|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 29, 2012 17:01:26 GMT
Firstly congratulations on avoiding a Lukedit two hours or so later as usual ;D
other people's problems with english
Other people - actually you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) are mainly if not almost entirely exclusively the only person I have this type of conversation with - unless of course in best lukey style deliberate misinterpretation ;D you're(that's you luke not the entire messageboard) admitting you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) have more than one log on for this messageboard ;D
I shouldn't let myself get drawn in to it but to be honest I'm not too fussed that I make a few typo's compared to yourself (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) who regularly goes back and edit's messages several hours later, nevermind posting at all hours responding to someone you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) claim not to take seriously ;D
I see yet again you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) have danced around the question of why you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) think a response to a post of yours (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) starting with"You truly do prove the quote that "The wise understand by themselves; fools follow post the reports of others"" is aimed at anyone but you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) - it's ok if you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) don't understand the word you, just say so it's no biggie as I'm sure Mrs Sif says to you regularly ;D
I can understand why you're (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) persisting with this imbecilic ( ;D that's definitely you luke not the entire messageboard) interpretation of what you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) think I said because you've (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) spent so long misquoting it / trying to take the piss you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) really would look incredibly silly if you backed down at all ;D
"that, that" got a stutter there champ ;D
I never said it was 'an explicit measure' which you ascribed to me
You didn't say those words true, but equally when you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) post stuff like:
He handed over a public net debt which was higher than it had been for some time and a deficit. If the set of cards was so brilliant, why did we have to pay off such a huge debt for the first five or six years of the new Labour administration?
It seems your claims are a bit more than saying the graphs were directional / indicative (by the way check my post on the 19th March I did ask you then if it was the word meaningless you were crying over and said pretty much the same thing as I did on the answer you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) have so graciously accepted know 10 days later, great reasoning power champ ;D. Although for it to be indicative it would actually need to have happened which as you admitted rarely if ever happens with government debt ;D
Of course it does make you wonder why you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) kept asking why I didn't understand or wouldn't understand the graphs which coming from someone who was claiming they showed Labour making a non existent pay off of debt is pretty fucking priceless ;D
I think therein lies the truth of why you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) went down this incredibly banal route you choose, you really didn't understand what you're posting so you take it down some blind alley and hope everyone forgets your misunderstanding ;D
"your own personal opinion"
Nothing weird just pointing out to you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) that you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) posted three words ("your", "own", "personal") that indicate the opinion is yours (that's you luke not the entire messageboard), I think two would have been enough at most and lets be honest champ it's pretty clear what are your opinions (bailing out the banks damaged the economy indeed ;D) and what are other sensible sorry I mean other peoples ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2012 18:25:33 GMT
Fuck me, I think you've finally gone nuts, old fruit Re the "mangled english", I can distinctly recall you having a very similar go at Potterlog's english, to name just one. I'll bet there are others on this thread or other ones. You've probably conveniently forgotten this as it does make it rather embarrassing . You're sounding a bit mad with all this "Luke, that's you not the entire messageboard" on repeat ad infinitum. It's almost as if you think that goes any distance to explaining away a silly made up quote which even you might acknowledge (after seven or eight times of asking ;D) applies equally to everybody. In much the same way that any 'saying' does. Or will we need several posts before you finally acknowledge the accuracy of this too ;D? I enjoy posting replies to you, I've said that regularly. Whether or not I take you seriously is irrelevant! It is difficult though when you spend several posts desperately undermining the use of a routine measurement of debt and deficit then basically, finally, acknowledging what I've been saying all along ;D! "A few typos" ;D But this doesn't stop you accusing other posters of having trouble with english if they drop in a few typos does it? And you presumably wonder why rightwingers are considered a bit thick and prone to prejudice by the report which underpins this thread? You shouldn't let yourself get drawn into it you're right, but you do. This, again, underlines the very point this thread is all about! Especially when you know you shouldn't but don't appear able to stop yourself ;D. Am I baiting you again and you just can't handle it? Great joke re Mrs Sif, btw! I notice you've never mentioned a Mrs FYD. I'm not surprised to be honest. Does your username hint at a restraining order perchance! "I can understand why you're (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) persisting with this imbecilic ( that's definitely you luke not the entire messageboard) interpretation of what you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) think I said because you've (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) spent so long misquoting it / trying to take the piss you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) really would look incredibly silly if you backed down at all"You're judging me by your standards again, old fruit. And yes indeed, you did look silly by finally agreeing that using % of GDP is a valid indicator of government debt and deficit after so long spent trying to say it was meaningless! You could argue that I looked silly when I said lending money to the banks damaged the economy. However, I happily accepted your corrections that "the need to lend money to the banks damaged the economy" and "the banks brought down the economy" as both of those were more accurate and neatly demonstrated what I've been saying all along ;D. I didn't see the need to avoid a simple question for several posts! ""that, that" got a stutter there champ" - truly unbelievable in the context of your complaints about others' english. There's so little basic understanding isn't there? Care to explain what's wrong with that? Bet you don't! ;D "I never said it was 'an explicit measure' which you ascribed to me
You didn't say those words true, but equally when you (that's you luke not the entire messageboard) post stuff like:"And you accuse me of making stuff up ;D ;D Interesting you mention a blind alley. I suspect you're applying your own processes again here. After all, every time I post something you don't like, your regular tactic is simply to try to undermine it in some, usually eccentric, way. You don't post any reliable data or evidence. Instead you accuse others of problems with english; indulge in some statistical freakshow analysis; cling to an idea that % of GDP is meaningless, use the Maastricht Treaty as an example of why % of GDP is meaningless as a unit of measurement, etc etc etc. Finally, I do wonder about the cognitive ability (and to be honest, the mental health) of someone who feels the need to put roughly the same phrase into his reply over 20 times
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 30, 2012 17:36:27 GMT
I can distinctly recall you having a very similar go at Potterlog's english, to name just one. I'll bet there are others on this thread or other ones. You've probably conveniently forgotten this as it does make it rather embarrassingI think you're probably 1. Confused or making things up again as the only two knobs who ever argue over punctuation and spelling are me and you champ or 2. Have misunderstood the english there was a reason I put mainly if not almost entirely exclusively... rather than exclusively. As for Potterlog I merely sent his lighthearted maths jibe back at him, hardly "having a go" or giving someone "shit", you need to toughen up a bit ;D You're sounding a bit mad with all this "Luke, that's you not the entire messageboard" Just making sure you (Luke, that's you not the entire messageboard) don't get confused as you seem to have difficulty understanding when something is aimed at you (Luke, that's you not the entire messageboard). You ducked the question again though do you (Luke, that's you not the entire messageboard) understand the word you, it’s ok just come out and say if you (Luke, that's you not the entire messageboard) don’t. I enjoy posting replies to youYes a little bit too much for some reason I start hearing Eminem’s “Stan” ;D whenever I read your posts, still good to see you’re back editing your posts several hours later champ ;D. Great joke re Mrs Sif, btw!It was a joke about you though champ, unless you thought I meant Mrs Sif says it to you ? I’m not one to judge if CWD float your boat go with it, not my thing though ;D I can see why'd you get the impression I'm single, I'm on here all the hours god sends just waiting to repsond to your posts, oh no hang on that's not me I'm getting confused with someone else ;D Thanks for asking there is a Mrs FYD, she’s part of the real life rather than a football messageboard still it’s nice to get the updates on what you’ve been doing at the weekend ;D. Hope your meal was nice and you ate all your greens ;D I think if you look back you’ll even find what the name comes from – you’ve probably got all my posts downloaded anyway Stan ;D (Search for Gin Blossoms to save yourself some time its friday night after all ;D) “He handed over a public net debt which was higher than it had been for some time and a deficit. If the set of cards was so