing manufacturing and technological innovation greater than the gamblers and bean counters. There are more votes in the SME's when they see a government break free of City worship and find ways to finance risk taking in product innovations rather than clever rotten debt packaging.

Meanwhile - back in the collapse.....

https://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/greek-bond-yields-soar-in-sell-off/

The Greeks are going down - who will be next?

#1 Peter put it very succinctly.
I believe most small businesses and enterprises will have already made up their mind which way to vote.
I know I have.
Larger corporations are made up of many individuals, who no doubt may well vote according to their respective 'passion', rather than for what is in their own best interests to survive and put food on the table.

Robert, regarding your comments about Barclays and the banks in general, they should be very worried. Politicians might one day, but few if any business owners will ever forgive them their greed and actions that have caused so many to go under, through premature foreclosure on loans or mortgages to recover from their own banking incompetence.

Like so many, I would like to know how Barclays in particular, has escaped regulatory prosecution, despite its own failures over the last six or seven years. One can't help but wonder, is someone well connected?

" has put wind in the sales of Cameron and Osborne "

I think you mean the sails...you couldn't possibly be suggesting that the the Trimmer Twins are on offer to the highest bidder from the Square Mile...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

9. At 09:52am on 07 Apr 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:

4. At 09:28am on 07 Apr 2010, bill wrote:

"Hopefully, we will learn to cherish and support business - our life blood - before it is too late."

How is it our life blood? - production maybe, but the idea of making profit from labour exploitation is nobody's lifeblood - unless of course you're a vampire or parasite - then I guess it is.

WOTW And what exactly do you propose as an alternative? Socialism?? "The trouble with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people to pay for it".

Labour exploitation is a cynical way of looking at it. Nobody forces anyone else to work and nobody owes anyone else a living. If you have skills that are in demand then you should profit from that, if you don't then you should go without.

This is survival of the fittest/social evolution, do you think you can offer a better alternative?

'Labour would argue that the UK's recession would have been even deeper if it hadn't allowed the state to expand over the past couple of years, to compensate for the collapse of activity in the private sector'

as they argued they had ended boom and bust, as they argued they were being prudent with a purpose, as they argued they were being tough on immigration, as they argued they were being tough on crime, as they argued they were whiter than white....

Robert, hasn't everything that Labour has argued over the last 13 years turned out to be a lie, a sham, or just plain ridiculous.

What business vote? Everyone over 18 (unless banged up) has a vote. If they have any awareness of the needs of business they may factor that into their decision, just as they will anything else that they feel is important. I know I will be looking for someone that offers a better deal for business (and I'm a teacher, so not directly involved).

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

And would the letters written by each individual voter carry as much weight? The point is my vote is worth the same as any other vote in my constituence. And that is all that should matter.

Never seen M&S, or any other business on the electoral role. Has anyone else? If they can cause chaos as a means of blackmailing, punishing or rewarding any electorate, then we need to sort out the democratic process.

People around this world are struggling to gain the vote, to escape the lack of democracy imposed on them by the rich and powerful.

Those men and women who fought for the vote here in the UK, who went to jail and who threw themselves under the King's horse didn't give a toss what any business leader thought. We shouldn't either.

# 15. At 10:39am on 07 Apr 2010, Treading Water wrote:


> Nobody forces anyone else to work and nobody owes anyone else a living.
> If you have skills that are in demand then you should profit from that,
> if you don't then you should go without.

We certainly don't owe "business" a living, that's for sure. If they
can't stand on their own feet (and pay their taxes like I do) then
chop them. And if they can't afford to give good pay and pensions
to their workers, then take it from the boss's wages. He can
always sell his "Audi Whatever". When will business realise that we
are in this _together_, and when will they start to pay the people
who actually _do_the_work_??? It's not rocket science!

'whether the British economy is strong enough to withstand the few billion pounds of cuts that the Tories would impose in the current financial year'

No Robert, the argument is whether the NI tax increase is something that would do more harm than cutting waste. Labour and Lib Dems prefer to continue wasting tax payers money and introduce a job destruction tax. The Tories prefer to cut out waste immediately and avoid the job destruction tax.

It is not possible to have this debate until we are agreed as to what is meant by the noun `business'. Even Ronnie & Reggie were according to them `in business' and they would be delighted that some in The City are following in their erstwhile tradition.

The banks are Big Business. Big Business has a different agenda from `business' in general because it does not depend upon the managing its position in its market in a tactical way: everything for Big Business is strategic. It has time to develop a relationship with government and Big Government in particular.

An interesting factor in the period leading up to the credit boom and the subsequent crunch was the degree of sharing between Big Government and Big Business in terms of personnel, attitude, culture and values. This is demonstrated by the degree of salary inflation amongst the apparat with both parties.

Yet in that same period `business', as I understand it was going through a hard time: proft was becoming more marginal, wages were falling, opportunity was shrinking and comptition was tough. Quite simply Big Government and Big Business had formed a relationship that they called the economy and were gradually easing everyone else out of the frame.

Now that the bust has happened, to me it is Big Business and Big Government which is not to be trusted for their have failed and failed by the very standards that they had set. They are empty vessels, their opinins are irrelevant and there is a serious need for a lot of sacking to go around as well as criminal investigation. Yet that is not what is happening. The reason for that is that the conspiracy of interest continues. It is this which the electorate must address when exercising their franchise.

It is not enough to belly ache about the public and the private sector. This is just our old friend Divide and Rule being trotted out to emasculate the effect of the election. The debt the banks (Big Business) incurred has been transferred by a stupid government to the public sector (Big Government) which is now about to dump the lot on the taxpayer, their children and grandchildren. This is not good enough.

I recognise that this debt has been incurred in the name of Britain and it falls to the British to pay the bill. I can accept that to a point but then in return I want to see my country change as presumably by accepting the debt I accept the ownership of the country. I want to see a far more equal society, I would prefer it to me a more austere society focussed on values rather than money, I wish to see far more small businesses doing useful things and adding value as this is my artisan background, I want to see a smaller state and smaller banks. Above all else I expect those who would place themselves above me to be men and women of moral substance and intellectual sobriety rather than the bunch of spivs we seem to get these days.

I would hazard that a return to humility in high places would be a very welcome start. For this reason the first job of the electorate is to dump this stupid, arrogant government. The second job is to get the next government to behave itself. We have a lot of work ahead of us but in that we shall find our own salvation as a nation and as a people.

Osborne's plans relating to capital allowances really make my blood boil, and they make a mockery of the Tories' claim to be the party of business. It is nothing other than a tax penalty for investment!

The only people that it will benefit are executives with a profit-related bonus scheme. Such parasites will simply earn bumper profits for a few years, perhaps even for the life of the next parliament. Then, when the company is on its knees from chronic under-investment, they will be off to pastures new.

Osborne's motives are obvious - get some extra cash for his chums, while providing the temporary illusion of prosperity under a Tory government. Sadly, this kind of nakedly self-serving thinking pervades both of the main parties. Whoever gets in will be in it only for themselves.

