Are we heading towards a third world Britain ?

teagar

TheStone wrote:

teagar wrote:

For anyone's whose still keeping score on the whole "is/isn't the current govt resposible for the recession" discussion, this chap, at the world economic forum in Davos, is saying exactly what I've been saying here: That fear of national debt is stifiling what's really needed - more public spending.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... -recession

This really is the question and tends to split people along political lines. I'm not really one
side or the other, but do see a lot of issues with the print-borrow-spend method.

On one side, it has reduced unemployment, repossessions and bankruptcy, but on the
other side, it's likely to prolong the recession (much like Japan's lost generation). It's
possible that it will also encourage an even bigger bubble next time. As everyone
is being bailed out by the (future) taxpayer, there's a danger that there's no downside
to their poor decisions.

If they'd avoided printing, a lot of the bankers, buy-to-let 'investors' etc would have been
wiped out. We'd be much closer to a lower bottom and would have less debt burden
going forward. Instead, those that caused the problems through short term gambling and
greed, are the same people who are already making serious money again !!!

There's a difference between printing money and borrowing to have more public spending! You seem to be suggesting that gov't borrowing it tantamount to printing money - which isn't quite right.

TheStone

teagar wrote:

Brown's handing over of the base interest rate to the BoE was a shrewd move - it's unforunate he can't still learn from mistakes like he did then.

I think this was a good move, but the remit was wrong. Instead of targeting a price
index (CPI), they should have been looking at money supply inflation (M4).

Yes, it has it's problems and difficult to agree what to include, but it's been increasing
at 10%+ for the last decade and should have triggered higher interest rates.

Instead we were importing cheap goods (china) and cheap labour (eastern europe), so
CPI remained low. The difference caused the housing bubble.

teagar

TheStone wrote:

teagar wrote:

Brown's handing over of the base interest rate to the BoE was a shrewd move - it's unforunate he can't still learn from mistakes like he did then.

I think this was a good move, but the remit was wrong. Instead of targeting a price
index (CPI), they should have been looking at money supply inflation (M4).

Yes, it has it's problems and difficult to agree what to include, but it's been increasing
at 10%+ for the last decade and should have triggered higher interest rates.

Instead we were importing cheap goods (china) and cheap labour (eastern europe), so
CPI remained low. The difference caused the housing bubble.

Can't comment on any of the above becasue I don't know - but the final paragraph! Where did that come from!?!?

TheStone

teagar wrote:

There's a difference between printing money and borrowing to have more public spending! You seem to be suggesting that gov't borrowing it tantamount to printing money - which isn't quite right.

At the moment they're exactly the same. The QE has purchased the amount of debt that
the govt has issued. It still shows as debt on the govt balance sheet, but that can be
removed quietly later if necessary.

... unless the QE is reversed. Do you think they will? Maybe some?

teagar

TheStone wrote:

teagar wrote:

There's a difference between printing money and borrowing to have more public spending! You seem to be suggesting that gov't borrowing it tantamount to printing money - which isn't quite right.

At the moment they're exactly the same. The QE has purchased the amount of debt that
the govt has issued. It still shows as debt on the govt balance sheet, but that can be
removed quietly later if necessary.

... unless the QE is reversed. Do you think they will? Maybe some?

There are other ways of obtaining funds arn't there? Bonds, borrowing from other nations (i.e. China) and the like?

I know there's a worry too much focus on bonds forces the interest rate up, and eventually harms credit ratings, but by and large they're the channels they're using arn't they? I thought that was standard, and the quantitative easing was just a specifically financial effort, rather than applying through the whole economy.

I'm less hot on this i'll be honest.

TheStone

teagar wrote:

TheStone wrote:

Instead we were importing cheap goods (china) and cheap labour (eastern europe), so
CPI remained low. The difference caused the housing bubble.

Can't comment on any of the above becasue I don't know - but the final paragraph! Where did that come from!?!?

It's not meant as a daily mail island comment. Just trying to make the point that increased
leverage in the banking system led to inflation of the money supply and various asset
bubbles based on unsustainable debt.

Normally the money supply inflation would lead to increase costs of basic goods and
be visible in CPI/RPI. This would then force the bank of england to increase interest
rates, but the bubble of the last decade coincided with these cheap imports.

The BoE remit was only to focus on CPI, which was a mistake. Rates should have been
much higher over the past decade.

