gordondaviesmoustache said:
Halfpenny said:
Let's be fair though, there's not much debate to be had when the only post in reply to his offers unsubstantiated criticism of his viewpoint.
I fully back the strikes. Why? Because public sector workers are an easy target in order to let those who actually created the mess we're in (ie. the bankers sitting at their desks in the city) get off scot-free*, while the people who have suffered most during this period take another hit . It's hardly a fair situation. It's also an opportunity to vent anger at the implementation of policies nobody actually voted for (Cameron campaigned on a 'no top-down reorganisation of the NHS' pledge, and look what he did?)
On the pensions situation, Danny Alexander has pretty much dictated what the result of the 'negotiations' will be, rather than actually discussing it with those concerned. Which is a major part of why there is so much uproar within the public sector. It's certainly not fair that people should work longer and pay more in in order to get less back when people like Sir Fred Goodwin get an utterly colossal pension for effectively running the country into the ground?
*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/22/worlds-wealthiest-people-now-richer- <- How is that in any way, shape or form fair? Tax cuts, no closing of tax loopholes and letting those on lower incomes take the hit for them.
For a self-proclaimed social democrat your language is straying dangerously into the territory of the unelectable Labour party of the early 1980's which spawned the.......SDP.
Your simplistic and, frankly, somewhat populist post fails to acknowledge the fact that the public sector that you champion is having to reduce expenditure from unsustainable levels of public spending which were funded by the tax revenues from the banking sector and public borrowing that we could not afford.
Can you please explain to me, as no-one else has mangaged yet, how after 18 years of uninterrupted growth in the economy we had a deficit to the extent we did?
To use Fred Goodwin as a reason for not reforming public sector pensions is like using the holocaust to justify Israeli oppression of Palestinians. Yes it was wrong - but are you going to use that reason every time someone wants to question something. That is lazy.
As for not voting for our current government? Did I vote for that **** Gordon Brown as Prime Minister when I voted Labour in 2005?
Welcome to Parliamentary Democracy.
Ain't it grand?
Social Democracy is still an inherently socialist strand of thought. It doesn't mean submission to all conservative viewpoints, only some on the basis that they're pretty much irreversible, and using them to advance socialist causes. Perhaps you're thinking more of modern liberalism rather than social democracy?
Take it from me, I don't support such a degree of redistribution of wealth. However, I find it extremely unfair that the people who have undoubtedly come out of the last few years the worst must face another onslaught. It's been done to death, but the people who caused the financial crisis (the bankers, as I have said) have got off lightly. That much is obvious. You still have companies like Vodafone exploiting tax loopholes in order to avoid huge sums of corporation tax, and can I see this government doing anything about it? Absolutely not. Surely it's a lot fairer to claim taxes that companies should be paying?
The deficit was unavoidable, in that we had to accept it as the lesser of evils in order to prevent a much greater banking collapse. What if we had let Northern Rock go to the wall? I'm not a great fan of some of the economic policies Labour implemented whilst in Government, let that be known. The deregulation of the banks contributed a significant amount to the ability of the bankers to cause the financial crisis (and let us not forget, the free market economics of Thatcher didn't do much to help either). I'm not saying a bit more pragmatism during the good times wouldn't have been a bad idea either; with the benefit of hindsight that would be a stupid thing to say.
As for the parliamentary democracy point, surely the point is that the government campaigned on specific issues then went and did the exact opposite when in government? I'm not talking about the Lib Dems on this one. They're the worst offenders but since they're not the majority party it's a given they won't always get their own way. As I've said, Cameron campaigned on a pledge not to order a top-down reorganisation of the NHS. And what does he do? He orders a top-down reorganisation of the NHS.
