Completely agree Nick. I am also not a right wing idealist who believes that everything has to be about profit, and I also believe thar certain seervices should remain in public ownership.
Banjax - The emotive job titles - nurses, firmen etc. doeasnt win the argument Im afraid. We all know full well that Labour created many hundreds of thousands of non jobs, and I have no doubt it was done for idealogical reasons - hence the PC elf& sayftee mentality which has spread like poison throughout this country in recent times.
Those jobs - often carried out by, on message chums of the party are the jobs which should now be abolished. The people who do them would Im sure benifit greatly from working in the private sector, something Im sure many of them have never done since gaining their degrees in social studies etc.
But I fear that Holy Count may well be right. The powers that be in the council offices etc, will probably make sure that the axe falls where it will do the most damage to the most vulnerable, so they can sit in their ivory towers saying "I told you so", and accusing anyone who wants to sort the mess out of being a heartless Thatcherite Tory blah blah.
These kind of people dont care about the underprivileged - their policies over the last decade or so have demonstrated that they want to keep the underpriviliged exactly where they are, and have them rely on the machinery of the bloated state to do everything for them.
There is an argument that it will cost more than it saves in the short term to reduce the bloated public sector, but there is no argument or historical evidence that I know of which says that the situation is sustainable in the long term.
Everyone knows that some of the banks played their part in creating this mess, but I think any intelligent person knows that it is nowhere near as simple as that.
Even the sub prime problem in the U.S. - which started the whole thing- can be traced back to political interference and pressure. And in this country I dont see how, with even a cursory glimpse at the evidence, any objective person could argue against the fact that a hell of a lot of the blame lies at the feet of Gordon Brown. 
You might have to explain that a bit more.
On Albs' behalf, if I may. It stems back to the Carter and Clinton administrations when banks were lent on (if you get my drift) to provide mortgages to poorer communities in the the US. Everything went well, especially during the first years of mortgages as introductory rates. However, these debts were not exactly solid gold, but were amalgamated into SIVs, CDOs and other instruments, with the true nature of the risk somewhat buried. These instruments were traded widely and used as collateral in the 'system. Eventually, though, defaults became more widespread and it was felt that the instruments were toxic, though this was not necessarily the case. Certainly though, it was very difficult to work out who had the bad risk loans and who did not because they had been packaged and traded so widely. As a result, banks became highly suspicious of one another and the result was a banking crisis, as interbank liquidity dried up overnight.
Those who talk about greedy banks and so on being the cause really don't understand the complexities involved, so they take the easy option. Down with bankers etc, etc. 
hmmmm whilst true that the Clinton administration encouraged banks to cater to poorer income households, thats only one small part of the whole story.
with a loosening of regulation, the banks flooded through, throwing debt at people like confetti - barely interested in what that person could comfortably afford. what was the reason for such generosity? massive rises in house prices meant the banks couldnt lose, people who couldnt afford the mortgage payments lost the house to the bank who could sell for a nice fat profit!! trebles all round!!
of course as any fool knows, what goes up must come down
so by all means blame Clinton - hell, blame Brown too (he spent time in the states after all
) but lets not absolve the greed, short sightedness and stupidity of the banks
although to be fair, asking bankers not to be greedy is like putting a steak in front of a dog and asking it to only eat what it needs
Author
Topic: Government cuts (Read 4819 times)