Why are you dreading a Tory government?

[Swedes]

Social mobility under Labour has fallen to the levels experienced in the 1950s. That means if you are born poor, you remain poor and if you are born wealthy, you stay wealthy.

I heard this morning on R4 that the NHS is experiencing the worst funding crisis in its history.

I could go on but I'm sure you get my drift.
Labour have had over a decade to fulfill their promise that "things can only get better". It's time for a change.

Can you please give me a few good reasons why Labour should remain in office?

Lenin - LOL at cap doffing. If that's how such a scheme would be greeted, then I would say the wealthy and successful really can't win. They are criticised for keeping their wealth and success for themselves and are arrogant fuckers for being willing to share and give up their time. The current system seems to demand a greater share in success/wealth than the state dares to take for the benefit of the less fortunate, simultaneously stripping both parties of any dignity.

the problem with TC and benefit systems as they are so complicated that those who really need them dont always get them.

would it not be simpler to have a very low or nil tax rate for those who earn little money and would therefore take home more and move to a much higher tax rate for those who have more than enough?

TotalChaos, no, the National Minimum Wage was not introduced as part of an EU directive - it was commitment that the Labour Party had madeprior to the election in 1997 and honoured when they came into power.

Must be one of Kinnock's more memorable lines.
Can't quite remember the famous line re House of Lord's being abolished...bet he wants to forget t hat too,and his ones re leaving the 'Common Market' especially now he and Glenys have done so well out of both.

HH wuldn't always work.

Remembering that we get 2 X disability benefits deliverd by TC's and that DH is following redundancy on a very low PT wage at the meoment, our TC's are quite significantly more than he earns full stop.

Now whilst that won't alwys be the case for us and I am quite aware there will be a point where we are both working without masses mroe income, we'd simply be on HB if it were stoped, with IS and other benefits as well.

Which would mean we'd lose the house (private tenancy no HB), the landlord would lose an income (and that would affect a lot of Tories I suspect if they looked into it- a high rate of TCs repalces a HB claim) and others wold have a disadvantage also.

There are entire areas of low wages where the housing prices and rentals are bouyed by access to TCs, woulfd thr Tories have the nerve to pull out the chair from under it all?

I'm just hoping for our sakes that we have time to qualify before it happens as I don't much fancy a B&B in benefits city with the boys and having to locate a new SN school etc (it really is ahrder to be mobile as a family with SN- have moved across distanbcebefore, far less owrries).

On a more eprsonal level, I found Gleny to be very nice indeed and really supportive when i approached her RE my dissertation, even sent me info on how to access extra bursaries relating to my area of study that I had no idea existed.

peachy, benefits aside, are you saying that if there was no tax on your earnings you would still get more through tax credits?

Yes, although only in the last few weeks as dh was made redundant with a large family

we're in a fluke setting; DH has a start up self employed business, so our income is far less than if he were emloyed in aregular job- we're at that stage where any profit is a blessing IYSWIM

(I now feel compelled as a result of my own guilt complexes to assume everyone thinks we're evil claimant lifestyle choosers and reinforce the redundancy / carer role for me / better trying to start a business (and Dh will combine that with a degree) than sit on your bum aspect..... apologies, as you were )

Oh apaprently the reason for the anomaly is that it replaces the benefit known under apst Governments as Family Credit, as well as the tax codes

makes sens ethen- I did realise when we were form filling that thinngs ahd changed somewhat (suspicious oldme did note uit wa an excellent way to keep IS figures down LOL, but staying off HB is goodf or everyone).

no judgement made by me peachy, just curious and trying to understand!

Tis OK HH, my hang-ups I know LOL.

Article by Paul Krugman in NY Times about the financial crisis, Brown's performance and what the Conservatives might have done differently.

They were discussing that artcile on the news PW, it's extremely interesting.

Were they? Which news?

TO be fair, Krugman is a lefty, so you'd expect him to say this sort of thing. But he is a lefty with a Nobel Prize in economics.

Yep, the Princton bit does jump out as well.

I'm not sure which news- BBC radio maybe?

Ah right. It wasn't on 5Live

LOL definitely not, no TBH I don't even think we oculd get that on our clapped out car radio PMSL.

It's the Killers or radio Wales atm, unles DH is feeling excitable then we might get The Feeling.

Middle aged, us? never!

Interesting article policywonk, though I feel he was overly sympathetic to Gordon Brown. The govt have to accept some responsibility for the clear lack of foresight and regulation which allowed the banks to run away from themselves in terms of risky lending and the desire ofr profit.
It was the perfect storm and Brown did not see it coming.

BigGitDad- I don't get the regulation bit as the Tories were calling for less regulation not more. And both sides are too scared to explain to the public how much tax revenue has been earned over the years by London being the world's largest financial centre. That is why part of me thought that it was funny when the press pack turned their guns on to the MPs after they were done with the bankers. In neither case did we have reasoned and balanced analysis.

I think it was Jan09 Economist that had some of the best analysis of the banking crisis that I have read.

Swedes and Policy- I have already praised you for the substance of the debate but I would also like to say that the civility of the debate on this divisive subject is very nice to see.

I know what you mean TD about the tax revenues but how much has it cost to bail the banks out? Billions, not to mention the cost of a recession, the unemployed etc.
My point is that I feel the Labour Govt were all to keen to bask in the success of the economy when things were good and really did not look too far ahead or make contingency plans in case things went wrong. The banks did need to be under more control eg allowing 125% mortgages, sub prime lending, lending £2.5 billion to a Russian company that went belly up two years later with the loss of the loan etc. There was a lot of wrecklessness which was allowed to go unchecked all beacause every one was making a fat profit.
As I said earlier it was the perfect storm but the Govt and the regulators that they put in place failed in their job.

BigGitDaddy- some validity to your points in my opinion but a few points to make:

i)The media and the politicians (both sides) have been scared/dishonest to analyse properly the bank bail out. The US is about to make a hefty profit on the diect costs of bank bail out. I argued on MN at the time that it was the then shareholders who were being screwed (quite rightly) by the tax payers. Darling's scheme to take high interest pref share on banks that could not go insolvent is one hell of a deal for the tax payer. The US banks are begging Obama to allow them to pay back. Obama will let them do so only after meeting some "clean up conditions". I repeat: the UK tax payer will make a profit when the shares/loans are redeemed. And I wouldn't go in to the technicalities as to why the govt stake in the banks are not actually risky.

ii)The 2.% BN RBS loan to Russian CO has got sod all to do with the Govt. It was a loan made by RBS, I am pretty sure before the the Govt and current CEO Stephen Hester took the the wheels.

iii)I didn't hear the Tories or anyone except for a few warning of the credit boom early enough to do anything about it. Even Vince Cable and Gillian Tett (FT) and the others who are claiming to have predicted commented when all the insiders had already seen the hole in the ship. Again the media talks about these people who had predicted it when the same people were signing the praises of the multi Trillion credit derivatives market and the virtues of CDO technology.

iv)Legislation on bank lending , arguably should have been put in place by the Tories after the last bust. Politically that was the opportune time to make this structural change, wasn't it? So it is very easy to say all these things after the event when the whole world including the man in the street went on a credit binge.

Even now we continue to use the old one dimensional measures such as GDP. We need new measures that incorporate the sustainability of growth. We need to adjust to different levels of growth but so much of the media hasn't recalibrated their expectations. I am not sure that we (public, media, politicians) have REALLY understood the new paradigm (I hate that word but it makes sense in this case)

More later