|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2012 10:22:11 GMT
Oh mcf, I could go into the details of the guff you've written but let's just point out that your self-confessed inability to understand how a country is run (perhaps it's like a business that is like a household, snigger ;D) doesn't prevent you from concluding that the previous government fucked it up (despite your own reports concluding otherwise) and that you have to ask how the current one is failing! It's like discussing things with Arsene Wenger, you see what you want and ignore the rest!
No doubt that your very lack of understanding doesn't really matter because it's plain to see for everyone! Surprised you never got onto CERN and told them where to find the Higgs Boson before now! You'd have saved them a fortune!
Re the very point of this thread - I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2012 10:23:00 GMT
I should like to point out on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, That although we are very nice people we have absolutely no idea how to run a country. That's LibDems and Tories then, if you include mcf and Osborne!
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 26, 2012 11:42:07 GMT
I should like to point out on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, That although we are very nice people we have absolutely no idea how to run a country. That's LibDems and Tories then, if you include mcf and Osborne! whoosh
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2012 8:12:55 GMT
mcf the analogy i use is that is ok to use your over draft and run up credit cards tolive the high life if you can afford the repayments etc however when you have that car crash, burst pipe, smashed window etc and you have no money left to pay for the repairs you are fucked. labour spent maney like it was going out of fashion, borrowed more, spent that. sold our gold, spent that. wanted new hospitals PFI'd that and when the car crash of the banking collapse happened we were not in a good enough position to ride through that is the bottom line, you can talk about deficits and historic borrowing of past governments but this shower of shit happened on Tony and Gordon's watch so they are culpable. They spent to appease the masses and win votes, they got into bed with the bankers and let almost encouraged them to do what they want. and the country fell for it All of which would make sense of course, if you are quite happy to ignore the fact that our services were in a woeful state after 18 years of neglect (which even the Tories admit!) and therefore needed money spent on them to bring them to anything approaching 21st century standards. (And even with that cash, our level of expenditure on health etc is nothing like what they spend on the continent - wonder why our health services are shit and theirs aren't?!) But even with all that "spending as if it was going out of fashion", the debt levels were nothing out of the ordinary and the public finances were in better shape than ten years previously. Fucking weird that isn't it, Al! But at the very least, I suppose you recognise the car crash of the financial collapse and the fact that Labour were just as much in bed with the bankers as the Tories, something mcf struggles with! Still, if you do take the position you do that it happened on their watch so they are culpable, I'm assuming the current shower of shit which is happening on Dangerzone Dave and Gideon's watch (for mcf's benefit ;D - ever deepening double dip recession, no growth, borrowing more than planned) is entirely the fault of the people you personally voted in! After all they changed the direction as soon as they got in, so it's all down to them, no? Simplistic, I know, but that's generally the way you approach it, mate! But I suppose if you do need to look at the previous govt's actions in order to excuse the uselessness of the current one, that does, presumably, mean you need to take into account the neglect of public services by the previous Tory administrations hence the need to spend taxpayers' money on improving them by Labour? Or shall we just ignore that attempt at even-handedness and assume that they just threw money around entirely wastefully!?
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 27, 2012 8:35:19 GMT
mcf the analogy i use is that is ok to use your over draft and run up credit cards tolive the high life if you can afford the repayments etc however when you have that car crash, burst pipe, smashed window etc and you have no money left to pay for the repairs you are fucked. labour spent maney like it was going out of fashion, borrowed more, spent that. sold our gold, spent that. wanted new hospitals PFI'd that and when the car crash of the banking collapse happened we were not in a good enough position to ride through that is the bottom line, you can talk about deficits and historic borrowing of past governments but this shower of shit happened on Tony and Gordon's watch so they are culpable. They spent to appease the masses and win votes, they got into bed with the bankers and let almost encouraged them to do what they want. and the country fell for it All of which would make sense of course, if you are quite happy to ignore the fact that our services were in a woeful state after 18 years of neglect (which even the Tories admit!) and therefore needed money spent on them to bring them to anything approaching 21st century standards. (And even with that cash, our level of expenditure on health etc is nothing like what they spend on the continent - wonder why our health services are shit and theirs aren't?!) But even with all that "spending as if it was going out of fashion", the debt levels were nothing out of the ordinary and the public finances were in better shape than ten years previously. Fucking weird that isn't it, Al! But at the very least, I suppose you recognise the car crash of the financial collapse and the fact that Labour were just as much in bed with the bankers as the Tories, something mcf struggles with! Still, if you do take the position you do that it happened on their watch so they are culpable, I'm assuming the current shower of shit which is happening on Dangerzone Dave and Gideon's watch (for mcf's benefit ;D - ever deepening double dip recession, no growth, borrowing more than planned) is entirely the fault of the people you personally voted in! After all they changed the direction as soon as they got in, so it's all down to them, no? Simplistic, I know, but that's generally the way you approach it, mate!But I suppose if you do need to look at the previous govt's actions in order to excuse the uselessness of the current one, that does, presumably, mean you need to take into account the neglect of public services by the previous Tory administrations hence the need to spend taxpayers' money on improving them by Labour? Or shall we just ignore that attempt at even-handedness and assume that they just threw money around entirely wastefully!? now i know you are talking rubbish, most things happening now are a direct result of the previous govt and the tories were not in bed with the bankers from 97-10. Labour had a chance to change it but never.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2012 10:29:14 GMT
Interesting, Al. We had 1.1% growth when the Tories came in.
It's now -0.7%. That's the previous government's fault is it?! Nothing to do with the speed and depth of the cuts at all ;D.
And given that 18 years' of neglect resulted in public services which needed improving (so said the Tories themselves!), the fact that this is where most spending went in the period 1997-2007-08, is, by way of amusing contrast in your 'analysis', just throwing money away and nothing to do with the previous administrations' policies on public services! ;D
I think, like mcf, you don't really get this in anything approaching its entirety, Al.
Perhaps like mcf thinks, we should reduce debt to zero before spending any money at all! Strange then that the UK has had a public net debt since all the way back to 1692 which was as far back as ukpublicspending goes! And yet quality of life has consistently improved, we've introduced an NHS, welfare systems, compulsory schooling etc all on the public purse and we've never gone bankrupt. Weird, eh!
Could it possibly be that the manageability of the debt is what matters? And that pre 2007-08 it was nothing out of the ordinary, hence the matched spending plans of both Labour and Tory?
|
|