1892

already there aren't we? The worlds dumping ground.

Anonymous

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

BTW, Teagar will not disclose his occupation because his boss at McD's will freak if he see's him on this forum..........

*yawn* another uncessary attempt to wind someone up on a forum. We've got a reasonable discussion going here.

Didn't you call me a child once on here? Go figure :roll:

It was an attempt at humour to lighten quite a serious discussion. Hence the wink at the end of the sentence.
I only put it in because one of the posters referred to you and Nolf's lack of knowing your occupation which neither of you answered. I think it may because you are so youthful that any experience you have has come out of a lecture hall, internet article or book, ie no "hands on experience".

Just an observation, don't get yer pants in a bunch, you really should lighten up, it seems to me being so serious and stoic all the time is coming through.
(Notice the wink?)

TheStone

teagar wrote:

There are other ways of obtaining funds arn't there? Bonds, borrowing from other nations (i.e. China) and the like?

I know there's a worry too much focus on bonds forces the interest rate up, and eventually harms credit ratings, but by and large they're the channels they're using arn't they? I thought that was standard, and the quantitative easing was just a specifically financial effort, rather than applying through the whole economy.

I'm less hot on this i'll be honest.

Yes, and as QE is nearly finished, they'll have to go back to the normal markets next
month. The demand for guilts has been high this year. The banks purchased from the
govt, to sell to the BoE for a profit. Crazy...

This has kept the cost of the debt low and interest rates low. Once back in the market
they should end up paying more interest, especially if the 200bn of QE so far starts to
cause inflation (unlikely, unless there's actually a recovery)

Interesting few months ahead.

daviesee

teagar wrote:

TheStone wrote:

teagar wrote:

There's a difference between printing money and borrowing to have more public spending! You seem to be suggesting that gov't borrowing it tantamount to printing money - which isn't quite right.

At the moment they're exactly the same. The QE has purchased the amount of debt that
the govt has issued. It still shows as debt on the govt balance sheet, but that can be
removed quietly later if necessary.

... unless the QE is reversed. Do you think they will? Maybe some?

There are other ways of obtaining funds arn't there? Bonds, borrowing from other nations (i.e. China) and the like?

I know there's a worry too much focus on bonds forces the interest rate up, and eventually harms credit ratings, but by and large they're the channels they're using arn't they? I thought that was standard, and the quantitative easing was just a specifically financial effort, rather than applying through the whole economy.

I'm less hot on this i'll be honest.

The above may well be the truth but it still sounds like shuffling the problem around instead of dealing with it.
If it's not sorted now it will have to be sorted in the future.
Of course you could always believe Gordon's tactics that borrowing against future growth will sort it all out. Of course it will Gordon, of course it will. :twisted:

On that premise, I am off to the bookies now. Will the Inland Revenue accept that future promise?

Stewie Griffin

teagar wrote:

Stewie Griffin wrote:

Proving a priority need isnt the difficult bit, have children, be or have elderly people in the family, be or have a mentally ill or physically disabled person in the family, the obvious stuff. The not so obvious; be under 21 and having been a child in care, just been released from Prison, lost your housing due to it having been provided as you were serving in the Military or fleeing violence.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20022051.htm

The harder bit is proving that it wasnt your fault that you are now homeless, Intentional Homelessness. Thats were most applications are refused. You dont have to be poor to be homeless, there are more BMW's in our Customer Car park than there ever were in the staff car park. No, Im not joking.

Oh dear. That must be difficult to deal with day in day out. Must be frustrating.

They arent all M3s or X5s so its not so bad

nolf

dmclite wrote:

I only put it in because one of the posters referred to you and Nolf's lack of knowing your occupation which neither of you answered. I think it may because you are so youthful that any experience you have has come out of a lecture hall, internet article or book, ie no "hands on experience".

You're indeed right, but I've not been avoiding answering, instead I've been working on grad job applications/interviews for financial service companies (and the FSA) and a CIMA (chartered institute of management accountants) project the past few days.

I study history and economics, and specialise in 14th century warfare in western Europe, and 16th century humanistic thinking.

You're right I have no "hands on experience", and yet probably have more than you.
Im not necessarily sure what hands on experience is relevant for a debate on the economic future of the UK (10 years as an economist perhaps?), but maybe spending a year working for a multi-national financial services company is a good start?

