|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 9, 2012 13:38:00 GMT
Oh please that old chestnut, get over yourself it's quite clearly a joke response to you asking for some more tit / bollocks analysis, get a sense of humour  Ah, the old "I was only joking" get out clause. Nicely played ;D Luke if I'd wanted to abuse you, I think your infantile responses for the last page or so would have provided the opportunity. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 9, 2012 13:41:59 GMT
I'm quite happy with those graphs, thanks. Why not dazzle us with some more statistical brilliance instead ;D Or bamboozle us with some quality sentence construction while accusing others of struggling with english ;D If it was just 'some guy's opinion', you'll have to ask RMB72 why he chose to post the IFS report (to quote you: "fools post the reports of others" - he's having a go at you now RMB72  ) . Which, ironically, is just your opinion. Actually I don't recall RMB72 having the need to post a link to a report everytime he expresses an opinion or going around passing judgment on other peoples opinion like he was the headmaster. So I'm sure you fully understand it was aimed solely at you  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 15:01:06 GMT
Ah, the old "I was only joking" get out clause. Nicely played ;D Luke if I'd wanted to abuse you, I think your infantile responses for the last page or so would have provided the opportunity. I'm sorry. I just can't take you seriously any more ;D It's just that when you spent several posts not so long ago saying how much you didn't like me (don't worry, I'm not upset, before you launch into a "poor old Lukey" routine one more time  ) and that that made your abuse ok, I naturally assumed you'd reverted back to type. But if you say it was a joke, then a joke it was. My bad. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 15:05:31 GMT
I'm quite happy with those graphs, thanks. Why not dazzle us with some more statistical brilliance instead ;D Or bamboozle us with some quality sentence construction while accusing others of struggling with english ;D If it was just 'some guy's opinion', you'll have to ask RMB72 why he chose to post the IFS report (to quote you: "fools post the reports of others" - he's having a go at you now RMB72 ) . Which, ironically, is just your opinion. Actually I don't recall RMB72 having the need to post a link to a report everytime he expresses an opinion or going around passing judgment on other peoples opinion like he was the headmaster. So I'm sure you fully understand it was aimed solely at you Ah, a selective application when it suits eh? I've no doubt you don't recall it was RMB72 who posted that IFS report originally. Which goes a long, long way to explaining your approach to political analysis ;D |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 9, 2012 16:41:19 GMT
Actually I don't recall RMB72 having the need to post a link to a report everytime he expresses an opinion or going around passing judgment on other peoples opinion like he was the headmaster. So I'm sure you fully understand it was aimed solely at you Ah, a selective application when it suits eh? I've no doubt you don't recall it was RMB72 who posted that IFS report originally. Which goes a long, long way to explaining your approach to political analysis ;D A selective application now that is funny from you, considering from the start you excluded the effects of borrowing and impact of the recession on the 2008 numbers onwards yet you don't seem so keen on making any adjustment for the recession under the Major government. I'm fully aware who posted the IFS report but there was only 1 person who quoted constantly that the IFS report says public services improved by x% over the life of the last labour government until it was pointed out that this was actually just what some bloke thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 19:43:09 GMT
Actually I don't recall RMB72 having the need to post a link to a report everytime he expresses an opinion or going around passing judgment on other peoples opinion like he was the headmaster. So I'm sure you fully understand it was aimed solely at you Ah, a selective application when it suits eh? I've no doubt you don't recall it was RMB72 who posted that IFS report originally. Which goes a long, long way to explaining your approach to political analysis ;D Yep the IFS report The shock that spending more improves things- That only Labour can look after the public sector And the word inefficiency doesnt matter to you does it Sif. I just hope you've got a financial adviser to help you....The likes of Sqaureball, Fyd and so on have got you sussed mate...And Mr Arnold from Nottingham |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 20:04:34 GMT