brilliant, why did we have to pay off such a huge debt for the first five or six years of the new Labour administration?” Nice try at rewriting history but when I read guff like the above, I don’t get the feeling you are talking about this being indicative or directional,you are using “independently sourced data” to credit Labour with something that never happened, you’re actually doing the equivalent of claiming people do have one tit and bollock ;D which is quite amusing considering all your claimed statistical prowess (Lets not forget inflation only affects the public sector purchases according to you too ;D). by finally agreeing that using % of GDP is a valid indicator of government debt and deficit after so long spent trying to say it was meaningless!Fuck me if you really get that I think %GDP is a valid indicator from everything I posted you really are on a different planet ;D I’m pretty sure I mentioned once or twice that debt manageability / government performance can’t be measured properly in real world terms ;D Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of english can see that that can apply to anyone.It’s not very well constructed is it champ, repition of words makes it sound very poor and like you have a stutter ;D, either of the following would have just read better . “Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of english could see that this could apply to anyone” or “Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of english can see this could be applied to anyone” As i'm in my own time now, i'm off busy weekend look forward to catching up with you Monday although I forgot to mention the best bit You shouldn't let yourself get drawn into it you're right, but you do. This, again, underlines the very point this thread is all about! Especially when you know you shouldn't but don't appear able to stop yourself now who was it declaring this thread over 4-5 pages ago and saying they couldn't be bothered with this anymore ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2012 18:57:21 GMT
Well, you're right in the sense that you and I do indeed argue over spelling and punctuation. However, only one of us routinely likes to try to ridicule others struggling with english while fucking up their own sentence construction and apparently being oblivious to it. Clue: it isn't me ;D. Still, never mind a few typos eh "As for Potterlog I merely sent his lighthearted maths jibe back at him, hardly "having a go" or giving someone "shit", you need to toughen up a bit" Fair enough. I'm so used to your default setting of condescension or outright abuse that perhaps I misread the attempt at being lighthearted. Since it's only a few people whose english you like to criticise while fucking your own up, we'll just gloss over it, eh! Not sure what you're on about in the next bit to be honest. Do I understand the word "you" is that it? If so, amazingly, yes I do. Do you understand that "quotes" like "the wise understand by themselves, fools post follow ;D the reports of others" clearly apply to everyone (even "quotes" made up by people who don't make things up!). Or are you going to cling to this odd belief for the next however many posts before finally acknowledging I was right all along!? Not a big fan of Eminem, old fruit, so no idea what you're on about there. In fact, all the way through to the Gin Blossoms bit I'm struggling? Doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. What's CWD? OK, so you don't think % of GDP is a valid measurement of governmental debt and deficit. After all that question dodging, I thought we might actually be getting somewhere sensible, but obviously not. I'm still left wondering why it's used so extensively since it's useless in real world terms as you have said? Oh, Ronnie, Ronnie, and it was all going so well ;D. I agree that your revised sentences read more clearly. There's nothing wrong with my original, but yours do read better. Sadly, for you, repetition is indeed spelled just as I did a few words back and not repition ;D. Perhaps your childish excitement got the better of you and you couldn't move your fingers quickly enough ;D. But let's move on from english, shall we, it's clearly not your forte and I'm actually feeling a bit guilty at constantly pointing out these dropped bollocks. They do underpin the report this thread is all about, of course, but even so, shooting fish in a barrel is no fun. "You shouldn't let yourself get drawn into it you're right, but you do. This, again, underlines the very point this thread is all about! Especially when you know you shouldn't but don't appear able to stop yourself
now who was it declaring this thread over 4-5 pages ago and saying they couldn't be bothered with this anymore"You've got me bang to rights there, old fruit. There's just something about you that drags me down to your level! I have actually thought about this and I think it is something to do with that automatic desire of yours to patronise and condescend to anyone who posts something you disagree with. It just makes me want to give you all the ammunition in the world to keep on blasting holes in your own foot! Especially on a thread with a title such as this one! Have a great weekend!
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 3, 2012 17:33:22 GMT
However, only one of us routinely likes to try to ridicule others struggling with english while fucking up their own sentence construction and apparently being oblivious to it. Clue: it isn't me As I said the only person I have these type of conversations with is you, I could come back hours later and edit my posts but it isn't that important to me ;D I'm so used to your default setting of condescension or outright abuse that perhaps I misread the attempt at being lighthearted. are the big boys picking on you. Excellent you understand the word you ;D so when I say "you prove the quote" who do you think I'm referring to - take your time again in answering champ ;D Thanks for your kind words and opinions (tut tut even though you didn't post any independently sourced data to back up your argument ;D - why not put up your %GDP graph again and claim this proves your opinion about me after all you can do it credit Labour with something that never happened ;D)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2012 20:09:32 GMT
If only that were indeed the case, Brick, old fruit. Sadly, it's pretty much your default response with anyone whose posts you disagree with or you simply "don't like". After all, it wasn't that long ago on an entirely non-political thread that your charming approach to posting had you being labelled, what was it again, "a smarmy-arsed pedantic bastard". Never did bother checking the facts on that one did you, despite saying you would, what a surprise! Perhaps, once again, you have conveniently forgotten that little episode, it must make your position so much more tenable . Yep, just me you're having these conversations with isn't it. Wrong again, old fruit, wrong again. If this thread and the accuracy of your posts aren't that important to you, why on earth do you keep posting on it, returning it to the top of the board and providing more evidence for the report this thread is all about ;D ? You could ask me the same thing since, as you know, I can't take you seriously after your tit/bollock statistics freakshow and refusal to accept the validity of % of GDP as meaning anything in "real world terms" ;D. The answer is that I find it amusing. Still, "little things please little minds" as "the quote" goes. You can have that for free, as you seem to be incapable of doing much more than regurgitating what I've written I may as well do it for you ;D. I also enjoy seeing someone who likes nothing more than responding in a patronising and condescending way whenever possible, digging several enormous holes for himself one after the other and singularly failing to learn anything at all from the experience. Especially in a thread with a title such as this one. "are the big boys picking on you" - yeah, never mind dealing with the point, just revert back to type, eh! See para 2 above for details ;D. Yes, I understand the word "you" ;D. I want to know what you mean by "the quote". Is it safe to assume "the quote" is the same as "the saying"? Tell you what though, you're top quality at dodging questions. You never cleared up for me what CWD is all about. I even googled it and got something about childrens workforce development council so unless you have actually flipped you're going to have to explain what you were gibbering on about, preferably without going mental and shoving the same phrase into your reply over 20 times .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2012 20:25:22 GMT
If only that were indeed the case, Brick, old fruit. Sadly, it's pretty much your default response with anyone whose posts you disagree with or you simply "don't like". After all, it wasn't that long ago on an entirely non-political thread that your charming approach to posting had you being labelled, what was it again, "a smarmy-arsed pedantic bastard". Never did bother checking the facts on that one did you, despite saying you would, what a surprise! Perhaps, once again, you have conveniently forgotten that little episode, it must make your position so much more tenable . Yep, just me you're having these conversations with isn't it. Wrong again, old fruit, wrong again. If this thread and the accuracy of your posts aren't that important to you, why on earth do you keep posting on it, returning it to the top of the board and providing more evidence for the report this thread is all about ;D ? You could ask me the same thing since, as you know, I can't take you seriously after your tit/bollock statistics freakshow and refusal to accept the validity of % of GDP as meaning anything in "real world terms" ;D. The answer is that I find it amusing. Still, "little things please little minds" as "the quote" goes. You can have that for free, as you seem to be incapable of doing much more than regurgitating what I've written I may as well do it for you ;D. I also enjoy seeing someone who likes nothing more than responding in a patronising and condescending way whenever possible, digging several enormous holes for himself one after the other and singularly failing to learn anything at all from the experience. Especially in a thread with a title such as this one. "are the big boys picking on you" - yeah, never mind dealing with the point, just revert back to type, eh! See para 2 above for details ;D. Yes, I understand the word "you" ;D. I want to know what you mean by "the quote". Is it safe to assume "the quote" is the same as "the saying"? Tell you what though, you're top quality at dodging questions. You never cleared up for me what CWD is all about. I even googled it and got something about childrens workforce development council so unless you have actually flipped you're going to have to explain what you were gibbering on about, preferably without going mental and shoving the same phrase into your reply over 20 times . I swear these two are after the Mayor of London ;D Sif - Let it go son, let it go....Fyd is too good for you son.....Do you do pie charts by the way ;D