Perhaps I should get a job working in "proper industry" so I have an accurate pictue of what "real" work is like, and through this gain an inspired and uniquely incisive understanding of the economic situation.

I'm envious of those more "experienced" than me who know from "experience" in unrelated fields what the "reality" of the situation is, while I dream with my head in the clouds.

Oh to be old and know everything from time down t'pit.

nolf

TheStone wrote:

teagar wrote:

There are other ways of obtaining funds arn't there? Bonds, borrowing from other nations (i.e. China) and the like?

I know there's a worry too much focus on bonds forces the interest rate up, and eventually harms credit ratings, but by and large they're the channels they're using arn't they? I thought that was standard, and the quantitative easing was just a specifically financial effort, rather than applying through the whole economy.

I'm less hot on this i'll be honest.

Yes, and as QE is nearly finished, they'll have to go back to the normal markets next
month. The demand for guilts has been high this year. The banks purchased from the
govt, to sell to the BoE for a profit. Crazy...

This has kept the cost of the debt low and interest rates low. Once back in the market
they should end up paying more interest, especially if the 200bn of QE so far starts to
cause inflation (unlikely, unless there's actually a recovery)

Interesting few months ahead.

Also there is the question of who will pick it up in the market, veering away from economics in all likelihood it will be asian investors, who have remained cash rich these past 2 years. Socio-politically it makes an interesting situation if China owns a significant portion of the UK's debt.

nolf

TheStone wrote:

teagar wrote:

TheStone wrote:

Instead we were importing cheap goods (china) and cheap labour (eastern europe), so
CPI remained low. The difference caused the housing bubble.

Can't comment on any of the above becasue I don't know - but the final paragraph! Where did that come from!?!?

It's not meant as a daily mail island comment. Just trying to make the point that increased
leverage in the banking system led to inflation of the money supply and various asset
bubbles based on unsustainable debt.

Normally the money supply inflation would lead to increase costs of basic goods and
be visible in CPI/RPI. This would then force the bank of england to increase interest
rates, but the bubble of the last decade coincided with these cheap imports.

The BoE remit was only to focus on CPI, which was a mistake. Rates should have been
much higher over the past decade.

I actually think thats a pretty shrewd observation, we've imported low inflation by using the cash flow out as a pressure release valve. The Bank of England hasn't saved the day.

An especially important issue you touched on, and i think is a central issue of importance for the future of the country, is that from now on there is a precedent for the government to act as an underwriter to all large corporations in the UK. The idea that some businesses can be "too large to fail", has undermined free market capitalism, by removing the penalty for failure.

Reintroducing this penalty for failure seems an incredibly urgent concern, as well as finding ways for the free market to reflect and integrate the systemic risk these large corporations cause. My proposal was for corporations that pose this risk should have a compulsory levy on them, proportional to their size. This would cover a governent backed underwriter who would undewrite the debt.

This gives a competitive advantage to smaller firms who can trade with lower fixed costs, and should see a natural, gradual reduction in the size of large firms, causing them to no longer pose a systemic risk.

teagar

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

BTW, Teagar will not disclose his occupation because his boss at McD's will freak if he see's him on this forum..........

*yawn* another uncessary attempt to wind someone up on a forum. We've got a reasonable discussion going here.

Didn't you call me a child once on here? Go figure :roll:

It was an attempt at humour to lighten quite a serious discussion. Hence the wink at the end of the sentence.
I only put it in because one of the posters referred to you and Nolf's lack of knowing your occupation which neither of you answered. I think it may because you are so youthful that any experience you have has come out of a lecture hall, internet article or book, ie no "hands on experience".

Just an observation, don't get yer pants in a bunch, you really should lighten up, it seems to me being so serious and stoic all the time is coming through.
(Notice the wink?)

Change the record dmc! We've heard it all from you before!

What's the compulsion to lighten up a serious discussion? Something wrong with having a sincere discussion?

I love how you pick your arguments. You're criticising a 21 year old for not having enough 'life experience', or a graduate for not having enough 'hands on experience'. So, you're criticising a 21 year old for not living long enough? Or a 21 yr old university graduate for having studied untill he's 21? Kudos points to you.

Picking a no-contest fight. Something you picked up in the forces? (< see what I did there? A joke!)

Anonymous

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

BTW, Teagar will not disclose his occupation because his boss at McD's will freak if he see's him on this forum..........