A selective application now that is funny from you, considering from the start you excluded the effects of borrowing and impact of the recession on the 2008 numbers onwards yet you don't seem so keen on making any adjustment for the recession under the Major government. I'm fully aware who posted the IFS report but there was only 1 person who quoted constantly that the IFS report says public services improved by x% over the life of the last labour government until it was pointed out that this was actually just what some bloke thought. You twist and turn and squirm, it's funny to watch. You're almost George W Bush-like in your inability to acknowledge anything you've said or written previously as having any impact on what you say or write now ;D. So people who "post reports are fools" but not RMB72 who posted the report originally? ;D I couldn't make this stuff up, it'd be too risible! I particularly like the aspect of you (some bloke) refusing to consider a report because it was simply what "some bloke thought". I wonder if you can see the amusement in that! If not, stick to statistical analyses - they seem a speciality |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 20:11:46 GMT
Yep the IFS report The shock that spending more improves things- That only Labour can look after the public sector And the word inefficiency doesnt matter to you does it Sif. I just hope you've got a financial adviser to help you....The likes of Sqaureball, Fyd and so on have got you sussed mate...And Mr Arnold from Nottingham Followyoudown's got you sussed mate, he think's you're a fool because, and I quote: " fools post the reports of others". It's a bit higher up if you want to check his posts. Which is precisely what you did with that IFS report which so vexes him! No doubt FYD will consider it perfectly reasonable that you posted a report with which to criticise the government, whereas if I use the same report which I didn't post (still following?) that makes me a fool ;D. Let's hazard a guess at the interpretation of it which makes you not a fool and me a fool, which will neatly ignore the fact that he thinks that report is nothing more than "some bloke's thoughts". Although given his recent history of posts, who knows what kind of bollocks analogy he might descend to! Count yourself lucky, RMB72, he could have called you a tool. As a joke, obviously. ;D But of course, he doesn't mean you, how could he? He doesn't apply his judgments differently to different people when it suits does he?! ;D It's like shooting fish in a barrel this. Gets funnier with every post! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 20:28:28 GMT
Yep the IFS report The shock that spending more improves things- That only Labour can look after the public sector And the word inefficiency doesnt matter to you does it Sif. I just hope you've got a financial adviser to help you....The likes of Sqaureball, Fyd and so on have got you sussed mate...And Mr Arnold from Nottingham Followyoudown's got you sussed mate, he think's you're a fool because, and I quote: " fools post the reports of others". Which is precisely what you did! But of course, he doesn't mean you, how could he? He doesn't apply his judgments differently to different people when it suits does he?! ;D This gets funnier with every post! What are you going on about? You're going mad Sif I can see Mrs Sif shaking her head now as you jump on here. Let it go Sif, it's Friday night We can carry sussing you out on Monday mate |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 20:33:05 GMT
It would help if you were able to follow the thread, RMB72. Have a good weekend, mate. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 21:00:31 GMT
It would help if you were able to follow the thread, RMB72. Have a good weekend, mate. 'It would help if you were able to follow the thread, RMB72' Come on Sif, you're not dealing with 'Tubes' here ...If you want mess with the big boys- mumf will be on later If I wanted I could give you all the government spending and on what over the last 30 years not some cack of google.....Very interesting reading. Look after Mrs Sif will you and Stoke losing 2-0 and a certain player scoring for Chelsea, it will happen...So predictable as Labour are with the economy |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 21:02:57 GMT
Jesus, don't post any reports for fuck's sake! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 10, 2012 11:53:54 GMT
Followyoudown's got you sussed mate, he think's you're a fool because, and I quote: " fools post the reports of others". Which is precisely what you did! But of course, he doesn't mean you, how could he? He doesn't apply his judgments differently to different people when it suits does he?! ;D This gets funnier with every post! What are you going on about? You're going mad Sif I can see Mrs Sif shaking her head now as you jump on here. Let it go Sif, it's Friday night We can carry sussing you out on Monday mate There's a Mrs Sif, that has genuinely shocked me - are you sure it's not a Luke sorry Lars and the real girl job ? For her sake hope he doesn't get the wrong end as often as he does on here. Must be a laugh a 'kin minute for her though Mrs Sif “just off down the sales love" Sif “Do you have any independently sourced data to prove the sales price are lower ? What do you mean No ? You must have some graphs surely ?”. The rest of little lukeys piffle can wait till sunday. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2012 12:07:15 GMT
;D
Tragic, FYD, tragic! A man falling apart before our very eyes! Was that the best you could do? ;D
Edit: Mrs Sif asked me to pass on her gratitude for your concern. To be fair, she has a point. Only yesterday she asked "Are you still laughing at that bloke on the bloody Oatcake?" And I had to confess I was and log off sharpish.