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 4, 2012 12:45:48 GMT
I'm not convinced with the Brown paying off Major's debts argument given the interest chart. I'm sure it shows less being paid on interest from 1997 onwards. www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1970_2011UKp_11s1li011mcn_90tIf I've read this right and they were paying less interest then maybe it isn't that surprising that they got us to a surplus...off the back of some Major growth www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/9166534/Only-by-tackling-spending-will-we-ever-tame-the-debt-monster.htmlSee another article about Brown's spending - it even has facts behind it and shows the insanity of spending money on the NHS Bailing out the banks is nothing to be proud of either. Sounds a bit like getting credit for putting the last few flames out on your house once you've stood and watched it being burnt down. (There are schools of thought that we could have gone another way instead of bailing out the banks btw and a rather cynical viewpoint that Northern Rock was saved given its more North Eastern location J - not as though I necessarily disagree with the decision by the way) The shoring up of the banks isn't the only reason why we can borrow at good rates - isn't it more to do with us having our own central bank!? I'd rather have people on the dole that have enough to basically survive unless they have their own savings. I think the increased expenditure on welfare and public spending adequately shows what Labour have done. They talked about investment but they got the balance and the priorities wrong. The balance of payments gives us perhaps the greatest indication of what they did and didn¡¦t do with the spending. www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=uk+balance+of+payments+history&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=619&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=JF_JUKjht3HznM:&imgrefurl=http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/206/economics/uk-balance-of-payments-2008/&docid=UB6eBbn4NndAlM&imgurl=http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ca-1950-2011.jpg&w=747&h=553&ei=QbpyT9P0IISp0QWNuKDvDw&zoom=1(this should be an article about the balance of payments under Labour) This really is woeful stuff on Labour's watch. As for Osbourne who backed the spending plans - he either lied to try and get the Tories more electable or he was as stupid as Labour were. I guess everyone is much the wiser now though aren't they...apart from Labour and you (To be fair, I was a Thatcher lover first and foremost, never really interested in Osbourne, like any opposition tbh, until they start doing stuff) Which brings us nicely to this GDP thing - it does have its detractors and it is discredited by many. Growth based on debt is sheer folly as Labour have shown us. It does make GDP fairly meaningless because it doesn't really factor in sustainability if you've misallocated 'investment' .....and yet this is what Labour or trying to convince us is the way to go...and people like you are believing it. Some growth is good (when based on exports) and some is bad (like Labour borrowing money and just handing it over for people to wank away on fancy imports when they can't even pay for the basic stuff supposedly. New Labour have just spent too much money and not on enough of the good things either. Basically wank, utter wank (a bit rushed but better late than never as I'm trying to play my part in the 'work for a living' revolution
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 10:07:39 GMT
The chart you put up shows how interest payments decreased as a % of GDP ie became more manageable. In 1997, Labour inherited interest payments which were at their least affordable level since 1986, approx 4.5 % of GDP. They were then reduced to approx 2% by 2003. You need also to look at the public net debt figure. You'll see that in 1997 it was 348bn (over double the figure in 1990 ) but five years later by 2002 it was 315bn. It then started to rise again. More importantly however, as a % of GDP, debt had fallen from 42% in 1997 to 29% in 2002. Clearly money was being used to pay off Major's debts and bring our public debt back to more manageable levels. So, no, I don't think you did read it right. They were paying less interest because for five years they were reducing the debt Major left us with. Therefore there was less interest to pay on the debt that remained because it was smaller (for a few years). Hardly a great set of cards is it . Looking at Jeff Randall's article in the Telegraph, it appears to be not much more than a call to reduce welfare payments. That is a separate debate in itself which is fair enough and worth having. What I picked up on though, which is highly relevant to your continued reluctance to apply the same criticisms equally, was this quote: " In search of some answers, I trawled through more than 25 years of public spending records. What they show is a relentless rise in state largesse, through good times and bad, the upshot of which is institutionalised indulgence: luxuries have become necessities and value for money exists only as a concept. Between 2000 and 2010, UK government real expenditure (inflation adjusted) increased by 53 per cent from £451 billion to £688 billion". 25 years takes us back to 1987 - so how come you don't consider the Tory govts of Thatcher and Major as fucking useless financially as well? If you use the ukpublicspending website, total govt spending almost doubled between 2000 and 2010. Guess what? It almost doubled between 1980 and 1990 too. Re the NHS, if it's insane to spend money on it, how come it's "safe in Tory hands"! Surely, if anyone should be arguing to privatise it and get it off the public purse, it's them? I think you should do a little more digging into what would have happened if we hadn't bailed out the banks and what our eventual liabilities may have been. Your google link doesn't work! "As for Osbourne who backed the spending plans - he either lied to try and get the Tories more electable or he was as stupid as Labour were. I guess everyone is much the wiser now though aren't they...apart from Labour and you " I think that quote above pretty much sums up your position - not in the slightest bit bothered about the Tories bullshitting simply to get elected (wonder how you'd feel about anyone else doing this ;D) - or not in the slightest bit bothered that the Tories (Osborne and Cameron I'm talking about) were apparently just as fucking useless financially as the previous govt since they were happily promising to match their spending plans. Don't remember them complaining about the mess Labour were leading us into back when Osborne was promising to spend just as much as Labour were planning, do you? So presumably you think Osborne and Cameron are just as useless as Brown? " Which brings us nicely to this GDP thing - it does have its detractors and it is discredited by many. Growth based on debt is sheer folly as Labour have shown us. It does make GDP fairly meaningless because it doesn't really factor in sustainability if you've misallocated 'investment' .....and yet this is what Labour or trying to convince us is the way to go...and people like you are believing it. Some growth is good (when based on exports) and some is bad (like Labour borrowing money and just handing it over for people to wank away on fancy imports when they can't even pay for the basic stuff supposedly."To solely blame Labour for an economy based on debt is nonsense too. We haven't had sustained periods of budget surpluses since before the mid 1970s and our governments consistently operate a public net debt, see link below. It also neatly shows you the impact of the financial crisis on our public finances. www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-dataUsing % of GDP as a measure of the affordability of governmental debt and deficit is discredited by who, for example? An economy based on debt was started long before Labour came to power! But they continued it, it's true. Do we ignore the first bit though?! I suppose so if we want to apply criticisms selectively! Welfare spend as a % of GDP in 1986 = 11% Welfare spend as a % of GDP in 2006 = 6% Remind me who was giving money away that we couldn't afford to people to wank away on stuff they couldn't afford? Or was welfare spending targeted only at the deserving needy back in Thatcher's day? Remember, 1986 was in the middle of the boom years too!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 10:11:10 GMT
I swear these two are after the Mayor of London ;D Sif - Let it go son, let it go....Fyd is too good for you son.....Do you do pie charts by the way ;D ;D No VAT on my pie charts I guess FYD is a genius if you think ranting Mr A Arnold of Nottingham's a reliable political commentator To be fair, you haven't quoted Jesse Ventura yet, like your fellow thread title confirmer Squareball did, ;D.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 5, 2012 13:03:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 5, 2012 16:51:19 GMT