I find it rather strange that we can print £200 billion pounds to pump into the economy in just twelve months but cannot find only a measly six billion pounds to reduce NI contributions.

Where on earth has all that money gone?

It is not just the large company execs who are standing up against NI rises but all businesses both large and small.

It is small beer when compared with the billions we are borrowing so I cannot understand why labour are so stubborn.

Jobs are the most important and any tax that destroys jobs has to be abandoned and some other way found to pay off our debt.

15. At 10:39am on 07 Apr 2010, Treading Water

This is survival of the fittest/social evolution, do you think you can offer a better alternative?

Advocating enron then? Capitalism does not select for the fittest. It selects for the most ruthless, the greediest. They are definitely not the fittest. Why, oh why do capitalists just have to grab one-liners and think they understand it!

#15 - what an excellent comment, without doubt the purest straw man argument I've ever seen.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

CopperDolomite 19

Think you should follow your own advice and spend a bit more time in the garden CopperD.

The business leaders are simply expressing their opinion. It's called freedom of speech. Given that they have a good understanding of the damage that the NI tax increase would do to their businesses and the economy as a whole I think most people would like to hear that opinion whether they agree with it or not.

# 24. At 11:18am on 07 Apr 2010, virtualsilverlady wrote:

> I find it rather strange that we can print £200 billion pounds to pump
> into the economy in just twelve months but cannot find only a measly
> six billion pounds to reduce NI contributions.
> Where on earth has all that money gone?

A bunch of "free market" spivs and twisters went out the back
and burned £999,999,999,999.99 of our money on a bonfire.

If they'd only burned £993,999,999,999.99, we wouldn't have to raise NI!!!

Look, that's where free market in business leads, and that's why we
are putting a stop to it. A full stop.

# 25. At 11:19am on 07 Apr 2010, copperDolomite wrote:

>> 15. At 10:39am on 07 Apr 2010, Treading Water
>> This is survival of the fittest...

> Capitalism does not select for the fittest.

If they were "fit", why did they all go broke last year?

> Why do capitalists just have to grab one-liners and think they understand it!

They are dim-wits, that's why.

I rather liked Roberts phrase "wind in the sales of Cameron and Osborne "

What sale is this - buy one get one free? I know Osbourne is into wallpaper (maybe I get an extra roll free) but what is a sale of Cameron?

28. At 11:43am on 07 Apr 2010, jobsagoodin wrote:
CopperDolomite 19

Think you should follow your own advice and spend a bit more time in the garden CopperD.

The business leaders are simply expressing their opinion. It's called freedom of speech. Given that they have a good understanding of the damage that the NI tax increase would do to their businesses and the economy as a whole I think most people would like to hear that opinion whether they agree with it or not.


See it is the credibility spectrum - just why didn't these business leaders bother to warn us all of the trouble ahead? It's been coming for over 20 years and if their opinion was worth more than any other voter then they'd have spotted it. They didn't. Until then, I'll thank the BBC to be more responsible and report the opnions of Mrs McGinty, Newcastle housewife, or Mr Tomlinson, Norwich road sweeper with as much interest and prominence as they do the business leaders, the very business leaders who can't afford to employ staff without governemtn subsidy....

As part of a small business barely surviving on the margins I was very grateful this year for the generosity of the tax regime encouraging investment in much needed technology. The changes enabled me to spend to invest and achieve a tax rebate of thousands in comparison to a miserly 2% tax cut which would only amount to a few hundred pounds in my pocket. This govt has my business vote, and I would guess that the combined votes of real small businesses add up to a heap more than the rants of a handful of possibly tax exiled MDs. Labour is in touch with grass roots entrepreneurship and I for one am grateful.

Robert, it depends which business you mean. Some 'businesses' are leaching the life blood from the economy, and their voice is heard first. Namely big financial institutions.

The rest of us come second, private citizen and businesses alike.

"is that simply because the business leaders were attacking Labour's planned rise in national insurance - and were therefore reminding all of us that the government had announced plans to increase the tax paid by everyone in work, and not just those on highest incomes?"

Strictly speaking it is employers NI which is inceasing it is not paid by the people in work. It is not paid by people on incomes below the threshold, it is also paid as a percentage of income paid over the threshold i.e proprtionately more is paid the higher the salary paid.

The reality is this will not hit small businesses as it is not paid on dividends.

compared to increases in VAT which the tories prefer, this is less damaging to UK business

The business vote is totally irrelevant. It is absolutely true that business will act and respond in its own best interest. The good of society, better conditions for the public are totally irrelevant to business. On rare occasions the best interests of business and the best interests of the general population may be the same so it might seem that they act in what is best for us all but they will always act for themselves.

Look at bankers. If a banking leader turned round and said "xxx is better for the country ..." would we believe them ? 3 years ago the comment any banker might make would be held in just the same regard as any business leader - but then we discovered how capable they really were. Same for all these "leaders". It is always self interest.

Bankers kept saying what was best for the country for years - and then we found out that our government had been listening to them and has continued to listen to them despite what our experience has shown. so why would we now want to listen to business leaders whose bonuses depend on their companies making ever bigger profits for their corporate shareholders. They have no interest in lowering unemployment - though for some this might be a side effect of what might happen as their company grows and makes bigger profits.

CopperD 32

'their opinion was worth more than any other voter then they'd have spotted it.'

You couldn't really expect the boss of Marks and Spencer or Sainsbury to spot the credit crunch. That isn't their field.

Their opinions carry some weight when they relate to areas they know a great deal about, such as the impact of the NI tax on jobs and the recovery.

"Which is another way of saying that improvements in the public services we cherish need to be seen as the fruits of our ability to generate tax revenues from making stuff and selling stuff (although stuff - of course - can be intangible services, including the services provided by banks)".

But us Brits aren't very good at making stuff - our manufacturing industry has been under-invested in for years. Selling stuff - well, perhaps to some degree. The real problem is we don't sell even the intangible stuff properly.

That intangible stuff is, of course, services. But more and more British banks, financial services, and many others seem to want big bucks to deliver nothing very much, in fact, even to deliver dis-services to the customers.

Everyone seems to think they have some 'Divine Right' to get rich quick without actually making or doing anything of value for anyone.

And it's everywhere - as we have very publicly discovered. Even MPs think they should get special allowances and perks for nothing.

So, Robert, I guess we have to think on the notion - usuing your analogy - that if the fruits of our British abilities are rubbish 'rip-off' services and too-expensive-to-produce manufactured products, then we must assume our public services are at grave risk indeed.

So, who's volunteering to drive the dust cart this week, then?

And whose turn is it to be the local Director of Adult Services / Housing / Education?

#7 / #9 writingsonthewall

And the world is flat too eh? You really dont understand how much the City brings into the UK do you? I write research for a bank - that generates income from abroad - that is still an export - but is "invisible" - in effect an export of intellectual capital. Similarly insurance generates income without being a "physcial product". Sorry that doesnt agree with your flat earth/burn-all-bankers/destroy the tax base approach to life. How much do you pay in tax by the way?