*yawn* another uncessary attempt to wind someone up on a forum. We've got a reasonable discussion going here.

Didn't you call me a child once on here? Go figure :roll:

It was an attempt at humour to lighten quite a serious discussion. Hence the wink at the end of the sentence.
I only put it in because one of the posters referred to you and Nolf's lack of knowing your occupation which neither of you answered. I think it may because you are so youthful that any experience you have has come out of a lecture hall, internet article or book, ie no "hands on experience".

Just advocating my right of Free Speech, something you believe passionately in, please don't dis-respect that or you may actually be in conflict your own beliefs that you constantly beat us with.

Just an observation, don't get yer pants in a bunch, you really should lighten up, it seems to me being so serious and stoic all the time is coming through.
(Notice the wink?)

Change the record dmc! We've heard it all from you before!

What's the compulsion to lighten up a serious discussion? Something wrong with having a sincere discussion?

I love how you pick your arguments. You're criticising a 21 year old for not having enough 'life experience', or a graduate for not having enough 'hands on experience'. So, you're criticising a 21 year old for not living long enough? Or a 21 yr old university graduate for having studied untill he's 21? Kudos points to you.

Picking a no-contest fight. Something you picked up in the forces? (< see what I did there? A joke!)

Anonymous

nolf wrote:

dmclite wrote:

I only put it in because one of the posters referred to you and Nolf's lack of knowing your occupation which neither of you answered. I think it may because you are so youthful that any experience you have has come out of a lecture hall, internet article or book, ie no "hands on experience".

You're indeed right, but I've not been avoiding answering, instead I've been working on grad job applications/interviews for financial service companies (and the FSA) and a CIMA (chartered institute of management accountants) project the past few days.

I study history and economics, and specialise in 14th century warfare in western Europe, and 16th century humanistic thinking.

You're right I have no "hands on experience", and yet probably have more than you.
Im not necessarily sure what hands on experience is relevant for a debate on the economic future of the UK (10 years as an economist perhaps?), but maybe spending a year working for a multi-national financial services company is a good start?

Perhaps I should get a job working in "proper industry" so I have an accurate pictue of what "real" work is like, and through this gain an inspired and uniquely incisive understanding of the economic situation.

I'm envious of those more "experienced" than me who know from "experience" in unrelated fields what the "reality" of the situation is, while I dream with my head in the clouds.

Oh to be old and know everything from time down t'pit.

Nah, you wouldn't last 5 minutes down t'pit I reckon. Saying that though, I think hueristic lnowledge coupled with academic knowledge isn't a bad thing 8) , quite healthy actually. I was not dismissing your knowledge, I merely wanted to point out the discrepencies in some of the discussion, comparing the UK to a developing country.
I am sorry if I insulted you, I always wind up Teagar because he bites so hard, can't help myself, its my online version of biting on tinfoil.
If you want to lock horns go ahead, I have no argument with you and meant the apology. Its just that your perspective may differ or indeed consolidate itself based on your learning and experience.

Anonymous

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

BTW, Teagar will not disclose his occupation because his boss at McD's will freak if he see's him on this forum..........

*yawn* another uncessary attempt to wind someone up on a forum. We've got a reasonable discussion going here.

Didn't you call me a child once on here? Go figure :roll:

It was an attempt at humour to lighten quite a serious discussion. Hence the wink at the end of the sentence.
I only put it in because one of the posters referred to you and Nolf's lack of knowing your occupation which neither of you answered. I think it may because you are so youthful that any experience you have has come out of a lecture hall, internet article or book, ie no "hands on experience".

Just advocating my right of Free Speech, something you believe passionately in, please don't dis-respect that or you may actually be in conflict your own beliefs that you constantly beat us with.

Just an observation, don't get yer pants in a bunch, you really should lighten up, it seems to me being so serious and stoic all the time is coming through.
(Notice the wink?)

Change the record dmc! We've heard it all from you before!

What's the compulsion to lighten up a serious discussion? Something wrong with having a sincere discussion?

I love how you pick your arguments. You're criticising a 21 year old for not having enough 'life experience', or a graduate for not having enough 'hands on experience'. So, you're criticising a 21 year old for not living long enough? Or a 21 yr old university graduate for having studied untill he's 21? Kudos points to you.

Picking a no-contest fight. Something you picked up in the forces? (< see what I did there? A joke!)

