No Referendum on EU "Treaty"

Originally posted by budski
The current system is open to abuse, and needs to change - but I agree it has to be done in the right way.

- Well precisely.

It's an easy target but show me the 'perfect' welfare system, anywhere?

Originally posted by budski
the system has been very badly managed, to the extent that thousands upon thousands have been underpaid, overpaid, not paid on time etc etc

- Well again I'd just ask that you show us the perfect bureaucracy.

It's an impossibility.

It's also an unfortunate inevitability that any 'system' requiring claimants to notify the Inland Revenue of material changes is going to be one wide open to error and failures (whether that be from the claimant incorrectly notifying the IR or the staff doing the work).

I don't think I'd agree that the error rate is wildly high tho.
Higher than it ought to be, perhaps, but excessively so (given the circumstances & taking into account the unavoidable weaknesses that the 'system' cannot fail to embody)?

Originally posted by budski
As for the CSA - I'll believe that any new agency is better when I see it, and not before.
At the very least, it's another example of an over-managed, under achieving beaurocracy.

- Well once again I think you are placing unrealistic expectations at the door of a public body which - like many of the state's undertakings - are nothing like a 'regular' business and faces unusually severe problems inherent in the very work it is attempting to do.

Take for instance the latest panic over the missing ID details.

The Gov department hands over sensitive information to their trusted courier service to deliver to another Gov department, and in a rush.

The courier then failed to deliver item.

Isn’t the “mind-blowing incompetence” on the part of the couriers?
Barring the courier getting mugged or having a crash, how hard would it be?

Now unless Darling or Brown are moonlighting as bike couriers, then I’m struggling to see what else they could have done, bar walk the damn files to their delivery destination themselves.

Not securing personal data is an offence under tha Data Protection Act. You have to question the culture and management controls within the organisation that allows this.
But to hold the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the PM responsible is sheer opportunist political mischief-making.

It simply beggars belief that the tory party are today claiming Gov cut-backs and savings are responsible for this problem
(particularly as they indulged in their usual 'dutch auction' of promising much more significant cuts themselves at the last general election).
It's ust pure hypocrisy from the tory party & the light-weight sound-bite monger Cameron.

Originally posted by budski
And yet estimates this week have put the pulic cost at £40 billion, with some estimates of double that

- £24 billion is the figure (this Gov has lent) I've seen widely quoted.

I guess some people can just make up any old "estimate".

(all of which I might add is under-written by the assets of Northern Rock.
Shame if you're a share-holder - but then there is an inherent risk in that position - but the Gov as a lender is in an entirely different position)

Originally posted by budski
prudence was lauded for passing control to the bank of england (along with the treasury and the FSA)

- Indeed, and all the other large political party's (along with almost all the commentators etc etc) scrambled to claim it was exactly what they would have done too, at the time.

Originally posted by budski
but this policy has backfired somewhat in being inflexible and removing key decision makers from the equation.

- I disagree.

Just because a certain section of political opinion (all benefiting from 20/20 hindsight) claims (some) things were delayed (some say some matters by a few days and some by up to 4 or 5 weeks) does not make it 'the truth' or 'the whole truth'.

Again I'd say that anyone expecting perfect results and outcomes in the midst of a developing & mainly American crisis is just leaping on an opportunist bandwagon.

Citicorp (who are the largest and most worrying part of this - still - developing problem) along the rest of the US credit difficulties are nothing to do with this Gov or the BoE's making.

Originally posted by budski
Let's face it, it should have never got so bad.

- I think you're completely wrong.
I really do not see what anyone could have done differently......and sadly I think things are far from getting as bad as they might well still get.

Originally posted by budski
I understand the origins, but this government have been guilty of allowing massive borrowing.

- That's actually besides the point in relation to Northern Rock & the impact of the US sub-prime problems.

In any event the truth is that it is the private sector that has indulged in "massive borrowing".