But never mind, rescue might be in sight for you. I've taken the liberty of emailing your statistical insight to Conservative Central Office, so you never know they may agree with you about your demonstration that we've all got one breast and one bollock and deem it a worthy and rational piece of analysis.
I'll let you know what they come back with! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick1984 on Mar 10, 2012 13:50:04 GMT
The only country where the right are dumber than the left is America.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldgit57 on Mar 10, 2012 19:27:41 GMT
The only country where the right are dumber than the left is America. Am guessing that right wing luminaries and well known Europeans like Adolf Hitler count for nowt then! ??? |
|
|
|
Post by Nick1984 on Mar 11, 2012 9:55:12 GMT
Er, it's not the 1930s anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonah77 on Mar 11, 2012 14:50:05 GMT
The only country where the right are dumber than the left is America. Am guessing that right wing luminaries and well known Europeans like Adolf Hitler count for nowt then! ??? he was an insane,genocidal maniac,not stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 11, 2012 16:34:02 GMT
A selective application now that is funny from you, considering from the start you excluded the effects of borrowing and impact of the recession on the 2008 numbers onwards yet you don't seem so keen on making any adjustment for the recession under the Major government. I'm fully aware who posted the IFS report but there was only 1 person who quoted constantly that the IFS report says public services improved by x% over the life of the last labour government until it was pointed out that this was actually just what some bloke thought. You twist and turn and squirm, it's funny to watch. You're almost George W Bush-like in your inability to acknowledge anything you've said or written previously as having any impact on what you say or write now ;D. So people who "post reports are fools" but not RMB72 who posted the report originally? ;D I couldn't make this stuff up, it'd be too risible! I particularly like the aspect of you (some bloke) refusing to consider a report because it was simply what "some bloke thought". I wonder if you can see the amusement in that! If not, stick to statistical analyses - they seem a speciality Your problem is Luke that you seem to want to see yourself as some sort of sage or voice of reason, when in reality you're just as blinkered as anyone else. "He's fucked up bigtime there! I can just imagine the shit I'd be getting from you lot if I'd posted something as daft as that by way of 'analysis'!" It's good to know from quotes like the above how much it gets to you though ;D You seem to believe putting "Prove Labour were ace" into google and then posting some report, graphs or figures actually makes your opinion somehow more valid and then demand anyone who disagrees with you does the same, this in itself is both breathtakingly arrogant and stupid because even if you ignore the fact that the majority of politics debate is in reality purely about opinions and hindsight, you can find anything on the internet if you look. I even have a quote from Abraham Lincoln that says 98% of the facts on the internet are made up which considering he died in 1865 would make him quite the psychic (Before we get you spending pages trying to ridicule something that you think I said again - I'm fully aware this is a made up quote ) When it comes to it and you are pulled up on inconsistencies, you do as you have done here and take the debate down some spurious infantile irrelevant route whilst of course failing to acknowledge what you've written before (it was RMB72 report despite you previously quoting (see below) it as gospel) "According to the IFS, Labour's spending resulted in a one third increase in quality of public services" "That report, if you can be bothered to read it, said that public services improved in quality and quantity from 1997 to 2007" The above are just two samples of your quotes on the famous IFS report, I particularly like the way you admonish someone for not reading the report, when clearly you yourself didn't because if you follow it back to the ONS report you actually find this quote "Measuring public service output presents special difficulties, particularly in taking adequate account of quality change. The methods are still being developed, so the estimates here are experimental statistics. For healthcare and education services, which account for half of all spending on public services, the estimates include an adjustment for quality (which had not been developed for the previous publication (Pritchard, 2003)). It has not yet been possible to develop satisfactory quality measures for the smaller spending areas." Then we come to this thread which includes the luke economics lesson