6. Jacques Cartier

"There is no such thing as business."

That has to be the crassest comment I've seen here yet - I nominate it for the appropriate award.

9. writingsonthewall

4. At 09:28am on 07 Apr 2010, bill wrote:

""Hopefully, we will learn to cherish and support business - our life blood - before it is too late.""

"How is it our life blood?"

You really don't know? Trading is what we all do from the moment we are born, quid pro quo and all that.

Profiting from exploiting others is what we all do, not to mention profiting by being exploited. Vampires and parasites have their uses as well.

The votes of the leaders of large businesses matter very little, as they are very few in number.

The votes of the leaders of small businesses matter much more, as there are millions of us.

On the other hand, leaders of small businesses don't tend to make multi-million pound donations to their favourite parties, so I'm not expecting any of the main parties to be too bothered about small-business-friendly policies.

15. At 10:39am on 07 Apr 2010, Treading Water wrote:

"WOTW And what exactly do you propose as an alternative? Socialism?? "The trouble with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people to pay for it"."

No the problem is with Capitalism, because eventually you run out of people / businesses / Governments to bail you out!
Is regurgitating Thatcherite nonsense your best form of defence? - oh dear.

"Labour exploitation is a cynical way of looking at it. Nobody forces anyone else to work and nobody owes anyone else a living. If you have skills that are in demand then you should profit from that, if you don't then you should go without."

no they don't in a free market - so why do so many people advocate the BA staff should 'shut up and be happy with the fact they have jobs' and accept the new pay regime?

Why is there so little support for RMT staff who are merely excercising their right to barter their wages (as all free market negotiations are required to be free of duress)?

Seems a little hypocritical don't you think?

"This is survival of the fittest/social evolution, do you think you can offer a better alternative?"

Survival of the fittest? - I'll race you from here to the end of the street to prove I am the fittest - don't try and equate that notion to Capitalism which clearly is 'survival of the greediest and amoral(ist)'

26. At 11:20am on 07 Apr 2010, Tim wrote:

"#15 - what an excellent comment, without doubt the purest straw man argument I've ever seen."

So excellent it now lies in bits and is currently providing bedding for horses.

25. At 11:19am on 07 Apr 2010, copperDolomite wrote:

15. At 10:39am on 07 Apr 2010, Treading Water

This is survival of the fittest/social evolution, do you think you can offer a better alternative?

Advocating enron then? Capitalism does not select for the fittest. It selects for the most ruthless, the greediest. They are definitely not the fittest. Why, oh why do capitalists just have to grab one-liners and think they understand it!

I understand it. I wasn't talking about Capitalism and I wasn't talking about company management, I was talking about people in society.

I have never used the NHS, never been unemployed, learned very little from my school education, learned even less from university but left with £20k of debt, I don't need Iraq or Afghanistan to be stable. Any I resent having to pay over 50% of everything I earn in order to pay for all these things that I don't need.

30. At 11:48am on 07 Apr 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:

"They are dim-wits, that's why."

Empty kettles make the most noise - and Capitalist supporters are no different.

I have been coming here for a couple of years and only a very few exceptional Capitalists put up arguments which hold any water.

Commonly the classics responses are:

"Survival of the fittest"
"The Problem with socialism is you always run out of other peoples money"
"Capitalism isn't perfect - but what alternatives are there?"
"This would never have happened if Government didn't interfere (forgetting why Government had to interfere in the first place)"
"Dropping Capitalism will take us back to the dark ages"
"If you get rid of Capitalism then you will drive millions into poverty"
"Stalin (just mentioning his name in conversation)"
"Gulags"
"Huge queues"
"Without Capitalist incentive (the accumulation of Capital) - there is no motivation to work (from people who are obviously adverse to work to begin with!)"
"Labour are socialist / communist" (always makes me laugh that one)
"Soviet Russia"
"The Stazi"

All of which have no basis for constructive argument - once you hit one of these you can count the argument as 'won'

I guess Capitalism has become like God - worshipped and defended most vigourously by those who least understand it - or more importantly - those who least understand the alternatives.

Why hasn't there been more analysis of who these business leaders are and what is really motivating them? Bob Wigely, for example, is a former investment banker, who earned millions of pounds in bonuses, opposed the government's bonus tax, and is best mates with James Murdoch and Philip Green. Of course he's going to come out in favour of Tory tax cuts. Given the growing resentment among the British public for overpaid fat cats, I'm amazed that so much of the media is portraying this story as a such a coup for the conservatives - when really it just confirms that they are the last people who are going to do anything reforming the city and its morally bankrupt culture of excess.

Any party that openly woos the financial sector is likely to tank faster than a dead fish.
There is much to beat up in the Bob Diamond’s of this world. Since joining Barclays, the American banker has taken control of the bank's wealth management and fund management, which of course creates incestuous banking – regular accounts married to investment and risk-taking.
No party can come forward and support incestuous banking.
Personally, I find the UK Tories a bit frightening.
If elected, they plan to scrap the increase National Insurance contributions, and replace it with what exactly?
Also, there is nothing in the Tory pitch to deal with the NI hole. An individual can avoid being taxed as an employee (and paying NIC) by providing services through an intermediary. The worker can then take the money from the Personal Service Company, say in the form of dividends instead of salar = worker pays less in NICs. The Tories sole reaction to this loop-hole is to criticize Labour for messing with the rules that govern freelancers and the self-employed.
I took great interest in your statement that 48 of 206 new Conservative candidates have worked in financial services.
I’m expecting a very long list of laws and regulations to be lifted under a Tory Government; this would amount to cuts in business taxes (by any other name).
The list will likely include: ending the regulation of mortgage lending. This is beginning to sound very American and very unsafe.
Look for much more deregulation when what is needed to tighter regulation, especially re derivative trading and credit default swaps.
I think there’s some sort of “paper” coming out this Friday, which should throw more light on the Tory venture.
In my opinion, Labour should throw itself on the side of the people, protecting them from deregulation and risk-taking. In my opinion Labour should be pleased to woo the common person and let the greedy, wealthy, self-serving elite go there way, only make all paths lead to tighter regulation. In fact, I might make my Labour slogan “We will regulate financial manipulation.” Labour needs to say: “Buinsess folk, we gave you leaway and you abused it. Now we are going to help you reign yourselves in – for the sake of the entire country.”
For revenue-generating capacity, all Laboir needs is fair taxation, including upping the NI. It also needs Gordon Brown’s tax on all foreign, financial transactions, through which he can expect to raise millions/year (moderate guestimate). This apparently will be rediscussed at the upcoming G-20 in Canada.
Labour has rediscovered its industrial tendencies: creating new state banks to promote investment. These new state banks will not be incestuous (I hope). They will encourage the establishment and growth of smaller companies; production and growth - exactly what the doctor ordered for the UK.
Reduce coporate tax from 28% to 25%. Absolutely not!
Instead, reduce small companies' rate from 22% to 15% - Now there's an idea for growth!
What are coporations doing to create new jobs, train the workforce, hire apprentices? Why give corpiorations any kind of tax break? Are they breaking their backs to help the common person who is out of work?
As for Labour’s fear that business will hoard rather than spend; you won’t change hoarding (as the Tories are suggesting by rewarding coporations with less taxation). You will achieve reduced hoarding by upping liquidity withint the financial institutions so that businesses can get loans.
If UK banks are not Basel compliant, why aren't they? Right now most banks don’t even know their true capital because they have refused to audit, identify and write-off their derivative garbage. Would you lend, if you didn’t know how much money you had in your pocket? So, we have come full circle to my point that says: stop incestuous banking, regulate financial transactions, and make healthy the lending environment.
If I was Labour I wouldn't care about the business vote; I would give my care to the common person.