Sorry Stan (it’s an Eminem song about an crazed obsessive / stalker fan kinda appropriate for you ;D) been a bit busy at work. After all, it wasn't that long ago on an entirely non-political thread that your charming approach to posting had you being labelled, what was it again, "a smarmy-arsed pedantic bastard".It obviously made a big impression on you, can’t say I was overduly worried that someone I don’t know was calling me names on the internet, should I start crying about people giving me “shit” or something ;D I even explained to you why I didn’t phone up and check the “story” which interestingly enough has still garnered 0% press coverage as far as I’m aware. I’m sure there is a relevance in this to having conversations about spelling with you but it’s a little lost on me ??? If this thread and the accuracy of your posts aren't that important to you, why on earth do you keep posting on itI could have sworn I said I wasn’t that bothered about some typo’s / spelling mistakes, so not sure why you’ve drawn the above conclusion. I just pointed out that you do have a tendency to go back and edit your post several hours later for who knows whatever reason but it would suggest it’s you that can’t let it go champ ;D refusal to accept the validity of % of GDP as meaning anything in "real world terms" . Plenty of reasons I listed as to why this was, all of course ignored because you were only interested in having a debate about the word “meaningless”, you never did explain why if %GDP is such a good measure of debt manageability, those reckless banks in the real world choose to give people mortgages based on their own personal income / cashflow rather than including all their neighbours earnings in their calculations ;D are the big boys picking on you" - yeah, never mind dealing with the point, just revert back to type, eh! See para 2 above for details .There was a point ? Your own personal opinion ;D is you think I’m condescending and patronising (there, there I’ll try to be nicer, no hang on I better not go overboard maybe I’ll just try to be less condescending and patronising towards you - is that ok sweetie ). It’s your own personal opinion ;D you’re entitled to it not sure what you expect me to do or say because without causing offence I couldn't really give a flying what your own personal opinion ;D is of me. It’s interesting on a thread that you choose to end pretty much every post to me with some variation on a claim that I have less reasoning ability than you that you should be admitting you just assumed I was abusing potterlog (thanks for yet again disproving your supposed higher reasoning ability ;D). Yes, I understand the word "you" . I want to know what you mean by "the quote". Is it safe to assume "the quote" is the same as "the saying"?Is that what you’re trying to drag this down to again an argument over a word , incredibly lame even for you. The point which you have consistently failed to address is why you think a post in direct reply to one of yours that starts with a sentence that begins “You truly do prove the quote.....” is aimed at anyone but you, I’m sure you’ll continue to ignore this and try and muddy the waters on some spurious point but actually what you need to do is say you were wrong, you won’t of course because you’ve backed yourself into such a corner ;D Tell you what though, you're top quality at dodging questions. You never cleared up for me what CWD is all about. I even googled it and got something about childrens workforce development councilIt’s not really dodging a question if you don’t know what a CWD is ;D, it’s probably not worth explaining and the joke was lost on you ;D but think the Crying game film for a clue although the fact you actually googled something said to you by someone you don’t take seriously is pretty damn funny ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 17:57:27 GMT
All well and good but you missed the point as per. You were saying you only ever have "these type of conversations" with me, yet here you are happily accepting that your delightful approach to posting has others thinking of you as a "smarmy-arsed pedantic bastard". Wrong again, old fruit, how many times is that now ;D? The relevance to spelling and correct english is simple. You like to accuse others of struggling with english while fucking it up yourself, remember? Bit like the above point really! I must admit, if you simply ignore or forget all the evidence which undermines your points it must make it so much easier to hold your views . I can see where it all comes from now! "Plenty of reasons I listed as to why this was, all of course ignored because you were only interested in having a debate about the word “meaningless”, you never did explain why if %GDP is such a good measure of debt manageability, those reckless banks in the real world choose to give people mortgages based on their own personal income / cashflow rather than including all their neighbours". Re % of GDP, missed the point again. The debate was not about the word meaningless, obviously! It was about why the rest of the world considers % of GDP to be a meaningful indicator of governmental debt and deficit but you don't ;D Why on earth would banks include neighbours' earnings in deciding whether or not to provide a mortgage? You'll be asking me next why we don't measure electricity consumption in feet and inches ;D It's a unit of measurement after all, why not use it ;D? Perhaps because it's not appropriate or relevant in those circumstances! This is almost as daft as your tit/bollock theory! I don't have a 'personal opinion' (only 3 of them, you're getting healthier clearly!) of you, you're just somebody on an internet football message board. My opinion of your posts is that they tend to be condescending and patronising in the main, and going by the smarmy-arsed pedantic bastard thread, I'd guess I'm not the only one! "It’s interesting on a thread that you choose to end pretty much every post to me with some variation on a claim that I have less reasoning ability than you that you should be admitting you just assumed I was abusing potterlog (thanks for yet again disproving your supposed higher reasoning ability )."Fair point, Brick, old fruit, but when you've got a history of 'light-heartedly' calling people tool, cock, knob, tit etc, I'd say fair comment applied, wouldn't you - or are we simply back to dismissing that old chestnut again ? Hint: it'll make your standpoint easier if you do ;D. "Is that what you’re trying to drag this down to again an argument over a word , incredibly lame even for you. The point which you have consistently failed to address is why you think a post in direct reply to one of yours that starts with a sentence that begins “You truly do prove the quote.....” is aimed at anyone but you, I’m sure you’ll continue to ignore this and try and muddy the waters on some spurious point but actually what you need to do is say you were wrong, you won’t of course because you’ve backed yourself into such a corner"
It’s not really dodging a question if you don’t know what a CWD is , it’s probably not worth explaining and the joke was lost on you but think the Crying game film for a clue although the fact you actually googled something said to you by someone you don’t take seriously is pretty damn funny"I love this! I'm accused of backing myself into a corner, while in the very next paragraph, you're not prepared to tell me what you were gibbering on about re CWD? There's a very consistent pattern to your replies, FYD, it's like you're holding up a mirror to yourself, then tossing out the appropriate observation at me! I'm well aware that "you truly do prove the quote" was aimed at me. What I'm trying to get you to answer is why you think "the quote" "fools post the reports of others" can only apply to me as you seem so bizarrely desperate to claim? It might appear lame to you but it's symptomatic of your reasoning ability that you cling to this! It was the same with % of GDP being meaningless as a measurement of governmental debt and deficit when it clearly isn't. You'll be telling me next that if I said "You truly do prove the quote - only the wisest and the stupidest of men never change" that it would only apply to you! Of course it doesn't ;D.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2012 11:33:26 GMT
I've had a chance to read that now, mcf. In relation to it, you wrote" The balance of payments gives us perhaps the greatest indication of what they did and didn't do with the spending.
[Undergraduate Rob's article]
(this should be an article about the balance of payments under Labour)
This really is woeful stuff on Labour's watch".You appear to have confused yourself over the government budget surplus or deficit (which deals with revenues versus spending) with the balance of payments deficit (which is not about govt spending, but measures imports and exports into a country eg goods, services, financial transactions etc). I hate to say it since we're discussing this amiably, but, if nothing else, this does rather make the point of this thread title . I'm sure Followyoudown will jump all over you for this mistake. We'll have to wait and see! While it's an interesting and quite well written piece by Rob, I think he needs to read around the subject a bit more. He might like to start with Thatcher and Keith Joseph's favourite economist Milton Friedman who declared that there was no need to have any concern over balance of payments issues. This consensus was central to right wing monetarist policy from about 1970 onwards, was embraced by Thatch and largely continued by Labour, hence my comments about the right wing monetarist economic experiment which has contributed to where we are now. BoP is basically about trade, what goes out of the country and what comes in, to put it very bluntly. We are a fairly small country with few natural resources so we import almost all of our copper, ferrous metals, lead, zinc, rubber, raw cotton etc and about a quarter of our food I think. Imports are always going to be a significant part of our trade balance. As a result we might always have a BoP deficit from now on, who knows? You and Rob might feel differently about BoP, and maybe you could explain why you feel it's such a bad thing, but it's nothing to do with government spending! And since the majority of transactions will be private sector I fail to see why this is something you blame Labour for! I notice Rob didn't consider any previous data, which is nothing if not unsurprising. Here's a graph (I know, what a fool I am ) for all data from 1979. Interesting that during the boom years of the mid to late 80s our BoP deficit was bigger than at almost any time under Labour. Which does go some way to confirming the point I made earlier about Thatch's love for Friedmanite economic philosophy. Finally, I noticed that even Rob mentioned that the BoP deficit was "moving in the right direction" from late 2007 (if you consider BoP surpluses to be the right direction that is). You've used precisely this "moving in the right direction" argument to justify John Major's "brilliant set of cards" despite every political commentator ranking his government as one of the worst in 20th century history. Yet you don't apply the same criterion equally when it comes to Labour. Can you see why I think you are simply biased about your application of your arguments?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2012 21:51:22 GMT
I swear these two are after the Mayor of London ;D Sif - Let it go son, let it go....Fyd is too good for you son.....Do you do pie charts by the way ;D ;D No VAT on my pie charts I guess FYD is a genius if you think ranting Mr A Arnold of Nottingham's a reliable political commentator To be fair, you haven't quoted Jesse Ventura yet, like your fellow thread title confirmer Squareball did, ;D. There are a few faults with Mr Arnold. One he is a Forest fan. Second the daft sod went to Oxford University and thought he would go for a swim today like David Walliams Plus we don't guess on here Sif. And your guessing is wrong by the way ;D Happy Easter. I'm off to work out if Glen Whelan is a footballer ???
