The House yesterday debated the current economic situation. I mentioned in an earlier post some of the speakers who would be taking part. The debate can be found at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/81103-0002.htm#0811039000009
The quality of the debate was commented on by the minister, Baroness Vadera, in her speech winding-up for the Government:
“My Lords, it is rare for this Chamber to have an extensive debate on the economy; but the insight of all the speakers showcases the wisdom of your Lordships’ House, not least that of the three former Chancellors, six former Treasury Ministers or spokespersons, four economists and six leaders of business who have elevated this debate. It is a wisdom that should be tapped into more often, and I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions today.”
A similar point was by Iain Dale on his Blog, Iain Dales’ Diary:
“It is astonishing that until yesterday Parliament had had no debate on the current economic crisis. The House of Commons has failed in its duty to be the country’s debating chamber. Instead, yesterday, it fell to the House of Lords to take up the cudgels. Their Lordships had a six hour debate and I highly recommend it to you to read…
The participants read like a list of Who Was Who in British Politics, but that is no bad thing. We heard from Lords/Ladies Lawson, Haskel, Howe, Shephard, Powell, Lamont, Forsyth, Taverne, Peston, MacGregor, Skidelsky, Burns, Barnett, Higgins, Ryder and Tugendhat among many others. Think how many years at the Treasury many of them have served together and you will see why this is a debate well worth reading.”
I watched some of the BBC 2 tonight program on Nov 03 with Jeremy Paxman interviewing a young African American family in a welfare shelter. They had been made homeless and destitute and had not received any income whatsoever within the last 30 days.
Jeremy asked what he made of his misfortune and the events leading up to it. He replied that the cause was socialism in that the poor through their taxes were paying the rich. Jeremy smiled when he heard this. I found the words to be very profound.
They were profound because of the metaphorical journey that the poor have travelled over hundreds of years. From the time of monasteries to the creation of the modern welfare state, the rich have always provided for the poor.
So when did this perverse socialism take hold? For me it happened when one of the recent finance acts changed the nature of servants in a master servant relationship to the servant being legally responsible for their taxes irrespective of whether their master had paid them or not.
It was a landmark in this new treacherous brand of socialism that redefined the classification of the poor. The ‘poor’ no longer exist because they are wealthy pseudo masters in their own right. There was no outcry from the Commons when it happened because the opposition parties must also have seen the electorate in a similar way.
The credit crunch happened because of the need for growth in the finance sectors. The traditional good risk markets had levelled off so an enterprising few started lending in the bad risks market.
Their morality being that it was a redistribution of wealth that helped the little guy buy a slice of the ‘good life’ which indeed was the case at least for a while. This was commercial socialism, was it that different from the governments?
Ref: Consequences para 5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Monasteries
Ref: The classification of the Poor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Law#Origins_of_the_Poor_Law_system
Enjoying the blog, but one quibble: if you are quoting other people you *must* link out no matter who they are – otherwise they won’t find out you have written about them and the conversation will die.
Rgds