" to what extent has that tarnished the entire private sector - and does the endorsement of business people for a political party help or hinder that party?"

I'd have thought that was pretty obvious, Robert. We've seen behind the curtain now, and the Great and Powerful Oz has been revealed as a bumbling carnival showman with a smart line in patter. The "businessmen" who pronounce on the state of the economy are simply shysters, hucksters and snake-oil merchants and I would trust them with my son's pocket money. Their opinion is valued simply because they are highly-paid, and they are highly-paid because they are very good shysters hucksters and snake-oil merchants.

Meanwhile, back in the real economy, the OECD reports that the UK is emerging strongly from recession - largely by the Government having ignored all the advice of the aforesaid business people and their political claque, the Conservative Party. Let's face it, the economic "great and the good" have called it wrong again and again during this crisis and "the voice of business" is a busted flush.

43. At 1:52pm on 07 Apr 2010, writingsonthewall

WOTW- You argue with a lot of passion and knowledge and I agree with 80% of things you say but on this occasion I'm not convinces. You are quick to slate the system but you offer no alternative hear (other than bankers and politicians to the firing squad).

Take the focus off capitalism and socialism, the extremes of both of them are equally as damaging to the masses. Somewhere in the middle is where I think we should be. And I am definately NOT talking about NuLabours centre policies which took the worst elements from the right and combined them with the worst from the left. I mean a balanced and measured economy, with the best policy decision taken for the long term good of our country.

15. At 10:39am on 07 Apr 2010, Treading Water wrote:
..... Labour exploitation is a cynical way of looking at it. Nobody forces anyone else to work and nobody owes anyone else a living. If you have skills that are in demand then you should profit from that, if you don't then you should go without.

Seconded. I don't know what part of this the likes of WOTW do not understand. I am led to believe he does 'work' for a living and is therefor part of this capitalist society he apears to despise so much. The trouble is that his writtings and those similar ones provide no answers other than sending this country back to the middle ages.

On a personal level I couldn't care less but rather like the person who posted here he has profited from the government grant he obtained I presume he realises that this government is borrowing more than 3 billion a week in order to buy his vote. But if he feels personally better off then good luck to him.

On the other hand I have lived through two bouts of Labour governments. On both occasions the labour government have come in on a healthy economy and on both occasions they have left the country broke. This time I think they may have left it irrecoverable for whatever party takes over.

WOTW. Socialism. Name me a few advances in science, medicine, pharmaceuticals, technology, you know, things that help and advance society, sponsored by socialism. Oh, apart from the AK47.
And before you bang on about exploitation, Wilberforce, a Tory, got rid of Slavery. Poverty, due to capitalist growth, is down, and not just in monetary measure - calorific intake, infant mortality etc. Another inconvenient truth.
The wealth 'gap' may be wider, so what? They are an insignificant minority. The 'poor' are still better off than they used to be, and getting better off all the time, especially in this country!
On the estate I grew up on, the majority smoke and have sky and choose not to work.
Get back to Albania, or North Korea, or shouldn't you be at School? Oh. Easter holidays.

The view and opinions of big and small business do matter.
Gordon Brown and his Chancellor continue to focus on Growth to pull us out of recession and where does the Growth come from.
It's the private sector who manufacture products and private service companies to sell either in the UK or abroad.This is the only way the UK will stimulate growth.
Just remember even a super efficient public sector does not produce growth-so the Government should focus on reducing their cost while making them more efficient-It will be painful and lots of jobs in the public sector,management consultants and the myriad of quangos will have to go.
If only the private sector is going to have to deliver Growth then they should take the lion's share of the growth focussed money which will need to be found by reducing the pulic sector costs and improving efficiency.

Having a small family business it is important to say that no tax rise is welcome for us but tough times require tough solutions. It is no good for big Business leaders to simply back the Tory party from the point of view it saves their businesses money and makes their profit margins look even rosier to their Shareholders. This economic situation requires more than self interest. The Country itself requires more than self interest. The Government implementation of the NI rise is, to our view, a better and fairer option than a possible vat increase which will effect all our customers down the line and consequently our business. Also we fear the severe Tory proposed cutbacks to the Public Sector as many of our customers inevitably work within these essential services. Our experience is telling us if they do not have a job then we do not have a job.

46. At 2:09pm on 07 Apr 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:

....Lots...

WOTW, what's happened to you? Even if I didn't agree with your view point as least you used to post thought provoking posts. Now you fall back on the argument is won without even providing any argument, a bit like the folk who like to end their post 'fact', as if that makes it so.

One more argument for you, if communism is so good how come you can count the states that operate it on less than one hand? and this after almost two hundred years.

# 40. At 1:33pm on 07 Apr 2010, bill wrote:

>> 6. Jacques Cartier "There is no such thing as business."

> I nominate [that] for the appropriate award.

Cheers, but thanks are also due to Mrs Thatcher - 'And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families' ...

37. At 1:22pm on 07 Apr 2010, jobsagoodin wrote:

"You couldn't really expect the boss of Marks and Spencer or Sainsbury to spot the credit crunch. That isn't their field. "

ALIENATION - The Marxist version - "Not my problem Guv"

How can you be in business and the liquidity of credit not be in your scope??

I am no King, Green or other - but it's still my business to make sure I understand the contradictions of Capitalism.

Maybe burying your head in the sand provides the appearance of 'shelter' - but as you can see - this is only a temporary situation - eventually reality comes crashing down.

I also object to people still referring to the problem as a 'credit crunch' - which implies this was a liquidity crisis.

Alas, just as things never change, nor do the fundamentals of Capitalism. This is a 'very normal' destruction of Capital caused by overproduction - caused by surplus value extracted conflicting with the basic needs of a worker.

How do I know this? - well if this was a liquidity crisis then the additional liquidity pumped into the system would have resolved it by now - so why the continuing defaults and writedowns?

Capitalists - one born every minute.