A sincere discussion Teagar, online on a forum ? Heh Heh, good luck on Valentines.

nolf

dmclite wrote:

nolf wrote:

dmclite wrote:

I only put it in because one of the posters referred to you and Nolf's lack of knowing your occupation which neither of you answered. I think it may because you are so youthful that any experience you have has come out of a lecture hall, internet article or book, ie no "hands on experience".

You're indeed right, but I've not been avoiding answering, instead I've been working on grad job applications/interviews for financial service companies (and the FSA) and a CIMA (chartered institute of management accountants) project the past few days.

I study history and economics, and specialise in 14th century warfare in western Europe, and 16th century humanistic thinking.

You're right I have no "hands on experience", and yet probably have more than you.
Im not necessarily sure what hands on experience is relevant for a debate on the economic future of the UK (10 years as an economist perhaps?), but maybe spending a year working for a multi-national financial services company is a good start?

Perhaps I should get a job working in "proper industry" so I have an accurate pictue of what "real" work is like, and through this gain an inspired and uniquely incisive understanding of the economic situation.

I'm envious of those more "experienced" than me who know from "experience" in unrelated fields what the "reality" of the situation is, while I dream with my head in the clouds.

Oh to be old and know everything from time down t'pit.

Nah, you wouldn't last 5 minutes down t'pit I reckon. Saying that though, I think hueristic lnowledge coupled with academic knowledge isn't a bad thing 8) , quite healthy actually. I was not dismissing your knowledge, I merely wanted to point out the discrepencies in some of the discussion, comparing the UK to a developing country.
I am sorry if I insulted you, I always wind up Teagar because he bites so hard, can't help myself, its my online version of biting on tinfoil.
If you want to lock horns go ahead, I have no argument with you and meant the apology. Its just that your perspective may differ or indeed consolidate itself based on your learning and experience.

No it's quite allright, and I do agree that experience does add something.
But my lack of experience (and I do lack experience), doesn't necessarily mean I don't have a valid opinion.

(EDIT: Wow. Even I think that sounds arrogant, sorry!)

teagar

nolf wrote:

No it's quite allright, and I do agree that experience does add something.
But my lack of experience (and I do lack experience), doesn't necessarily mean I don't have a valid opinion.

He's just got a chip on his shoulder with young people who look and seem well informed.

Just let him bombard you with a blizzard of yellow faces, and gripes that you're either not hard enough, or you're not old enough to know anything! He'll even answer questions no-one asked. It's hilarious! If you pick up on his picking and bullying, he'll pass it off as a joke. Just often, he's the only one laughing.

It's just slightly sad he, at his experienced ripe old age, still can't help but wind up younger folk on here. After all, if he really was better informed, better experienced and just a better guy all round, he would be above all that winding up. I guess some people never grow up!

What's my defence for it? I'm young right? i don't know any better. (< see what I did there?!! )

Anonymous

teagar wrote:

nolf wrote:

No it's quite allright, and I do agree that experience does add something.
But my lack of experience (and I do lack experience), doesn't necessarily mean I don't have a valid opinion.

He's just got a chip on his shoulder with young people who look and seem well informed.

Just let him bombard you with a blizzard of yellow faces, and gripes that you're either not hard enough, or you're not old enough to know anything! He'll even answer questions no-one asked. It's hilarious! If you pick up on his picking and bullying, he'll pass it off as a joke. Just often, he's the only one laughing.

It's just slightly sad he, at his experienced ripe old age, still can't help but wind up younger folk on here. After all, if he really was better informed, better experienced and just a better guy all round, he would be above all that winding up. I guess some people never grow up!

What's my defence for it? I'm young right? i don't know any better. (< see what I did there?!! )

Read my last post to Nolf, ok, I'm sorry tio keep snapping at you Teagar, we do wind each other up that is true. I apologise, I did hijack the thread, insulted both of you and have made a bit of a fool of myself in the process. Apologies, sincerely.
Dave.
(ps, I'm not that old, give me 6 months)

Dgh

Having returned to the UK 2.5 years ago after living abroad for 7 years, I can say that we've become a much, much more burocratic country. It seems that the state can get away with any restriction on our liberties by pleading that it's either "to protect against terrorism" of "for the sake of the children". We've thrown money at the public sector with no regard for value.

