Printable View
It has never been anywhere near as bad as it is now in peacetime
What are Labour's solutions then? Easy for them to scoff at the Coalition's attempts to right Labour's wrongs but what do they suggest? Ed Balls is in favour of cuts, Darling said pre election there would need to be cuts bigger than under Maggie.
So not sure why you think the Coalition are doing it all wrong?
So now it's not "The coalition is the best" it's "What could labour do better" so when does "OK you were right, Dave Cameron is a moron" come? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
It's true that Labour agreed there would have to be cuts, but their plan was to get the economy well and truly back on track first, then to cut the deficit at a slower and more manageable pace. Cutting this savagely and this quickly, before the private sector are placed to pick up the slack, is madness.
Labour has this crazy idea that if you started firing hundreds of thousands of public sector workers that those workers would stop spending money on houses, cars, electronic goods, food, luxury items and so on and thought that when this money stopped getting spent that it might have an effect on the economy. Funny that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Effectively we were broke and needed to pay off our debts so we fired ourselves :mark:
Was it, I haven't seen a plan from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
EFAQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Well of course people who get fired aren't going to vote for you, it's understandable non?
I voted for David Davis so ain't a DC fan by a long stretchQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...a-portico.html nice taste in MP's :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
So you see the public sector as a selfish and greedy then; putting their own self interests above those of the nationQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
interesting..........
Unless I'm very mistake I didn't say that. I feel that the public sector needs cuts. But those cuts needed to be gradual rather than harsh. Anyone with half a knowledge of what budgets come where in a period of government will realise that the only reason the Condem's are cutting so much so soon is that they hope to really sweeten up the budget before the next election to lure clueless tards in. If anyone is putting their interests above those of the nation it's the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
and your point is what exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Is he in jail with the Labour MPs for fiddling, oh no he isn't.
MP expenses - drop in the ocean a complete non story, esp when compared to Labour's mismanagement of the nation's finances
So you don't think that Mr and Mrs Smith who bought up 3 or 4 properties in 2006 when prices were skyrocketing on 90% LTV mortgages whilst only leaving 5% equity in their own houses should shouder some of the blame? :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Oh yes, MPs' expenses was a party-political issue, wasn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Can someone who isn't on his ignore list please implore him to leave the current affairs discussions to sentient humans?
The expenses scandal was an issue for all parties. Look what The Telegraph have on their front page today:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-expenses.htmlQuote:
Lord Taylor of Warwick falsely claimed for travel and overnight subsistence, a jury at Southwark Crown Court decided by a majority of 11 to one.
The 58-year-old told the House of Lords members' expenses office that his main residence was in Oxford, when he lived in west London.
Taylor is the first parliamentarian to be tried and found guilty by a jury over the expenses scandal
What party is Lord Taylor from? Exactly - they were all at it.
No let the banks repossess their houses if they aren't paying their mortgages, if they are then where's the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Yep, am well aware of that, drop in the ocean when all said and doneQuote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
They are underpaid
It might be worth you taking a look at Britain in the 1970s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Ask Labour. Find out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I haven't said they're doing it all wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Are you a lawyer? If so I think I might need your services in the future. See I think I'm underpaid so I'm going to steal some stuff from work and will need someone to defend me in court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
70s when Labour last cocked it up you mean, agreed it was bad but the level of debt nowhere near what it is now (even allowing for inflation) but thankfully Maggie sorted it all out, thank god.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Labour are being asked constantly, they haven't a clue.
I don't like the VAT increase I'd like to see tax cuts to get folk spending and big cuts to the cost of the State.
No I am not, but I can tell you most were not stealing, they were following guidelines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
If you receive anything more than minimum wage then I'd keep my gob shut as you are clearly already overpaid and robbing your employer blind.
Were they? Where were the guidelines which said "We're happy to pay for your duckhouse" and so on? :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
A good deal of MP's Labour, Conservative and other should find themselves in jail if I'm honest.
Whereas you, of course, smoking with the customers of your health-related business, represent a shining example to us all when it comes to performance at work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I have to say I disagree with this. You just know that it would have ended up that anyone who was retiring would not be replaced and all temporary contracts would come to an end even if the net effect of employing a new person was an efficiency saving....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
But they won't, as thankfully the courts are run by knowledgeable people and not clueless types who think £5 for a bog seat is more important than an £8bn State pension deficitQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Hi 5!Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
What I said
What he sawQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Oh that's right. Our people never have it so good when the Tories are in power :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
If you ever take the blue blinkers off you might have a better chance of seeing the full picture.