Writingsonthewall:
I’ve been coming here for a while as well, and I find your comments a breath of fresh air. I have yet to see anyone come up with an effective defence to your arguments, and you have helped me to have a better understanding of how rotten the capitalist system is and all its flaws. It’s most amusing to watch ill informed people try to counter your arguments only to be trounced again and again. If you were putting yourself up for election you would get my vote. Let the capitalist bashing continue.

46. At 2:09pm on 07 Apr 2010, writingsonthewall

WOTW and others, this is not a good vs bad topic. By supporting aspects of the free market I am not supporting the bad aspects by default. It is easy to polarise the issues and argue from one side but it doesn't make sense.

I get it- 'capitalism' (if that's what you can call what we've had/got for the last 20 years) has failed in a serious way. But we didn't have to nationalise the banks and that's not capitalism at work. A free market would have let the banks fail and locked up those responsible.

Take your pick from below:
The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm, capitalism is that kind of a system.
Milton Friedman

A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
Milton Friedman

Governments never learn. Only people learn.
Milton Friedman

The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.
Milton Friedman

39. At 1:26pm on 07 Apr 2010, nilihist wrote:

#7 / #9 writingsonthewall

"And the world is flat too eh? You really dont understand how much the City brings into the UK do you?"

- Well I do work here - so maybe you're right - I don't have a clue!

"I write research for a bank"

- Is that a real job? - researching what for a bank? - places to exploit labour perhaps? (you will call them 'opportunities') - I mean what else does a bank do with all the Capital it accumulates, except accumulate more..

" that generates income from abroad - that is still an export - but is "invisible" - in effect an export of intellectual capital. "

- Well this is an interesting area, intellectual capital - so you are certain nobody else knew this research you 'found'? - or maybe someone local already 'knew' but did not have the capital to 'make it happen' - you see that's because the banks have accumulated it all.

"Similarly insurance generates income without being a "physcial product"."

- Insurance generates income? - spoken like a true banker. Do you realise that "income generated" from insurance is merely speculation on events happening - or not? Don't you look at the CDS market and wonder what will happen if the sovereigns go? - is there anyone who has really insured the debts of these nations? - or are they simply betting slips which may prove to be worthless if all the horses collapse before the end of the race.

"Sorry that doesnt agree with your flat earth/burn-all-bankers/destroy the tax base approach to life. How much do you pay in tax by the way?"

Tax? - I don't bother with tax - I work in the city!!!

Taxation is fine if it's applied to real production and is used to redistribute wealth to those who are unfortunately unable to earn themselves.
Not a system which 'taxes fictional profits' which when they don't come to fruition (i.e. the crash) the Government steps in to re-use that collected taxation to support the very institutions that paid it in the first place! - meanwhile the real productive element of the economy is asked to pay even more to support these failed banks - oh and did I forget to mention the distribution of wealth actually gets worse not better?

This system isn't a tax system, it's a money moving system based on a paper currency that will eventually collapse

World is flat? - I don't think so - FIAT currencies always fail? - I think you had better start reading up on that...

41. At 1:38pm on 07 Apr 2010, bill wrote:

"You really don't know? Trading is what we all do from the moment we are born, quid pro quo and all that."

I didn't 'trade from the moment I was born' - I had lego, Sticklebricks and playdo - I Produced only those with no productive skills were forced to 'trade'.

"Profiting from exploiting others is what we all do, not to mention profiting by being exploited. Vampires and parasites have their uses as well."

Profitting and exploiting others is what you do - don't count me and the rest of the world in this fantasy of yours simply to alleviate your conscience. Not everyone is like you - in fact you are in the minority!

Parasites have no use - unless you are diseased!

Does the bussiness vote matter?

Yes of course it does but, not necessarily the comments of self-opinonated and over-paid businessmen whose only expertise appears to be an ability to financially restructure a business to guarentee their bonus payments and often at the expense of unfortunate employees much lower down the organisations.

One strongly suspects that those bussinessmen who decided to put pen to paper in order to attack Labour's plans to increase NI are all in charge of very large organisations. Most of them are only concerned about achieving their declared profit figures (to ensure they recieve their bonuses payouts) and are not too bothered about getting rid of countless numbers of poorly paid employees to achieve those objectives.

The people who head up our large businesses also have a "bankers mentality" and they know only too well that any increase in NI will have a direct [adverse] affect on profits and that is why they are up in arms about it.

In other words profits and bonuses come first!

45. At 2:06pm on 07 Apr 2010, Treading Water wrote:

"I have never used the NHS, never been unemployed, learned very little from my school education, learned even less from university but left with £20k of debt"

Spoken like a true Capitalist - so are we to presume that nobody in your family has benefitted from the NHS - and that you will never require it?

I too fall into the same categories as you, but I am a little more concious that one day I might need these things. I didn't even go to university but everyone in my family did - therefore I respect that I have to contribute in order for people to go. It's called realising there is a world outside of your own personal space.

49. At 2:37pm on 07 Apr 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:

"Their opinion is valued simply because they are highly-paid, and they are highly-paid because they are very good shysters hucksters and snake-oil merchants."

This is the most accurate reflection of the City of London as I have ever read.

54. At 3:21pm on 07 Apr 2010, GoBetween wrote:

This economic situation requires more than self interest.

Our experience is telling us if they do not have a job then we do not have a job.

I'm sorry, did I just read these two lines in the same post?

It's simple really, Labour believe that if they tax a little more they can continue to borrow and spend, currently 3 billion a week and rising.

Tory's believe that if they cut the waste (whatever that may mean) and tax less, employment will be stimulated and they will increase their tax take this way.

Personally I think either course is set for disaster.

56. At 3:41pm on 07 Apr 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:

Cheers, but thanks are also due to Mrs Thatcher - 'And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families' ...

Jacques, thanks for that, I had forgotten it. Absolutely perfect and completely true.

50. At 2:55pm on 07 Apr 2010, Treading Water wrote:

"WOTW- You argue with a lot of passion and knowledge and I agree with 80% of things you say but on this occasion I'm not convinces. You are quick to slate the system but you offer no alternative hear (other than bankers and politicians to the firing squad). "

Well instead of expecting writingsonthewall to 'come up with alternatives' - why don't you start at the beginning.

Q - are there alternatives to Capitalism (which are not dictatorial)
A - Yes, the infinite size of our world means we can organise the allocation of resources in any manner we choose.

Q - What are the steps to a solution
A - well first you need leaders who believe Capitalism isn't "the only way" - then you need to educate your populous to a level where they are so enlightened they 'come up with the answers themselves' and 'participate in a logical and long term goal seeking manner'.

Q -Now is this Government, the last one or the next one investing heavily in education?
A - No

Therefore the solution you seek must start with the removal of the old system and a complete change in direction from Government policy.

Want to know how Stalin turned an attempt at Communism into a Dictatorship? - it's down to the inability of the populous to recognise a change which is bad in the long term - a bit like the situation we face in May.

Educated and enlightened citizens do not need to be bound by laws and controlled with fear.