We need to recognise that the public sector depends on the wealth that only the private sector can generate. We need to recognise that the state will often use its powers not in our interests, but in its own. We need to understand that the uncertain justice of the market is preferable to the certain injustice of state intervention, and recreate an enterprise culture. Having public sector pay higher than private sector equivalents is contrary to that.

There's no point moaning about foreign aid - it's human nature to want to help our fellow people. There's also no point moaning about all parties being the same. They're not. The BNP are racists. Labour think that there's no problem that public money and a new law can't solve. The Lib Dems are either tories who can't own up to it or muesli-knitters.

Dgh

The conclusion is, if you want a better Britain, vote tory. If you don't vote tory, don't moan if the country doesn't get better.

Having said that, when I commented that I was appalled by the Panorama programme about racism in Bristol a while back, an Azeri friend said Britain was still the best place she'd lived in.

teagar

Dgh wrote:

The conclusion is, if you want a better Britain, vote tory. If you don't vote tory, don't moan if the country doesn't get better.
.

:shock:

bagpusscp

Yep.Tony and now Gordon have spent the last 13? years of new Labour redistrubuting the country wealth.
1/ The rich,got richer.
2/ The lowest income /no income group no better off.
3/ Middle income mostly up to their eye balls in debt.Now having to bail the goverment out of right mess.
4/ For years now the real balance of trade figures are seldom in the news.They are that bad.
5/ Gordon said a couple of years age the days of boom and bust are over :!:
If that is the case we must all be having the same bad dream.
To top it all ,RBS are lending UK tax payers money to Kraft to buy Cadbury.

teagar

bagpusscp wrote:

Yep.Tony and now Gordon have spent the last 13? years of new Labour redistrubuting the country wealth.
1/ The rich,got richer.
2/ The lowest income /no income group no better off.

So voting tory is going to solve that?! I thought everyone knew they were the party to help those who can already help themselves.

3/ Middle income mostly up to their eye balls in debt.Now having to bail the goverment out of right mess.
4/ For years now the real balance of trade figures are seldom in the news.They are that bad.

As said earlier - you can't blame the gov't for the average punter taking a massive mortage out.

My understanding of economic reasoning is that the BoP is a largely irrelevant economic indicator.

To top it all ,RBS are lending UK tax payers money to Kraft to buy Cadbury.

The problem with the Kraft/Cadbury's takeover is not anything to do with nationalism, and everything to do with the motives of Kraft.

Frank the tank

bagpusscp wrote:

Yep.Tony and now Gordon have spent the last 13? years of new Labour redistrubuting the country wealth.
1/ The rich,got richer.
2/ The lowest income /no income group no better off.
3/ Middle income mostly up to their eye balls in debt.Now having to bail the goverment out of right mess.
4/ For years now the real balance of trade figures are seldom in the news.They are that bad.
5/ Gordon said a couple of years age the days of boom and bust are over :!:
If that is the case we must all be having the same bad dream.
To top it all ,RBS are lending UK tax payers money to Kraft to buy Cadbury.

I can't see things being a great deal different if the tories get in. I believe the reason the country is in the sh1t is because "new" labour is the same as old tory and in effect we've had 30years of tory rule.

I don't profess to have the answer/s all I know is they all pi55 in the same pot and it is continually emptied on the same group of people, namely, those mentioned in point three.

I feel as a law abiding tax payer no-one any longer represents my demographic group.

Dgh

So voting tory is going to solve that?! I thought everyone knew they were the party to help those who can already help themselves.


Yes, it will help. Tories believe in a hand-up, not a hand-out. Tories recognise that free enterprise is the best way of making poor people richer. Tories recognise that the public services we all want can only be afforded if we have a thriving private sector to pay for them. The market is very effective at redstributing wealth from those who have it to those who provide goods or services for which the wealthy want to pay.

Labour's committment is not really to the poor and disadvantaged, it's to the state.

Westerberg

Tories recognise that free enterprise is the best way of making the already rich, much richer, a select few poor people richer and the majority of poor, poorer still

Fixed this for you.

proto

Of corse we are heading towards Third World status, but it will take a very long time. We've been in decline for best part of 100 years so nothing new.

The reason? We don't dig anything out of the ground to sell. We don't make anything (or not very much) to sell. We don't grow enough food foor ourselves or others. Our trade defecits are bleeding the country of wealth, but we were very wealthy so have a long way to go.