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 12:05:55 GMT
And a very happy easter to you too, old bean. I was sat next to a chap from Leek yesterday, and was fearing the worst, but he was a delightful fellow, knowledgeable, polite, no extra fingers . I'm unsure about Whelan, sometimes he is a footballer and sometimes I swear he's just on the pitch to annoy me! Peter Crouch is most certainly a footballer though. Another quality contribution yesterday. If he doesn't get picked for England by whoever gets the job, I'll assume Mr A Arnold has had some involvement ;D.
|
|
|
Post by rhodesy on Apr 9, 2012 14:51:11 GMT
I can't believe you're all so unintelligent to carry this one on! Never seen replies so long, fuck me.
|
|
|
Post by frasier99 on Apr 9, 2012 15:07:17 GMT
They're not as intelligent as may and thay Rodders but, they are trying hard
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Apr 9, 2012 19:13:26 GMT
I can't believe you're all so unintelligent to carry this one on! Never seen replies so long, fuck me. Oh the fcuking irony........ ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 10, 2012 10:02:19 GMT
Luke I do know what the BoP is. My point is, given that it has been so poor under Labour then what did they 'invest in'? It clearly wasn't private enterprise which brings us back to them wanking it away on public sector jobs. I think it’s of relative importance that much of the exports, growth and prosperity of the country is based around an increasing services sector - who do we have to thank for this and how much worse could the problem have been without the services sector? As for some of your other points, I think we are going on a circular argument. I’ll end up responding with what I believe to be different circumstances for Thatcher as opposed to New Labour and you think I’m being too nice. The country had big problems (from what I hear and most of the information broadly backs up this line of thinking) that Thatcher was prepared to tackle head on and it does appear that the services sector is of massive benefit to us on a global scale doesn’t it? The very essence of the problem is that New Labour have simply wasted the pain that many went through in the 80s and have possibly handed over a far worse position. For me, this is the key...generally speaking. Thatcher was prepared (and I agree if I have read her sentiment right) to have people in unemployment (rather than bankroll them is loss making industries or stuck in the public sector performing non jobs on inflated wages, over the top redundancy packages with over the top union protection) waiting for the private sector to pick them up. This is probably why welfare was double that in 1986 than that in 2006. How could the percentage possibly be as high as that of 1986 when Gordon Brown was well into his public sector hiring splurge? laboursbusiness.org.uk/h/2012/01/26/new-labour-what-went-right-and-what-went-wrong-a-retrospective/should link to a reasonable Dermot Finch article Again, covering old ground with Major handing over a great set of cards v New Labour working some magic in the early years. Either way, it was a good starting point....that they went to fuck up. Nobody is trying to hide the fact that the Tories fucked up with the ERM in the first place but the economic recovery was well on its way by 1997....which you would expect. I think Brown followed Clarke’s spending plans for 2 years following the election in any case. So, yes, I suppose we can put down to Labour magic if that means ‘copying the Tories’ for a couple of years. The reason why Randall probably only moans about post 2000 is because net public debt was never as low as it was in 1992. We’ve covered off the time since then so I haven’t left anything out. New Labour did bullshit their way to get elected....and then went on to bribe its voters to stay there. Left wingers are basically dishonest right wingers that think they look better posing on the left. Thatcher was right, socialism is a disease. People tried to abuse it to get free handouts from the state and New Labour let them after benefitting from her methods – no wonder New Labour loved her so much – she prepared a growing industry sector to benefit from and borrow against
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2012 12:20:46 GMT
I'm not sure you do understand BoP, mcf! You've already linked it to government spending in your previous post and now you're saying it was poor under Labour. What do you mean by poor? Why do you consider a BoP deficit poor? What exactly was being "wanked away on public sector jobs"? If you mean government spending, what does that have to do with the Balance of Payments? ??? Also, just as a general point, but pertinent here especially, it would help if you'd back up your assertions with some evidence. Preferably not comment pieces like Randall's or undergraduate homework pieces but hard and fast reliably collected figures. Re the service sector - most modern economies move away from manufacturing and towards services. I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you crediting Thatcher with the growth in the service sector? It's ironic, but if you wanted to see a great deal more manufacturing in this country, we'd probably need to import substantially more raw materials which might make the BoP deficit even greater (or worse, if you consider it to be a bad thing). "The very essence of the problem is that New Labour have simply wasted the pain that many went through in the 80s and have possibly handed over a far worse position". You keep banging on about the 80s as if we were in a decade long recession. From 1982 onwards we had sustained growth, ran debts and deficits almost throughout, and enjoyed higher annual growth in the mid 1980s than anything under Labour which didn't do anything to prevent the increased debts and deficits under Major. This was the same approach that Labour adopted once Major's debt legacy had been pared back to more manageable levels, with the crucial difference being that the banking crisis plunged us into a deeper recession than we'd had for decades (=massive deficit) and we had to use public money to shore up the banks (=massive debt). Yet you hold that one is ok because of the massive problems the country had to deal with (for all that time presumably) while the other is utter wank because all the country's problems were resolved and everything was hunky dory! "For me, this is the key...generally speaking. Thatcher was prepared (and I agree if I have read her sentiment right) to have people in unemployment (rather than bankroll them is loss making industries or stuck in the public sector performing non jobs on inflated wages, over the top redundancy packages with over the top union protection) waiting for the private sector to pick them up.
This is probably why welfare was double that in 1986 than that in 2006. How could the percentage possibly be as high as that of 1986 when Gordon Brown was well into his public sector hiring splurge?"Why don't you look into whether governments think it is better to have people unemployed or not? It's actually a complex thing and a small amount of unemployment may indeed be a good thing. However, we didn't have a small amount of unemployment under Thatcher or Major as this graph (what a fool ) shows: I also think the last bit sums up your double-think approach to evaluating anything Labour or Tory. I'd put money on you using the fact that welfare spending was double (as a % of GDP ) under a Labour government as symptomatic of bad performance yet here you are using a higher percentage of government spending (on welfare) as an example of Thatcher brilliance! This is nothing if not ironic since the creation of public sector non-jobs (which I'd love you to quantify spending on by the way!) and, more importantly, the government spending on it, is something you criticise Brown for. It's all public money, mcf, whether you spend it on welfare costs or the creation of your beloved non-jobs! "Again, covering old ground with Major handing over a great set of cards v New Labour working some magic in the early years. Either way, it was a good starting point....that they went to fuck up. Nobody is trying to hide the fact that the Tories fucked up with the ERM in the first place but the economic recovery was well on its way by 1997....which you would expect. I think Brown followed Clarke’s spending plans for 2 years following the election in any case. So, yes, I suppose we can put down to Labour magic if that means ‘copying the Tories’ for a couple of years."I've never said Labour worked any magic! I was simply enjoying the fact that you credit Major for the economic recovery which Labour inherited but don't criticise the previous Tory administration for the recession ie you want to have your cake and eat it! I don't consider a good starting point to be a deficit several times larger than the one he took over and a public net debt much larger (and more importantly less affordable) than it had been for years. And neither do you since this is a criticism you are now applying to what Labour handed over, but you won't have this for Major? Re Randall's article and your point - public net debt was never as high (as a % of GDP ie affordability) as it was in 1997 (until the banking crisis). "New Labour did bullshit their way to get elected....and then went on to bribe its voters to stay there.