that wasting £240 billion over 30 years doesn't really matter  You can see why he's decreed absolute figures meaningless he makes such a cock of himself when he uses them ;D Which brings us nicely to the last couple of pages where Little Lukey rather than dealing with the meaningless of the graphs he's been posting for several pages (debt as a % of GDP) prefers to continue to lower his own personal worst as each post gets more cringeworthy whilst still convincing himself he's right Jesus even Charlie Sheen doesn't believe you're winning ;D Of course thank god little Lukey wasn't the person a few months ago decrying the lack of proper political debate on the oatcake, I mean if you looked at the last few pages of his contribution that would make him look a bit of an hypocritical idiot ;D Of course all these points will be ignored in any glib infested response from Beavisifuluke you said tit and bollock heh heh ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2012 21:59:41 GMT
Wow and you are of the opinion that it "gets through to me" ;D, the irony! But since you've taken the effort to post all that, the least I can do is try to disabuse you of your misconceptions one by one, (before I resort to piss-taking and glibness again ;D). Your judgment is that I want to appear as a sage or voice of reason and your judgment is that I am just as blinkered as anyone else. The former is not my intention. Your assessment of the latter I can do nothing about. Whether you accept either of those statements or not is, I suspect, most probably influenced solely by the fact that, as you have openly admitted previously, you are biased towards the Tory Party and, as such, presumably find anyone not so disposed at present to be irksome, especially if they don't simply go away when challenged or treated to your previous usual abuse. Of course, that's my judgment as well, but based on your openly conceded bias towards the Tories. "He's fucked up bigtime there! I can just imagine the shit I'd be getting from you lot if I'd posted something as daft as that by way of 'analysis'!"Given the fact that some of the rightleaning posters on here made a big issue out of the fact that I'd said 230bn over 30 years equalled 8bn, when I'd even said approximately 8bn in a previous post ;D, I think it's entirely fair comment to point out the deafening silence from same rightwingers when you demonstrate a bizarre grasp of statistical analysis with some guff about tits and bollocks! Again, your judgment is that it "gets to me" which I can again do nothing about but, in reality, I've been doing little other than laughing for the last few pages of this thread, hence the glibness and pisstaking! You're right - you can find anything on the internet if you look. But even you must be prepared to accept (at least I thought so but now not so sure) that some of it is complete shite, like your Lincoln example, some of it may be questionable and some may be pretty reliable. The reliable stuff is likely to be from reputable sources like the NAO, IFS, IMF, Hansard etc etc. The joke stuff is likely to be from clowns like Mr A Arnold from Nottingham. I genuinely can't believe I need to explain this to you: anyone who tries to debate a point is well advised to try to back up their point with reliable information from trusted and reputable sources. To say, and I quote you directly: "The wise understand by themselves; fools post the reports of others" is, I'm afraid, much more symptomatic of breathtaking arrogance and stupidity - do you honestly not see that? ??? The IFS report - this could take a while and be longer than a Ted1965 post ;D. First - I didn't post that report originally, it was RMB72, which according to your approach to debate, makes him a fool to start with. He may well be a fool when he turns for evidence to the rants of some rightwing activist with too much time on his hands and a blog to fill, but the choice of a reputable thinktank's report is fair enough. Second - he used it as a stick to criticise the previous government with. As you did too. I pointed out that there were several headlines in the same report which pointed out the improvements which Labour's spending had brought about. I don't recall saying it was "gospel" as you would prefer to believe, I do remember finding it amusing that the posting of a report as a means of criticism should backfire so spectacularly and contain several positive headline outcomes. Third - after a while you decided that it was subjective bollocks and have presumably chosen the highlighted quotes in your post above as a demonstration of this. I accept that the conclusions that the report pulls out may be based on new methods of measuring quality change. Perhaps in the future a further analysis of Labour's spending will emerge which will show more clearly the effect, positive or otherwise that this had on public services. So, in