Now get back in your hutch - there might be a terrorist attack any minute now.

P.s. 'Balanced' means 'worst of both worlds' to me - not an improvement and as we have here - a system which is possibly more unfair than fascism (because at least with Fascism you know who your enemy is)

51. At 3:06pm on 07 Apr 2010, Uphios wrote:

"The trouble is that his writtings and those similar ones provide no answers other than sending this country back to the middle ages."

Congratulations - you managed to pull off 2 pieces of 'unfounded Capitalist defence' in 1 sentence!

"On the other hand I have lived through two bouts of Labour governments. On both occasions the labour government have come in on a healthy economy and on both occasions they have left the country broke. This time I think they may have left it irrecoverable for whatever party takes over."

...and you missed the Major years - never mind, selective memories are the best for your sanity.

I'll put it this way. The fact that business leaders have backed the Conservative plans on NI reduces the chances of me voting Conservative.

Business leaders should stick to running their businesses. From BMC to RBS the one ability that business leaders seem to share is the ability to get it badly wrong.

# 55. At 3:28pm on 07 Apr 2010, Uphios wrote:

> if communism is so good how come you can count the states that operate
> it on less than one hand?

The reason is fear and greed. Or perhaps greed and fear for you, given your professed priorities. But Malthus doesn't stop just because _you_ stamp your foot.

52. At 3:07pm on 07 Apr 2010, hootsmon wrote:

"WOTW. Socialism. Name me a few advances in science, medicine, pharmaceuticals, technology, you know, things that help and advance society, sponsored by socialism. "

Were the Russians not the first in space? - first man, first satellite, first monkey?

I suppose you forgot all that when the Americans faked the moon landing.

Don't you know why the USSR scared the US so much? - it had nothing to do with Stalin being a Dictator (I mean they've cosied up with many dictators before) - their fear was a complete technological and social advancement in a generation - and at the time this was labelled Communism.

Wake up and smell the roses - the US feared their Capitalist ways would be thrown away in favour of a free working class society - and consequently they did everything they could to stop it.

"And before you bang on about exploitation, Wilberforce, a Tory, got rid of Slavery. Poverty, due to capitalist growth, is down, and not just in monetary measure - calorific intake, infant mortality etc. Another inconvenient truth."

Where did you get that nonsense? Another stream of Capitalist guff - well if there was an uptick in people leaving poverty - that's just reversing right now. Check out the homeless on the streets of the US and tell me about poverty.

Put down your Capitalist manifesto and look at the REAL world.

"The wealth 'gap' may be wider, so what? They are an insignificant minority. The 'poor' are still better off than they used to be, and getting better off all the time, especially in this country!"

My god - what are you a Feudal Lord? I bet you're less than 4 ft tall with an attitude like that.

"On the estate I grew up on, the majority smoke and have sky and choose not to work"

Oh so your one of these self righteous "dragged myself up by my bootlaces" folks who "forgets where they came from" as soon as they leave the 'estate'. I'd like to know how you can afford Sky on £90 a fortnight - must be a really good deal on your old estate.

Of course everyone else is lazy - it's just you that's working hard - but why pick on the lazy who earn very little - what about some of the CEO's who work 2 hour days and get paid thousands a year - are you afraid to tackle them? - too difficult a target for you?

55. At 3:28pm on 07 Apr 2010, Uphios wrote:


"One more argument for you, if communism is so good how come you can count the states that operate it on less than one hand? and this after almost two hundred years."

Can you name one single communist state in history?

Before you try - no you cannot - because if you read carefully a communist state must be preceeded by a dictatorship of the proletariat - now can you name a country where this has happened? - a country where the labour forced ownned it's own means of production?

...and the Paris Commune is not counted as a country.

The reason I have become less argumentative and more absolute is because every day that passes the contradictions I have sighted are coming to bear - everyone else may think this problem has blown away in the wind - but it hasn't.
The arguments from the Capitalists are becoming weaker and weaker - even the good old 'snipers' have left the blog because they have nothing to say which doesn't sound like sour grapes.

I have my gold, I have my motorbike and I have my food and water supply - all I need is energy and an escape route and I won't give a monkeys what any of you believe anymore, I no longer feel the need to warn you as I have done my best.

However it's always fun to see the Capitalist try to justify their pitiful existences - somehow claiming that the money they make is a reflection of their ability - HA HA HA HA HA HA HA - they can't even explain clearly where profit comes from.

59. At 4:16pm on 07 Apr 2010, Treading Water

...but Friedman always wrote from his own position (a selfish one) - which promotes the idea that 'freedom' is 'my freedom' and not necessarily 'your freedom'.

The idea that I don't know what it means to be free - and that Capitalism can deliver this freedom - is a complete joke. I mean are all the homeowners lumbered with tonnes of debt because they couldn't 'keep up with the jones's' free?

Are the people who are turfed out onto the street by the reposessions free?

Capitalism does promote freedom - freedom for the rich to exploit the poor until breaking point (recession).

How can you (or rather Friedman) suggest that a system which promotes the accumulation of capital (above all else) be a system which 'controls greed best'?

"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."

...and as for this - well what about striking workers? - the Capitalist expects the worker to accept the pay offered but when the worker refuses (strikes) the owner uses any manner of tactic to force the workers to accept (Look at BA for a prime example)

Selling your labour is an exchange - so why does the rule of free markets not apply here? mmmmmmmmm

'65. At 4:37pm on 07 Apr 2010, Uphios wrote:
54. At 3:21pm on 07 Apr 2010, GoBetween wrote:

This economic situation requires more than self interest.

Our experience is telling us if they do not have a job then we do not have a job.

I'm sorry, did I just read these two lines in the same post?

It's simple really, Labour believe that if they tax a little more they can continue to borrow and spend, currently 3 billion a week and rising.

Tory's believe that if they cut the waste (whatever that may mean) and tax less, employment will be stimulated and they will increase their tax take this way.

Personally I think either course is set for disaster.'

Yes, you did. I am stating that the NI rise is a better option for us rather than massive cuts in Public service jobs or a rise in VAT which will effect our customers and their families. These Business leaders are putting their companies in front of the Country and that, to my view, is not right. We are a small company and are prepared to make sacrifices and commitments, now what can these prominent Business leaders offer?

#56 JC

Yes, I recognised the parallel. Margaret Thatcher was wrong too, but that doesn't diminish my admiration of her. Not sure about you though.