Left wingers are basically dishonest right wingers that think they look better posing on the left. Thatcher was right, socialism is a disease. People tried to abuse it to get free handouts from the state and New Labour let them after benefitting from her methods – no wonder New Labour loved her so much – she prepared a growing industry sector to benefit from and borrow against".Prove the first bit please. The second bit is just embarrassing and is probably an expression of your frustration about fucking up the BoP nonsense! Why the fuck would anyone on the right want to pose on the left? What are you on about! New Labour loved Thatcher? She admired Blair, remember . But they certainly carried on her economic policies by and large, that's true. Which "growing industry sector to benefit from and borrow against" are you on about and what does that even mean ;D.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 10, 2012 16:41:57 GMT
I'm asking what did New Labour spend on money that hugely benefitted the country? I think the BoP is something that can be used as a guide to what kind of investment a government has made to private enterprise. Knock undergraduates all you want, but he has a concise summary of what New Labour did and didn't achieve. The reason that I highlighted the BoP part is that people are now talking about it being an important factor and he did it without the benefit of hindsight....and by poor I mean that the gap has been far too wide for far too long. Don't try the bullshit about a slight improvement in 1 year either. 13 years of global stability and the BoP effectively got wider and wider. Instead of having true 'investment' in support of private enterprise, New labour took the easy way to borrow and 'wanked it away on public sector jobs'- the jobs up and (less so) down the country - that the coalition are now starting to cut in to. These are the kind of jobs that were used to bribe voters by Labour. There are figures in the link I provided - that is of course whether or not Finch passes your 'fit and proper' criteria as reliable source. Of course, it is difficult to quantify the cost of these non-jobs, or let's say the jobs that aren't absolutely crucial to our well being. I'll hazard a guess that, like for like, they cost a lot more than being on the dole given the benefits that New Labour attached to them - what do you reckon? I'm not bothered what we see in the country, whether or not it's more services and less manufacturing, or vica versa. The top line is that you want a government that has a credible plan to run through life without deficits. New Labour had no plan and have left us no where near a surplus. Again, this brings me back to the point that you simply won't accept about Thatcher running a surplus towards the end of her stint - you give no recognition for this. Does it coincide with a low employment and a public sector that was not bloated? Based on that, I'd guess that Thatcher was pretty happy with her tactics and she certainly triumphed them enough as do many others. I can't help the fact that you don't give it any credit or just ignore it because 'governments generally run deficits'. Well, maybe, but that was not what Thatcher wanted and not what she would have measured herself against in the long term. That is what is such a fundamental difference from the end of Thatcher or Major (improving), as compared to the end of New Labour - they were simply no where near a surplus....regardless of the banking crisis. Some people are happy with that and some aren't. It seems you are, I am not.....neither are plenty others. I'm not banging on about the 80s as decade long recession at all - just a tough time of change (surely we don't need to trawl through the post 2nd world war times to the late 70s to go through the kind of problems that the country was facing?) and one that finished with a small surplus. As I posted previously, net public debt, which you happen to bang on about a lot, was lowest in 1992 I think. At the end of her time, Thatcher had a fairly well balanced BoP as well. (Even if you are importing a lot of raw materials for manufacturing, then you kind of hope that you would see the benefit once you sell the product on again as an export - reasonable time to answer another one of your questions here) I've already admitted that Major fucked up on the ERM - going on about it again and again, doesn't make it more so. Within, 6-7 years though the country was back in surplus thanks to 4 years of Major and 3 years of New Labour. There is no need for me to have my cake and eat it. I can't help but recognise that Major helped improve things though can I? The deficit got less. What do you want me to do - pretend that it went up and up and up and that there wasn't a surplus in 2000? Do you want me to say that Labour were really great and had it not being for the banking crisis they were quite simply on the verge of giving us a public net debt of the levels in 1992....despite them running 6-7 years of deficits in periods of global stability? The irony in you saying that I'm biased......... Asking Gordon Brown as to why he created a load of jobs in the north is akin to asking Debbie Macgee, 'What did you see in the millionaire Paul Daniels?'. The 2nd bit probably gets to the heart of these generalisations that we get - like what this thread started from. Right wingers - thick. Caring lefties - clever. Tories - cunts. Labour - caring men of the people. I'm with Maggie - socialism is a disease - just a front for people to rob from their fellow man. I think both Mandleson and Blair had good things to say about Maggie. The services sector and the financial industry has been at the heart of our growth - this is exactly what I'm on about and largely what Blair benefitted from.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 10, 2012 17:28:35 GMT
All well and good but you missed the point as per. You were saying you only ever have "these type of conversations" with me, yet here you are happily accepting that your delightful approach to posting has others thinking of you as a "smarmy-arsed pedantic bastard". Wrong again, old fruit, how many times is that now ?
The relevance to spelling and correct english is simple. You like to accuse others of struggling with english while fucking it up yourself, remember? Bit like the above point really!WTF ;D as I said previously you’re either confused or just making things up again as the only two knobs who ever argue over punctuation and spelling are me and you champ. Which judging by your response “Well, you're right in the sense that you and I do indeed argue over spelling and punctuation.” I’d assumed you understand the “these type of conversations” which was clearly being referred to, so it’s great you remember what people say about me Stan ;D but not particularly relevant to the point. It does appear you have a problem understanding english ;D Re % of GDP, missed the point again. The debate was not about the word meaningless, obviously! It was about why the rest of the world considers % of GDP to be a meaningful indicator of governmental debt and deficit but you don't Why on earth would banks include neighbours' earnings in deciding whether or not to provide a mortgage? You'll be asking me next why we don't measure electricity consumption in feet and inches It's a unit of measurement after all, why not use it ? Perhaps because it's not appropriate or relevant in those circumstances! This is almost as daft as your tit/bollock theory! I’m glad you understand the point re banks (about 3 pages sooner than I expected you to ;D) so how is it meaningful to include the 60% of the economy that the government doesn’t control or have any claim over ??? Whichever way you look at it Companies or individuals are not responsible for the national debt*** (unless of course you treat some economic measure you don't seem to fully understand as gospel in which case you'll have an interesting time trying to allocate the debt down to individuals - best have a word with my next door neighbour she's 90+ and tell her to expect a hefty bill ;D). Of course this lack of reasoning is only to be expected when you keep trotting out the same old misinformation on how labour paid back debt as % of GDP even when you admit no debt was actually paid back ;D That's inflation for you though ;D Fair point, Brick, old fruit, but when you've got a history of 'light-heartedly' calling people tool, cock, knob, tit etc, I'd say fair comment applied, wouldn't you - or are we simply back to dismissing that old chestnut again ? Hint: it'll make your standpoint easier if you do .People do you have multiple log-ons, I'm pretty certain again it's mainly if not exclusively you I've had these conversations with and even then you'll be struggling to find where I've called you some of those words, unless you can read my mind which I think is unlikely as yours seems to be presenting you with enough problems at the moment ;D I love this! I'm accused of backing myself into a corner, while in the very next paragraph, you're not prepared to tell me what you were gibbering on about re CWD? There's a very consistent pattern to your replies, FYD, it's like you're holding up a mirror to yourself, then tossing out the appropriate observation at me! Could have sworn I said google the crying game just assumed you'd go away like a good little boy and do what you're told as usual ;D But in case your google is broken, it's a film about a she who is a he, quite common to refer to such people as CWD (see if you can work it out - if not i'll be back tomorrow to tell you ). As you didn't understand that then there wasn't much point explaining the joke to you. I'm well aware that "you truly do prove the quote" was aimed at me. What I'm trying to get you to answer is why you think "the quote" "fools post the reports of others" can only apply to me as you seem so bizarrely desperate to claim? It might appear lame to you but it's symptomatic of your reasoning ability that you cling to this! It was the same with % of GDP being meaningless as a measurement of governmental debt and deficit when it clearly isn't. Good try considering you are in a pretty desperate position of having posted many times your belief I’d called everyone who posted a link to a report a fool, the only bizarre thing here is you trying to widen it out to a debate that words can be applied to anyone (is that the sound of the bottom of the barrel being scraped I hear ;D).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2012 18:12:32 GMT