terms of inconsistencies, where I have been quoting from that report the positive headlines, I wasn't using it in the first instance as a tool to criticise the effectiveness of the spending, then changing tack and deciding it was subjective bollocks when it suited. "Then we come to this thread which includes the luke economics lesson that wasting £240 billion over 30 years doesn't really matter You can see why he's decreed absolute figures meaningless he makes such a cock of himself when he uses them" The above is a neat demonstration of two things. First, a somewhat lame (and frankly wrong) effort at putting words into my mouth. As you perhaps misunderstood at the time, the point was that spending 240bn over 30 years (1.38% of planned spending over that time period) is less impactful than spending 123bn in one year (21% extra unplanned spending) ie a comparision of the effect of PFI with the banking bailout. At no point did I say wasting that amount was ok. The reason, as you hopefully understand, that absolute figures are meaningless is simple. Things get more expensive. So we spend more now in absolute terms than we did 10, 20, 30 years ago. Again, I can't quite believe I'm having to explain this, but any economist will tell you that measuring items in %GDP terms is a standard way of assessing their manageability. That's why you see graphics in newspapers, reports and tv analyses quoted in such terms. Second, the descent to casual abuse and name-calling which appears to be second nature it drops so readily into your posts. Again, feel free to imagine it getting to me if you will, but I find it a bit sad and unnecessary more than anything and I'm guessing most people reading this would find it indicative more of irritation on your part than any impact on me I have to say I'm not sure why discussing the ability of a country to pay back its debt by comparing what a country owes to what it produces ie its debt-to-GDP ratio for various governments over the last 30 years is "meaningless" but there you go! Is it because, as you've said, you consider posting any reports or data is for fools? Is that what you mean by meaningless? No idea what you're on about with Charlie Sheen, is this another bizarre statistical brainstorm? If so, please don't, my sides still ache (glib ;D). Proper political debate? Would that involve having to back points up with reports, data or evidence of any kind? If so, how are we going to do that given your stance on them? Should we simply make statements and expect others to accept them at face value? Then if they question them or challenge them, we're a bit fucked aren't we? We could always just resort to abuse. Or maybe question whether our challenger has a proper grasp of english while struggling to create coherent sentences then bang on about hypocrisy and the lack of sensible debate ;D. So there you go, I dealt with all your points I think. And yes, I'm still chuckling away at your statistical freakshow! I suspect I'll never be able to take you seriously again. I may well be infantile in finding that so amusing, true enough, but I don't think I'd be quite so quick to use that term if I'd come up with the tit and bollock scenario you had. Glass houses and all that ;D. |
|
|
|
Post by skelman on Mar 11, 2012 22:11:40 GMT
Wonder whether it's Jermaine or Matty that calls 'to switch' during the game .......... ?  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2012 22:13:29 GMT
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by oldgit57 on Mar 11, 2012 22:42:27 GMT
Er, it's not the 1930s anymore. Ok point taken, Nick Griffin more intelligent than who then?? |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 12, 2012 11:26:17 GMT
You've said in the past that your opinions come basically from what your dad's told you and what you read in the Daily Mail. Is it any surprise, in all honesty, that this is your approach to reasoned analysis?
Rubbish
My father has had an impact on my opinion like many a parent but I don't follow is every one - if I did I would be a PHW.
I don't get my opinion from the Daily Mail - it just so happens that I relate to many of their articles.
As for Major, I said I thought he handed over a surplus - which I corrected - by saying that he handed over a decreasing deficit - which I personally think it pretty damn good. Must have been pretty good as well if Labour were able to take it to a surplus since it was the only time the fucking cretins had a surplus. Certainly wasn't a surplus PRIOR to the crash was it?
I'm not too fussed about what has happened post the crash Luke - where did I say I was? My main argument around it is the lefties that cry and wail about the smallest of cuts after a Labour government has wanked all the money away. Essentially, blame the cunts that caused the mess...13 years..13 fucking years...not the ones that are left to deal with it.