How easily do you think these banks could then sell the repossed houses in a depressed market where those self-same banks were reluctant to lend?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
As you're learning, the economy is a finely balanced ecosystem, not as black and white as you'd like to make out.
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Dave has always been an optimist.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
:laugh: You are correct Dave and if you are claiming that Politicians lie to get into Government, then I agree completely. All politician do and it's a national sport picking them up on them and watching them back-track :D The only thing that confuses me is why some people expect them to keep to their word? There will only ever be true democracy when we have a system of Government that reflects the will of the people more closely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
I don't particularly like the Conservatives any more than Labour or the Lib Dumbs. My politics comprises of taking the parts from each party that I deem are the best and making as rational decision as possible about who to vote for and hope they keep to their word some of the time.
So, when I say I believe we need to rationalise and cut the amount we are borrowing, then it's because I believe this is the right thing to do. The Con-Dems will take the pain where Labour would cut some sectors and then borrow to fluff the bed of the demographic that votes for it so we don't actually get anywhere. This bribery went on at an increasing rate right up to the last general election and it was criminal IMHO.
If smart investments can be made to stimulate economic growth and increase jobs then we must do it but overall, we must cut back the rate we are borrowing.
Thats not strictly true. The Department of Health were telling the chief execs of key hospitals to expect a rapid 10% cut in the entire NHS budget if Labour got in and to expect the same from the Tories. I presume this would have been the ballpark figure for spending cuts across the board which is broadly in line with what the Tories have actually done.I think its wrong to claim that the Labour cuts would have been much less or later than the Tory plans whatever they were saying in public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
I suppose it depends on how you measure these things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
My preferred comparrison is against GDP and the amount of debt we have now is equilivant to about 1970.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Z_3bgQQpLB...0/debt-gdp.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by skc
Sometimes it takes a graph such as that to put things into perspective!
It really does Mark if people know what it means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
During WW2, the UK built up huge levels of debt when compared to the income the nation was generating what with everyone being involved with war. The Women of this country did a sterling job keeping the basic manufacturing base ticking over but effectivly, the country wasn't working.
When the WW2 ended, Manufacturing and production started in earnest. Massive investment and rebuilding infrastructure took place and very quickly, the GDP to Debt ratio changed and within 25 years, was below where we are today.
Where it becomes interesting is since the early 70's. GDP has rocketed and in relation, debt went down until 1991 where we had a recession and GDP fell and the burden of debt rose before plateauing and dropping during recovery. Classic boom and bust.
However, look what's happened since the turn of the millinium...
Not just a decade of very positive GDP growth but the more we're making, the more we borrow? Now, come on, what's that all about? You would only do this if you knew there would never be another recession. Even then, I would suggest you use the massive influx of money being generated by the country to remove our national debt.
Just look where we are now!!! Our debt in the last 10 years compared to our GDP has DOUBLED!
Please, if someone can explain why this is a good idea, I'm all ears. This has got to stop and yes, people are going to hurt because we are in a totally false economic situation. We have to rationalise what we have out there, cut it back to a manageable amount and then rebuild. Not keep constructing on an unsustainable platform and chucking more debt at the problem.
Completely agree skc. I worked for a company very much in the mortgage industry and people were falling over themselves to get into loads of debt. Like I say though, this is not a party issue, its what people themselves have done to the economy.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp...-borrowing.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by skc
The dramatic increase in borrowing coincided with the banking crisis. This was not a deliberate decision by the government to plunge the country into more and more debt for the hell of it; it was a response to was is considered by many to be the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.
Indeed, whatever government in power it was completely necessary to borrow a lot of money to get us out of the hole we (and the banks) had dug for ourselves. Then of course any government would have had to claw that back. The problem is when you hear "All Labours fault", when if the tories were in power they would have had to have done the same - no choice.
Yes, of course better regulation could have avoided this problem, but we've still seen downturns in countries which didn't indulge in the lending spree, you can't insulate yourself from global shocks as much as many would like to think
This has been a terrible financial period which is not the fault of Labour. Nobody but an idiot would suggest it was (Enter BM stage left :) )Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
The crisis was caused by poor regulation of the financial industry especially in the US. Stupid lending and criminal trading meant fund managers were fantastically rewarded for shifting worthless stock. Well, I say criminal trading but actually it was legal because people like Gordon Brown removed controls that were in place. Basically, he thought he was their chum and pandered to their self serving requirements.
Yes, we can blame the bankers for being greedy but isn't that a bit like blaming a fox for eating chickens. No you don't? You build a fence which, funnily enough, was actually in place until Farmer Brown lifted up the wire to let the fox in.