I think we both know you got a bit tangled up between government budget surplus/deficit and BoP surplus/deficit but we'll move on . "What did Labour spend money on that benefitted the country?" Erm, schools, hospitals, reducing crime, all those public sector jobs you presumably consider non-jobs since you won't or can't quantify their impact on our finances, which is convenient. (By the way, I'm not saying those things are now perfect, far from it, but they're in a better state now than they were pre 1997). The irony of you saying I'm not allowed to use things moving in the right direction is hilarious! (Even if you do consider a BoP surplus to be the right direction, which is arguable). Again, BoP has nothing to do with government spending! It's about trade, what comes into and what leaves a country. You wrote "13 years of global stability and the BoP effectively got wider and wider" - it did much the same during the boom years of the 80s but this is apparently not worthy of comment?! You haven't actually answered yet why you consider BoP deficits to be a bad thing. "Of course, it is difficult to quantify the cost of these non-jobs, or let's say the jobs that aren't absolutely crucial to our well being. I'll hazard a guess that, like for like, they cost a lot more than being on the dole given the benefits that New Labour attached to them - what do you reckon?" I don't know, that's why I asked you to justify your assumptions. You probably need to show whether the extra million and a half people on unemployment benefit under Thatcher and Major (see graph above) are outweighed by the public sector non-jobs you refer to. Otherwise you're just guessing based on prejudice. "The top line is that you want a government that has a credible plan to run through life without deficits. New Labour had no plan and have left us no where near a surplus. Again, this brings me back to the point that you simply won't accept about Thatcher running a surplus towards the end of her stint - you give no recognition for this. Does it coincide with a low employment and a public sector that was not bloated?" She did have two small budget surpluses at the end of her tenure, that's true. She didn't have any for the previous 9 years, even during periods of growth bigger than anything under Labour, and this is all down to her sorting out the problems of the 70s? Come off it! Also, if she was closing down the inefficient nationalised industries as you claim (which might explain the highest levels of unemployment and spending on welfare, as a % of GDP, in the last 30 years and also the deficits she operated for the vast majority of her tenure) what does this say about the record BoP deficit from mid 1980s to 1992? Finally. does it coincide with low unemployment? No, it doesn't! Still far higher than at any time under Labour. You clearly don't see this as a bad thing. So ask yourself why governments generally try to reduce unemployment levels?! But believe it or not, I'm not actually anti-Thatch. I just think you can equally apply your criticisms of Labour's last government to much of what happened under previous Tory administrations. Not that you do of course! This is not altogether surprising since they carried on most of their rightwing economic policies. Nor do I think Labour were perfect, I'll happily list their deficiencies (imo) if you want me to. Let me spell it out - Major was also nowhere near a surplus. The deficit increased several-fold under Major! "Improving" only if you ignore the impact of the previous years and concentrate solely on the last 2 or 3. "Improving" if you ignore the increase in the public net debt both in billions and its unaffordable nature! Talking of which, it was lower in 1992 you're right, and in terms of how manageable it was, roughly the same as during large parts of the 13 years of "utter wank" under Labour, strangely enough ;D. "Do you want me to say that Labour were really great and had it not being for the banking crisis they were quite simply on the verge of giving us a public net debt of the levels in 1992....despite them running 6-7 years of deficits in periods of global stability?"No, what I'd like to see is some acknowledgement of the impact of the banking crisis on where we are now, instead of the usual lazy knee jerk "13 years of fucking ineptitude" that the right on here always trots out, that their spending on public services improved them after a decade and and a half of under-resourcing, that the Tories were committed to matching their spending (unless you're daft enough to believe that they simply lied) because there was no reckless overspending on the public sector "non-jobs" and that Major most certainly didn't hand over a "brilliant set of cards"! The report this thread was based on stated that rightwingers generally have less cognitive and reasoning ability than leftwingers. As a result they are more prone to prejudice than those on the left. If you can't see why phrases such as the one highlighted below probably fed into that report, then that again does go some way to backing their findings up. The 2nd bit probably gets to the heart of these generalisations that we get - like what this thread started from. Right wingers - thick. Caring lefties - clever. Tories - cunts. Labour - caring men of the people. I'm with Maggie - socialism is a disease - just a front for people to rob from their fellow man.Your last bit I agree with "The services sector and the financial industry has been at the heart of our growth - this is exactly what I'm on about and largely what Blair benefitted from" and the rightwing policy of deregulation led us (for the most part) to where we are now.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2012 18:54:04 GMT
Yep, that's right FYD, it's all made up by confused old me isn't it . You've never offered any statistical proof that we've all got one tit and one bollock ;D. You've never spent several posts desperately trying to avoid explaining why % of GDP as a measure of governmental debt and deficit is used so widely and routinely by economists. You also never said it was meaningless! You've never accused people of struggling with english while fucking it up yourself on a regular basis. You've never stuck the same phrase into one post over 20 times. You've never run away from explaining directly what CWD means despite being asked. I think we both know why! Yes, I've got loads of log-ons me . No, you've never abused anyone with "tool, cock, tit, knob". It's just not your style. You're never routinely patronising, condescending or reducing debates to the pointlessly trivial so that others consider you a smarmy-arsed pedantic bastard ;D. You've never posted a "quote" as if it were a well-known saying, which you've actually then admitted to making up yourself (oh, the irony in the context of this post ;D), then claimed said quote can only be applied to one person. It's all been entirely fabricated by me ;D. I'm sure you'll reply in kind, as per tediously, trivially and pedantically normal. Or perhaps, something along the lines of "I'm making this all up again" or "Look at little old Lukey, he's put the same phrase into his post eight times" etc.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 11, 2012 15:03:36 GMT
Yep we have shiny new schools but it seems the quality of the education is up for debate. Yep, new hospitals. It’s just a shame that Labour didn’t get the population to pay for them. I don’t think I’m in any great denial about the NHS and how it was under Thatcher and Major. Thatcher was fairly honest about paying less tax and then choosing what you did with that money – some people had private healthcare and some had fags and ale. (Personally, I’d like to keep the NHS in a decent state on the basis that the public need to understand that it needs to be paid for. I’d start charging people to go and visit the GP – I’d happily throw in a £10 a go for the greater good It wasn’t me that suggested we take a look at BoP and the desire for a surplus – but Gordon Brown and a few leading economists – so don’t shoot the messenger. I’m assuming these match your ‘fit and proper’ criteria with him being an ex-chancellor and prime minister and all that (albeit a fucking wank one so he doesn’t really fit mine) I can promise you that I didn’t get it confused, not that I gave it much thought until the last couple of years mind. I think the 2 are inter linked though. Wouldn’t a deficit tend to suggest that we just borrowed money to import stuff as opposed to making stuff (that creates jobs etc) that would benefit the economy so much more? I think the shape of BoP improves in the late 80s/early 90s doesn’t it? 96 or 97 was the only year we had a surplus I think (or got close to) – maybe this was the foundation for the ‘great set of cards’ that Major passed to New Labour. Maybe New Labour should have spent more time and money (true investment) looking at this side of things. IMHO, this is where New Labour may have got it wrong – they made sure people had the money to import all the ‘nice’ stuff for themselves but didn’t get them to pay for the nice new hospitals and schools that they built. Public services require higher taxes but that isn’t going to be a vote winner is it? So build up the debt, push the use of PFIs to the limit....etc etc etc....but leave everyone with money in their pocket. If they thought that shiny new hospitals and schools was the way to go then they should have taxed us for it. As for your comments on unemployment...I am guesstimating to a fashion as I’ve always had trouble getting the figures out to compare like with like and it’s difficult to compare as more and more has been privatised. Maybe you could show me? I’m happy to explain my guessimates though. All I know is that when Thatcher got unemployment under control that we ran a small surplus. Now, when New Labour picked up Major’s golden goose, unemployment (similar level to Thatcher’s lowest point possibly) was falling nicely until the early 2000s where it then stayed largely flat. New Labour were enjoying the kind of surpluses that Thatcher had. Indeed, all looked good, debt as % of GDP was barely above 30%. This is exactly where it needed to stay. If the schools and hospitals needed building or repairing, then fine, tax the appropriate amount – who could possibly moan? If we needed more doctors and nurses, or traffic counters, or market researchers, or street co-ordinators then who could possibly moan if it was being paid for. Not Thatcher or the Tories – I was certainly happy enough and remember saying so. This is what she had preached to us. When did the deficits start racking up? It coincided with the time Brown started ploughing heads into the public sector (from 2000). Coincidence? Maybe. It does seem that unemployment stayed much the same though so I guesstimating that he countered increasing unemployment with his public sector jobs. I think the country, well at least those who want to, will soon realise that unemployment levels are not the be all and end all. I think there are plenty of people that understand where a bloated public sector gets you...apart from public sector workers, unions and blinkered Labour supporters of course. Now, Major was near a surplus. History showed us that he was just a year away. This is fact. 1998 was a surplus year and he got kicked out in 1997. It’s an undisputable fact. That is not to say that the recession didn’t hurt us badly because it did and although it was a global recession – the decisions that were taken preceding it did not help us. Labour had no such excuses. Of course, the banking crisis hurt but this was partly down to the Labour government – I by and large let them off given it was a global recession – see how I treat Major and New Labour the same – but they did have a part to play that made it worse I reckon. See my comments below. It was ineptitude of the highest order. Throwing away a brilliant position and racking up debt prior to the next recession. All things considered - it was wank. Your last bit I agree with "The services sector and the financial industry has been at the heart of our growth - this is exactly what I'm on about and largely what Blair benefitted from" and the rightwing policy of deregulation led us (for the most part) to where we are now. For the most part? How do you define that? Do you include the low interest rates that became because someone (guess who?) decided it would be sensible to remove housing costs from the measure of inflation used by the Bank of England to set interest rates. This made it too cheap to borrow money to buy property, fuelling rising house prices. Not sure whether the financial services sector being controlled would have stopped the meltdown. Control would just have made it so that rich people could borrow even more and ropey to risky people not at all - pretty much what we're seeing now. Now who's being biased? You're not giving her any credit for pushing the financial services and the services industry in general that much of our economy is based upon....but you are prepared to kick her for deregulation when she wasn't in office to do anything about it. Nothing new here though, we are by and large just going over the same ground and again and again.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 11, 2012 17:32:58 GMT