I'm alright though as I listened to Thatcher.
|
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 12, 2012 18:14:32 GMT
Where to begin I feel bad you spent so much of your sunday evening on your reply, quite detailed for someone who doesn’t take me seriously ;D I wouldn't normally continue past the opening salvo of “I’m not biased” ;D when in your worst of the last 25 years selection you choose to exclude the financial crisis that occurred under Labour which was largely caused by dodgy US lending practices then proceed to ignore any effects of the early 1990’s recession largely caused by errr dodgy US lending practices (The US Savings and Loan crisis) – seems perfectly fair and well balanced to me but as you dedicated so much of your sunday evening to replying ;D, I should reply a bit more so you have something to do this evening ;D By the way if I look again at your graphs and say it shows that the Major government due to better control of the public finances and better control / regulation of the banks were better able to ride out a US driven dodgy loans crisis than the Labour government - I presume you’d wholeheartedly agree? ;D Busy day today so forgive me if I don't deal with all your points, some of them are frankly too banal (Hope I can say that without it being classed as abuse ;D). Any “shit” (I presume describing other peoples posts as “shit” isn’t abuse if you post it ?) you got over the £240 billion was more to do with the oh well whats £240 billion really if it’s only £8 billion a year over 30 years rather than in one go attitude. As to why no-one has jumped to your defence and given me some “shit” - you'd have to ask them but I would think it’s because they actually get the point which is you can use percentages (statistics) to prove or disprove anything if you really want to. Not sure why you find this so hard to comprehend or why you think the “tit and bollock scenario” so funny or why you think it was a “statistical brainstorm” – are you actually suggesting I think that people are walking around like this or something ? But hey keep on with it champ ;D if it's making you laugh ;D I made a couple of grammar mistakes guffaw guffaw, mildly embarassing compared to chastising people for not reading a report you yourself didn’t read or maybe you just didn't understand it ??? Absolute figures are meaningless “because things get more expensive we spend more than we did 10,20,30 years ago” . You’ve not really been very clear on why things get more expensive – are you talking price, quantity or both – I would hope you meant both ? How about the reasons for these changes – growth in population, the odd war, recession or Labour government ;D. Just so I'm clear absolute figures are meaningless because of these factors but percentages based on two absolute figures (Debt and GDP) for each year are ok because these factors occur every year on the same day at the same time and have the same effect ;D Anyway hopefully there's some typo's, bad grammar or "abuse" you can focus on so you can duck any of the real points - got to go I'll be off the meter in 5 minutes - don't stay up too late replying ;D I have another busy day tomorrow ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2012 18:33:08 GMT
"I don't get my opinions from the Daily Mail - it just so happens I relate to many of their articles". Well, that sounds like an endorsement to me?!
"As for Major, I said I thought he handed over a surplus - which I corrected - by saying that he handed over a decreasing deficit - which I personally think it pretty damn good. Must have been pretty good as well if Labour were able to take it to a surplus since it was the only time the fucking cretins had a surplus. Certainly wasn't a surplus PRIOR to the crash was it?"
If you seriously can't see how the para above demonstrates your lack of understanding when considering Major's govt and the following Labour one, I despair! First you were labouring under the falsehood that Major handed over a surplus which he didn't. You now accept this was wrong but apparently you have no problem with the increase in the deficit under Major because it was going down by the time he got kicked out. In fact it's "pretty damn good" that he increased it then reduced it to almost ten times the level it was when he took office! Yet this is apparently a "brilliant set of cards to hand over". Genius, mcf, genius. Finally, no, it wasn't a surplus pre financial crash, nor was it pre Labour taking over, yet one is apparently evidence of "13 years of fucking useless cunts wanking all the money away" and the other is "pretty damn good."
You bang on about 13 years of fucking uselessness, yet earlier you said: "Labour increased the deficit when the economy wasn't in freefall" - if it wasn't in freefall until the banking crisis, how does this equate to 13 years of fucking uselessness? Secondly, pre-crash, the largest deficit under Labour was always smaller than the two largest deficit years under Major (check the graph if you can't believe it). And you "can't believe he got voted out". I'm not surprised given your assessment of his performance appears to be based on something completely different to those widely available facts!
One of your main problems with the previous govt is that they "wanked all the money away". You would have preferred it presumably, but correct me if I'm wrong, for them to have put lots more money aside in case of the kind of crash which eventually happened. I don't have a problem with this - it might have meant we were stuck for even longer with our Victorian hospital stock etc - but it's a valid argument.