#52. hootsmon wrote:
WOTW. Socialism. Name me a few advances in science, medicine, pharmaceuticals, technology, you know, things that help and advance society, sponsored by socialism. Oh, apart from the AK47.
-How about Bacteriophage technology which would have prevented all the uneccessary deaths from MRSA and C.Difficile? Unfortunately there's nothing to patent so we in the west can't buy it. How about using a pencil rather than a $5,000,000 biro. Biro "escaped" from a socialist country with his invention because he thought (stupidly) he would be rich in the west rather than comfortable behind the Iron Curtain. How about the huge numbers of Cuban doctors working in Africa & crisis areas? Communist China building more infrastructure in Africa than the rest combined (& not just a road from the oil wells/mines or logging areas to the port)?
And before you bang on about exploitation, Wilberforce, a Tory, got rid of Slavery.
- Socialism wasn't even a concept when Wilberforce lived.
Poverty, due to capitalist growth, is down, and not just in monetary measure - calorific intake, infant mortality etc. Another inconvenient truth.
- You're right, poverty is due to capitalist growth, as is deforestation & desertification, loss of environment causing extinctions etc.
The wealth 'gap' may be wider, so what? They are an insignificant minority.
a fraction of a percent of the worlds population controlling 98% of the worlds resources is hardly insignificant. You wouldn't describe Rupert Murdoch as insignificant would you?
WW1 (which slaughtered millions) came to a sudden abrupt halt shortly after October 1917 and enemies found themselves on the same blockade lines preventing "the spread of communism", so why did we go to war in the first place?
As for socialism/communism taking us "back to the Middle Ages" Capitalism is an adaptation of Feudalism to socialist ideas of an educated workforce expecting payment for their labour (as well as lunch breaks, pensions, sick pay and all the other things that Capitalists give us "out of the goodness of their hearts")

52. At 3:07pm on 07 Apr 2010, hootsmon wrote:

The wealth 'gap' may be wider, so what? They are an insignificant minority. The 'poor' are still better off than they used to be, and getting better off all the time, especially in this country!

So what?

People living in economies with a more equal wealth distribution are far happier (especially children), feel safer, healthier, have less social problems, fewer murders etc...and EVERYONE benefits not just the elite few.

Over the last 10 years in the UK the poor have got poorer and 20% of the poulation now have 80% of the wealth and it's increasing.

Try reading The Spirit Level, you might learn something.

68. At 4:44pm on 07 Apr 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:

...and you missed the Major years - never mind, selective memories are the best for your sanity.

........................................

Oh no, I was very much there for the Major years, I think history will record his period of tenure as one in which Soros made an aweful lot of money. Apparently the cost of that mistake was just a little less than government borrows each and every week.

By the way I see now where your thinking is going wrong, your reply at 67, the world is not really infinite. Now back to the drawing board, a bit like Marx.

My suspicion is that Bosses are more concerned about the increase in employer's NI and than the increase in employee's NI. The latter is a tax paid by people in work, but it is not a tax on jobs.

It is a marginal increase in business costs, but any business where that small increase affects whether they take on more people or keep on all they have does not sound like the most secure employment. The signing Bosses have cost far more jobs to the British economy by outsourcing to Third World economies than the NI costs will jeopardise. The workers sacked when M&S moved its clothing sources to developing economies would happily pay an extra 1% to still have their UK jobs.

Profits (or a reduction in them) excite Bosses, not the chances to create or sustain UK jobs. Curious how they did not write in to praise the changes in Entrepreneurs Relief and Capital allowances that the Govt also announced and which favour them. Pocket what favours them and moan about what does not. They are no better than any other sectional interest group.

Big Bosses support Tories - move along please, no news here.

70. At 4:53pm on 07 Apr 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:

The reason is fear and greed. Or perhaps greed and fear for you, given your professed priorities. But Malthus doesn't stop just because _you_ stamp your foot.

Or perhaps the simpler answer, people have looked at Cuba and Vietnam and said 'Not for me, thanks very much'.

70. At 4:53pm on 07 Apr 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:

But Malthus doesn't stop just because _you_ stamp your foot.

.......

Malthus, an interesting name for you to quote, I believe he stopped as you put it in 1834. Now your mate Marx had a bit to say about him "Marx called him "superficial", "a professional plagiarist", "the agent of the landed aristocracy", "a paid advocate" and "the principal enemy of the people."

The electorate are known to be fickle. To vote as they fancy.
Why else are the parties trying to secure their vote?

The electorate are a mixed bunch of course. Some think that the businessmen must know best. After all the businessmen are rolling in it.
Others can see through this and perceive the businessmen self interest.

What is clearly self evident however is that the government has money to burn. Huge amounts of tax payers money spent on dodgy bank bailouts. Then sweeteners handed out. All in the interest of growth. Without growth the country and the system is doomed. Somehow the government of the day has to pick its way through this quagmire and try to keep the electorate on its side.

There is a paradox however. The system only works by keeping people uninformed. If they were told the truth then they would not believe it anyway!
The businessmen know all this of course and use events to their own advantage. So does the government of the day.

They try to keep the businessmen and the electorate both on their side.
Sometimes the only winners are the media.

...only if they are buying and selling votes.

72. At 5:01pm on 07 Apr 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:


Can you name one single communist state in history?

Before you try - no you cannot - because if you read carefully a communist state must be preceeded by a dictatorship of the proletariat - now can you name a country where this has happened? - a country where the labour forced ownned it's own means of production?

........

Ah, now this is another of your problems. You see you hang onto the Marxist word like it is gospel. It has been disproved so many times and even Marx wanted to rewrite much of his work to correct the errors.

So if I accept your (wrong) argument for a moment their has never been a communist state, in which case you advocate the world branch of into something completely untried, a theory. Now I can see much wrong with the capitalist model but I don't think I am ready to throw the baby out with the bath water just yet. Maybe come back in a few thousand years and try again.

WOTW said: "The reason I have become less argumentative and more absolute is because every day that passes the contradictions I have sighted are coming to bear - everyone else may think this problem has blown away in the wind - but it hasn't.
The arguments from the Capitalists are becoming weaker and weaker - even the good old 'snipers' have left the blog because they have nothing to say which doesn't sound like sour grapes."

Well I'm still waiting for the revolution but it turns out that is far too unbritish. Oh well at least we've got too great leaders to choose from at this election with inspirational ideas for an new utopian society. Its definately not just a case of picking the lesser of two evils like it is every 5 years.

Writingsonthewall...

Have you got a day off today by any chance?

You seem to have a LOT of time to blog, or are you sitting pretty on your welfare payments?

About time we put you on food stamps instead of cash payments.,....

73. At 5:09pm on 07 Apr 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:


...and as for this - well what about striking workers? - the Capitalist expects the worker to accept the pay offered but when the worker refuses (strikes) the owner uses any manner of tactic to force the workers to accept (Look at BA for a prime example)

Selling your labour is an exchange - so why does the rule of free markets not apply here? mmmmmmmmm

..................................

Again wrong. The worker has the absolute right to withdraw their labour, but this is not what a strike (or at least BA's strike) is. They want to keep their jobs on their terms and in the meantime disrupt the very business that has offered to employ them. Frankly if they do not like the terms offered and the company will not improve them, then leave. If they are right the company will not be able to fill those jobs and get it's just deserts. Striking is not a withdrawel of labour it is an act of blackmail.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#72. writingsonthewall wrote:

"I have my gold, I have my motorbike and I have my food and water supply - all I need is energy and an escape route and I won't give a monkeys what any of you believe anymore, I no longer feel the need to warn you as I have done my best."