Your posts are getting more pitiful and bizarre by the day, tut tut lukey you've even slipped into using the smiley I thought this was one of many things that upset you greatly ;D I'm not really sure of the point of your post but You've never offered any statistical proof that we've all got one tit and one bollock Correct I didn't I said I could use percentages to prove.... Of course if you really want to think I actually think people all have one tit / bollock, knock yourself out champ ;D but I think my point was pretty clear that statistics can be used to prove anything (see your application of claiming Labour paid back debt even when you admit they didn't ;D) You've never spent several posts desperately trying to avoid explaining why % of GDP as a measure of governmental debt and deficit is used so widely and routinely by economists. You also never said it was meaningless!Actually I've spent several pages explaining why I don't believe %GDP is a very good measure and your only response is of the "Mervyn says" variety pretty funny that you think you have the right to try and close down a debate or keep it to the parameters you deem relevant but then I can see why when you end up in messes like you did over inflation ;D You've never accused people of struggling with english while fucking it up yourself on a regular basis.You've never stuck the same phrase into one post over 20 times.Tell me where I've denied this, I have pointed out you make plenty of fuck ups too even with your two hours later lukedits ;D You've never run away from explaining directly what CWD means despite being asked. I think we both know why!If you can't work out what one is just say and I'll tell you it's no big deal is it getting to you that much ;D And I have not got a scoobys what you think you know. You've never posted a "quote" as if it were a well-known saying, which you've actually then admitted to making up yourself (oh, the irony in the context of this post ), then claimed said quote can only be applied to one personWTF I addressed a reply to you which you either deliberately or unintentionally misintrepreted as being to everyone which you then preceded to quote again and again ad nauseum and when I finally bothered to pick you up on it rather than just admitting you're wrong you come up with this sort of BS (jesus wept smiley needed here ;D). Hopefully this was tedious, trivial and pedantic enough for you ;D I do agree my posts must come across that way but then as they are mainly in reply to your posts that's the "material" I have to respond to so don't shoot the messenger / person who replies to your posts ;D espicially as you're managing to make it a smaller and smaller number ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2012 17:57:38 GMT
Yes we have shiny new schools and the rate of educational improvement has stalled in the last few years, that's true. Which suggests it was improving before that, does it not? I agree about using tax revenue to fund public services though. I'm surprised you do, being a rightwinger, but I'm happy that you do. I assume you are also not impressed with Osborne forcing through another 61 PFI projects since becoming chancellor (might be more now tbh). "I don’t think I’m in any great denial about the NHS and how it was under Thatcher and Major" - pleased to hear it. It's a long way from perfect now, despite the money that Labour, through necessity imo, spent on it, but it is better. For the time being, that is, I worry about Lansley's botch job on reform. "It wasn’t me that suggested we take a look at BoP and the desire for a surplus – but Gordon Brown and a few leading economists – so don’t shoot the messenger. I’m assuming these match your ‘fit and proper’ criteria with him being an ex-chancellor and prime minister and all that (albeit a fucking wank one so he doesn’t really fit mine)" Fair enough, if that's the case. Can you post a link so I can read it? It's not that I don't believe you, just that it doesn't tie in with his general approach to BoP so I'm interested. Have a read around BoP surpluses and deficits. There are schools of economic thought both ways about if it even matters since it is "just trade" in the end. It's nothing to do with government spending though - private sector companies will import goods, services, transactions etc too. A successful company (which may have been helped to get going by Labour money ie govt investment) may simply be an importer and distributor but still very profitable and contributing significant tax revenues. They may well be contributing to the UK's BoP deficit though - not sure why that's necessarily a bad thing, mate? "IMHO, this is where New Labour may have got it wrong – they made sure people had the money to import all the ‘nice’ stuff for themselves but didn’t get them to pay for the nice new hospitals and schools that they built. Public services require higher taxes but that isn’t going to be a vote winner is it? So build up the debt, push the use of PFIs to the limit....etc etc etc....but leave everyone with money in their pocket. If they thought that shiny new hospitals and schools was the way to go then they should have taxed us for it."By Jove, I think he's got it . Couldn't agree more! I think the question is when did we turn into a country where tax became a four letter word (awaits FYD comment ;D). I saw the other day that Denmark came top of a list of countries in terms of happiness. They pay shedloads of tax, have great hospitals, schools, transport, paternity leave, childcare provision, the list goes on. Re unemployment - the figures are in my graph a few posts up. Unemployment is a difficult subject though as there are several different types, structural, frictional and cyclical. Without breaking down Thatchers figures any further it's hard to say which was most prominent, but the fact is that overall, joblessness was always pretty high relatively under her and Major. Clearly this impacts on govt spending. mcf, a public net debt which was less affordable than for many years, paying shedloads of interest on that debt and a deficit which was several times higher than one he inherited does not constitute a golden goose! "Now, when New Labour picked up Major’s golden goose, unemployment (similar level to Thatcher’s lowest point possibly) was falling nicely until the early 2000s where it then stayed largely flat. New Labour were enjoying the kind of surpluses that Thatcher had. Indeed, all looked good, debt as % of GDP was barely above 30%. This is exactly where it needed to stay. If the schools and hospitals needed building or repairing, then fine, tax the appropriate amount – who could possibly moan? If we needed more doctors and nurses, or traffic counters, or market researchers, or street co-ordinators then who could possibly moan if it was being paid for. Not Thatcher or the Tories – I was certainly happy enough and remember saying so. This is what she had preached to us. When did the deficits start racking up? It coincided with the time Brown started ploughing heads into the public sector (from 2000). Coincidence? Maybe. It does seem that unemployment stayed much the same though so I guesstimating that he countered increasing unemployment with his public sector jobs."I wouldn't have a problem with the above if it wasn't for the fact that the Tories would most definitely have screamed blue murder had Labour paid for the schools and hospitals and everything else exclusively through taxation. Does "the Labour Party is simply a tax and spend party" have any resonance with you? Why do you think Brown was keen to use PFI if there was no problem with raising tax to pay for things? I refer you back to a comment I made earlier. In this country there has been a shift away from doing exactly that to a belief that you don't have to pay taxes to get any improvements. I agree with your comment about it, it's not a vote winner you're absolutely right and that's why Labour chose that path, simply to avoid the usual tax and spend label. Perhaps in Denmark the populace is not so easily duped? Where does a bloated public sector get you? Steady improvements in schools, hospitals etc with public sector spending the Tories were going to match perhaps? Where does a de-regulated financial sector get you? Which was more impactful? Did the US have a bloated public sector too? How come they're fucked? "Of course, the banking crisis hurt but this was partly down to the Labour government – I by and large let them off given it was a global recession – see how I treat Major and New Labour the same – but they did have a part to play that made it worse I reckon. See my comments below. It was ineptitude of the highest order. Throwing away a brilliant position and racking up debt prior to the next recession. All things considered - it was wank".I agree that the continuation of a right wing policy of deregulation was indeed the fault of the Labour govt. I guess we'll never agree that Major's position wasn't brilliant given the unaffordable levels of debt he racked up then handed over, which Labour pared back over the next few years. And if the financial crisis had been foreseen I'd probably agree with you on the second part. But if you blame Labour for not having money put aside to cope with the next recession, I don't see why you don't blame Thatcher for this too. She did have two small surpluses I accept, but it didn't stop our debts becoming unaffordable under Major did it, just as they are now. So either the recession did for both of them or neither. I say that the rightwing policy of deregulation led us for the most part to where we are now simply because it wasn't a "bloated public sector" which caused the deepest global recession for decades. The depth of this recession is what caused the enormous deficits we have now, not simply public spending. The banking bailouts are what caused the enormous public debts we now have, not simply public spending. Surely, you can see that. You might not like the position we were in before the crash, but it was not what caused the position we are now in.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2012 18:26:33 GMT
I'm surprised you didn't just say that I made it all up, FYD! ;D
I'm wondering whether I should suggest your debating approach to Tory Central Office again, see if they think more of it than your tit/bollock theory of statistics!
Perhaps it'll make an appearance in PMQs some time soon:
Miliband: "When will the Prime Minister deliver the referendum on Europe he promised the nation?"
Cameron (rolls eyes): "I see the honourable member is back to making things up again".
Miliband: "Eh? It's a direct quote of yours".
Cameron: "Europe? I'll bet you couldn't even find Morocco on a map of Europe, you tit".
Miliband: "Morocco isn't in Europe".
Cameron: "Ladyboys".
Miliband: "What?".
Cameron: "Ladyboys. You hang round with ladyboys, you do".
Miliband: "I've no idea what you're on about but when are we getting this referendum you promised?"
Cameron: "There you go again, making stuff up. You'll struggle to find anywhere I've said that".
Miliband: "It's in Hansard".
Cameron: "Oooooh, look at little Miliband, getting all upset".
Repeat ad infinitum ;D
Don't tell me - that's nothing like your approach to debating on this thread, I've confused you with someone else/made it all up/taken things out of context - delete as applicable ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 12, 2012 10:24:12 GMT
|
|