So answer me this: if the previous govt should have put money aside for a crash no-one foresaw, why did the Tory administration of Thatcher operate with similar (and sometimes larger) public debts and a consistent deficit during the boom years of the 80s when they were coining it in? Shouldn't they have put money aside for the recession of the early 90s? That way Major's deficit and public debt wouldn't have been so enormous and the first six years of the subsequent Labour administration wouldn't have been spent paying off interest on Major's debt and reducing it to more manageable levels. Please answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2012 19:02:06 GMT
Well, you said you wanted me to deal with your points, FYD, and not be 'glib', so deal with them I did. Don't feel bad, it didn't take that long, about 15 mins in total - they weren't hard to deal with ;D. I appreciate the concern though I suspect you've fallen into the old habit of judging me by your own standards. So, while it might be a strain and a lengthy process for you to stick a series of coherent sentences down, it isn't for me. I actually enjoy the anticipation of the amusement generated by your upcoming bizarre pieces of analysis. "I wouldn't normally continue past the opening salvo of “I’m not biased” when in your worst of the last 25 years selection you choose to exclude the financial crisis that occurred under Labour which was largely caused by dodgy US lending practices then proceed to ignore any effects of the early 1990’s recession largely caused by errr dodgy US lending practices (The US Savings and Loan crisis) – seems perfectly fair and well balanced to me but as you dedicated so much of your sunday evening to replying , I should reply a bit more so you have something to do this evening". Perfectly fair enough approach, FYD. ;D Let's remove both the effect of the recent financial crisis and the one you cite earlier that affected Major. Oh look, an economy not in freefall pre 2008! Perhaps this is why your friend Mr Osborne was merrily making plans to match Labour spending to 2011? "By the way if I look again at your graphs and say it shows that the Major government due to better control of the public finances and better control / regulation of the banks were better able to ride out a US driven dodgy loans crisis than the Labour government - I presume you’d wholeheartedly agree?" How does having a massive public net debt and a deficit ten times the size of the one he inherited show this ;D "Any “shit” (I presume describing other peoples posts as “shit” isn’t abuse if you post it ?) you got over the £240 billion was more to do with the oh well whats £240 billion really if it’s only £8 billion a year over 30 years rather than in one go attitude.
As to why no-one has jumped to your defence and given me some “shit” - you'd have to ask them but I would think it’s because they actually get the point which is you can use percentages (statistics) to prove or disprove anything if you really want to."Hmmm! Possibly, but much more likely to be the fact that they are unwilling to criticise a fellow rightwinger! Which I'm sure you see well enough! I reckon RMB72 in particular would be loving it if I'd said what you did about you being able to demonstrate we've all got one tit and one bollock! So, much like RMB72, I will keep chuckling away at it, thanks! It wasn't the fact that you couldn't string a coherent sentence together that I found hilarious, it was you asking others if english was their first language! "Absolute figures are meaningless “because things get more expensive we spend more than we did 10,20,30 years ago” . You’ve not really been very clear on why things get more expensive – are you talking price, quantity or both – I would hope you meant both ?
How about the reasons for these changes – growth in population, the odd war, recession or Labour government .
Just so I'm clear absolute figures are meaningless because of these factors but percentages based on two absolute figures (Debt and GDP) for each year are ok because these factors occur every year on the same day at the same time and have the same effect"Sorry but it's not clear what you're on about once again I'm afraid ;D There, think I've dealt with all your points again, as requested. A whole 7 minutes ;D (I thought about speeding it up by ducking a few of the more "banal" points, but then I thought why lower myself to the same standards!) |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 13, 2012 10:08:00 GMT
I wasn't labouring under any falsehood - I knew it was an improving picture. Which it was.
Major handed over a reducing deficit. It only looked bad compared to the surplus that Maggie had got us to, and looks a brilliant set of cards when compared to the shower of shit that Labour left the coaltion with - it's all relative.
Even Labour sources know they fucked up in building up debt during relatively good global economic conditions.