So you still believe the world is about to end, despite all the evidence to the contrary? This time last year you were predicting a summer of civil unrest; later, you predicted that the FTSE would be at 3500 by Christmas and that the banking system would collapse by year end.

Like it or not - and I'm sure it sticks in your throat - the world is slowly pulling itself out of the economic mire, brushing itself off and looking to the future again. And nothing has really changed; your dream of a Marxist revolution is dead.

37. At 1:22pm on 07 Apr 2010, jobsagoodin wrote:
CopperD 32

'their opinion was worth more than any other voter then they'd have spotted it.'

You couldn't really expect the boss of Marks and Spencer or Sainsbury to spot the credit crunch. That isn't their field.

Their opinions carry some weight when they relate to areas they know a great deal about, such as the impact of the NI tax on jobs and the recovery.


Brilliant borrowers/business people should have seen it coming.
I really do wish the bosses of M&S would stick to what they are good at too...selling knickers and bras. How we run a country is a bit different from their area of expertise; stick to the tape measure!

52. At 3:07pm on 07 Apr 2010, hootsmon

NASA is a private research industry then?

"If ????? greed-fuelled, unsustainable lending by the banks was largely to blame for the financial and economic mess from which we appear (at last) to be emerging"
Who elses fault was it?
Not Mr Brown/Darling unless they have been running the economies of most of the rest of the world as well. Hasn't anybody spotted that other countries have had problems equal to the UK's

45. At 2:06pm on 07 Apr 2010, Treading Water

Never used the NHS - weren't you born here or were you born at home with the helpful attendance of a relative? Perhaps you haven't had your vaccinations yet? You really should ensure you are protected from diseases such as polio, TB and diptheria; really nasty they are but don't worry, it is never too late. The NHS will vaccinate you free of charge at the point of delivery.
As for your university education, didn't it occur to you that if you were so unhappy that perhaps you could change degree course or even University?

@92

yes they have had problems, but we were told we were best placed to weather that storm, we werent we were lied to their was virtually no oversight (and still isnt) of the banking industry and for those that think its over think again....all that is happening is we are printing money at a phenomenal rate which makes the paper figures look good but they just add to the trillion pound debt run up by (yes you guessed it) darling/brown.....

So who should we blame ??? Brown has blamed everyone other than himself, he had access to the figures, he was the one proclaiming no more boom and bust, he still lives in cloud cuckoo land blaming thatcher when at no point in the last 13 years has he reversed the policies, in fact he has destroyed peoples pensions and actively encouraged the gambling of the banks....now if you want to vote back in the overseers of this mess then fine, but dont spout it wasnt our fault we were complicit in the whole ponzi scheme in fact we were right up there at the front of it......its us that have dragged other countries down not the other way about......

Another slant on this NI increase is that business hates the proposed NI increase as an additional kind of tax as it is really just an overhead cost that is an extra tax on simply having employees

whereas

a normal tax is a tax on profit after deduction of 'overheads' but NI increase does not reduce the tax on gross profits after deduction of overheads

To anyone owning or running a business any increase in employers NI is ... hideous.

To an employee, a NI incerase is simply less money in our own pockets.

Dodo Brown and his party are saying - 'we are big government and we can take more money off you and spend it for you and do this more efficiently than you can spend this money'.

There is not a shred of evidence anywhere to support this nanny state spending statement (another Dodo Brown Lie - this is also a lie that has been left unchallenged by opposition parties and virtually all of the media, it seems.

I know that when I spend my money instead of the government spending it for me that the local economy is better off for me spending it and not big government. In some areas/regions e.g. NE region/ Tyneside - the government has ransacked the local economy with taxes being far too high as the business revenues are not there.

Voters need to think hard assuming that supporting a NI increase is going to save frontline services - not necessarily - there is far too much waste in government and a NI increase is just as likely to maintain the perennial, wasteful government spending.

Think about it - an NI increase is not the answer to the government deficit - spending restraint and responsibility is what is really needed.

Thanks a bunch Gordo Dodo Brown!

Businessmen always lobby or pressurize politicians for the following reasons;
1) Water down legislation which adds costs or restricts there activities. The classic example is the social chapter.The net effect of not signing up is we are the cheapest member state in Europe when it comes to closing a plant hence Bosch, Peugeot , Rover closures.
2) Demanding financial aid eg grants,rent & rate free periods etc to reduce costs and improve profitability. Thats fine to some degree but businesses have a knack of milking one geographic location and then moving to another location.
3)The shady bit is when contracts are awarded and its local MPs or councilors that decide who is awarded the contract. Then they end up working as a director for the same business when the political career ends! So much for representing the electorate that voted them in!
All of the above factors make democracy a bit of a joke because they fail to live up to there promises made at election time.
4) Government depts/budgets need pruning big time, the number of jobs created in the public sector has added tons of cost to every bodies local council tax and income tax. Privatizing some public sector services has pushed costs up not down, the classic one is care for the elderly. All these private nursing homes cost a fortune compared to the council run homes.
5) The Private Finance Initiative is a real can of worms, the logic is simple enough but the long term debt carried forward for years to come is horrendous.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT HOW CAN WE GET GROWTH WHEN EVERYBODY IS MAXED OUT ON THE LINE OF CREDIT? BUSINESSES WANT PEOPLE SPENDING AGAIN BUT HOW ARE THEY GOING TO START CONSUMING?

Although perhaps the Tories don't need to do explicit City lobbying, in that - according to an analysis by the Financial Times - 48 of 206 new Conservative candidates in winnable seats have worked in the Square Mile or financial services.

These are the self righteous clots who are deriding inefficiency in the Public sector?
These are the representatives who are going to reform our decrepit and corruption riddled Financial Services sector?

How the hell can anyone put faith in people like this?

Socialism? Nope. No substance to challenge post 52.
It's a bit like that 'what have the Romans ever done for us? Russians in Space? They ran their systems programs on punchcards! They invented nothing. Oh a drug and a pen. Nice work.
The poor in this country are better off than they were on any measurable determinant.
'I suppose you forgot all that when the Americans faked the moon landing.' You've lost it now!
Capitalism wins.
QED.

Since the manufacturing Base of this country has has been eroded away for what ever reasons. i don't think the business vote matters anymore,
unless it is a condition of employment which way a worker votes.(now there's a good idea)

What the parties need to get their minds round is simple, if a man or woman is out of work they don't contribute, the more who contribute the less we all pay increase in National insurance won't help more people contribute

only solution is VAT on newspapers

# 81. At 5:50pm on 07 Apr 2010, Uphios wrote:

>> 70. At 4:53pm on 07 Apr 2010, Jacques Cartier wrote:

>> But Malthus doesn't stop just because _you_ stamp your foot.

> Now your mate Marx had a bit to say about him

I'm too busy stock-picking today to give you my full attention!