What do you mean by "allowing"?

What measures are you suggesting this Gov ought to have taken given the relatively free market in which we live?

At what point do individuals and private companies own actions stop being their own responsibility, huh?

IMO this is just rather obviously wanting to have it both ways.

If the Gov itself borrows then it's all automatically waste and problematic big debt but if it's the private sector that ends up borrowing too much then somehow, despite our free market, it's still all the Gov's fault.

I just don't buy that.

It's a relatively free market and people have a responsibility to lend and borrow responsibly.
In a free market if you overdo it and it all goes wrong you go bust.
In the case of Northern Rock it's pretty clear that the Gov knew a credit crisis was coming and so has acted to add liquidity to the system to ensure the damage is as light as possible
(and we are not out of the woods yet, as I said Citicorp is still posting horrendous news).

If we come out of this with hardly anyone noticing too many practical problems we (and the UK Gov) will have done very well in fact

Originally posted by budski mortgages and personal debt have risen ahnd in hand with house prices, and the government has failed miserably in this regard

- How on earth are any of these the Gov's immediate responsibility?

We do not live in a 'command economy'.

Originally posted by budski
And yet, disposable income as a national average has increased - so something is clearly wrong.

- Well an economist would say that it is all perfectly natural.
As the country grows ever wealthier the value of the assets within the country rise, especially assets in short supply as housing is
(but you can thank the tory party for the collapse in public housing stock and the subsequent sustained dearth of housing supply).

Originally posted by budski
I AM saying that cherie blair has shamelessly used her husbands position to make money

- Sounds like typical Daily Mail sour grapes to me.

The fact is that Cherie Blair has an extremely prominent & highly paid career in her own right and is in demand (at high prices) to undertake various public events.

Some people will try and abuse her for doing so but tough luck, it can go with the job.

Besides the well paid stuff she also does undertake various charity work too......but I guess that doesn't quite fit the 'line' some want to take when throwing this kind of criticism.

Originally posted by budski
It's not against the law, but it does imply one of two things - a complete lack of judgement, or utter contempt for the electorate.

- I don't think so.

Those who are rabidly anti this Gov (or the even more strange and rabid Blair hate mob) will always work themselves into a froth over anything this Gov has ever done or anything either of the Blairs have ever done or probably will ever do.

Sadly it's just a fact of life for some.


[edit on 21-11-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

I'm not exactly sure what's going on at the moment, but there seems to be one "scandal" after another.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Of course, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that prudence isn't as media friendly as blair was, could it.

These story's are coming thick and fast at the moment - this BBC link has a very disturbing picture of prudence looking like he's giving a nazi salute!
A tad extreme to say the least.

It also looks like someone is very upset with prudence - the timing (if nothing else) seems a little too convenient.

One scandal after another?

Well if you say so.

The only thing I can see which is (politically) a big deal is the child benefit story
(and that is only because people will ignore the fact that the proper existing laid down procedures were not followed).

With Northern Rock sold (and the taxpayers money secured & being repaid) and no further economic fall-out (Citicorp just sold off $7 billions worth of assets to make their balance sheet look a lot better) I think that one came be safely left to wither away as tomorrows chip-paper.

The party funding tale will be short-lived, they have done all they needed to do once it came into the public arena, the guy who knew resigned & there's to be an enquiry to establish the scale of what went on.

Once again the net result will be that this Gov will further extend transparency and openness in party political funding
(and ironically it is only because of the new rules established by this Gov that this one is even a story of sorts).

But if you wnt to be cynical then you could say everything is coming out now just before X-mas, cos it will all be in large part overtaken & forgotten during the holidays.

But that's just the old spinmeister in me.

reply to post by sminkeypinkey


I don't say so - I say that is how the stories are being presented, and it looks to me like someone is trying to paint prudence in a bad light.
The timing here is what makes me think this - week after week, there is a new story seen and the spin on it is to paint all the stories as scandals.