Thatcher did start saving money didn't she? Wasn't it a surplus she handed over? I agree that she could possibly have saved even more though - I always thought she was far kinder than the lefties would have you believe.
I'm not sure how much of Labour's early success was meant - it can take a while to change the momentum of the previous occupants. I give Labour the benefit of the doubt though - even though their record after probably tells me I'm wrong to do so.
Even Labour sources admit they fucked up - you will find one of them quoting it in an article on this thread.
You also admit to it being valid argument that Labour shouldn't have spent the money they did. Like the Labour source says, comparing it to Major's finances rather misses the point - on the basis they had 13 years.
I'd also add they didn't go through a global recession until their death....and that they happily went along with building debt.
Like I say, you even admit now so I have no idea why you carry on with your bollocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 18:25:22 GMT
To be accurate, you were actually labouring under the falsehood that Major handed over a surplus. You said this on a number of occasions in various threads. You were wrong. Simple as that.
The reason I carry on with my "bollocks" as you put it ;D is to try to get posters such as yourself to accept that saying things like "the useless fuckers fucked things up for 13 years" is a bit daft, simplistic and not a reflection of the available information.
Even RMB72 posted recently "Who do we blame here? The individual, the government or the banks.......I blame all 3 meself" which I think is a much more even-handed analysis than anything you have come up with. But I'd stick a fair bit of cash on someone from the right using a phrase not too dissimilar to the one in my second paragraph above within the next few political threads simply because it's so much easier than actually considering the reality of the figures.
And, as you have accepted, for the first 10 years of the Labour administration the economy wasn't in freefall so how can it have been 13 years of ineptitude?
Thatcher did hand over a small surplus, in late contrast to 9 years of deficit during the boomtimes of the 80s! And then Major ran up the largest deficit seen from 1979 to 2008, until the financial crash and the most unmanageable debt until the financial crash, so I'm guessing he either didn't know what he was doing or there wasn't much money put aside to help out when times got hard. Which makes it a bit odd that you don't feel it necessary to criticise the Thatcher administration for not providing for the harsh realities of the recession that Major had to endure when that is your central argument for the uselessness of the Labour government!
That is not a brilliant set of cards unless you discount the impact of the recession on his government. But then to be evenhanded don't you have to discount the impact of the financial crash on the last government's finances too? If you do, the deficit isn't quite as bad is it? Still a deficit yes, and yes they could have put money aside for a rainy day few predicted and we could still have falling down hospitals and schools etc.
Ask yourself why Major ranks consistently so lowly amongst political analysts!
|
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 13, 2012 18:51:24 GMT
How does having a massive public net debt and a deficit ten times the size of the one he inherited show this
Tut tut Lukey making numbers up again or maybe too much time on UK government spending is making you go blind ;D
Which I'm sure you see well enough! I reckon RMB72 in particular would be loving it if I'd said what you did about you being able to demonstrate we've all got one tit and one bollock! So, much like RMB72, I will keep chuckling away at it, thanks!
Tut tut Lukey making quotes up now, In retort to your absolute numbers are meaningless, I pointed how percentages weren't necessarily any more reliable and used the example of percentages to prove.... Keep chuckling away champ ;D as you're the only person laughing, everyone else understood the point.
Of course I do like the idea that you have any sort of idea about statistics when you come out with the pearler
"Absolute numbers are meaningless"
Fair enough if that's you view but a little odd if you then believe somehow a percentage that expresses one meaningless absolute number as a percentage of another meaningless absolute number gives you the ability to read exactly how a government manages the economy ;D Consistently inconsistent hey Lukey ;D
You really couldn't and wouldn't make it up ;D Unlike most of your quotes and figures you seem to have starting using recently ;D
Friday evening, Sunday evening all this time spent replying to someone you don't take seriously - what do you do to those people you do take seriously stalk them, send them graphs through the post ;D
No rush replying- another busy day tomorrow for me ;D
|
|
) . 
) and that that made your abuse ok, I naturally assumed you'd reverted back to type.
You can see why he's decreed absolute figures meaningless he makes such a cock of himself when he uses them ;D
