|
Post by mcf on Apr 13, 2012 10:21:39 GMT
Between 2008 and 2011, banking bailouts cost £109bn whereas as the rest of the deficit was £391bn.
Current guesstimates land the banking bailout bill in the region of £20-£50 billion when it all plays out.
We've made fortunes out our financial sector so why can we not take a hit like we would in any recession?
Boom and busts will always happen and Brown, or anybody, that didn't know a recession would come at some point is an idiot.
They pissed away a great position. They spent more than they needed to, and didn't tax enough. The public sector is bloated in number and by pay conditions. Welfare is a joke too.
Labour didn't do enough with manufacturing either. It does ok though, just not enough to combat the position that Labour have now put us in. Supposedly Thatcher that ruined it yet it did better under her than Labour.
It's this inherent fucked up structure that means Osbourne won't be handing over a 'great set of cards' to anyone.
The more I look at this stuff again, reminds of how shit they really were.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Apr 13, 2012 10:29:20 GMT
Thatcher it was who turned us into a service economy from a manufacturing one. Major and then Labour failed to redress the balance. They are all culpable and all useless.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 13, 2012 10:43:03 GMT
We've made lots of money from that service sector.
We just piss it away.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 13, 2012 13:17:57 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 Truly the most bizarre post I've ever seen, champ ;D. I think even you get it now as you've gone in a couple of pages from comparing yourself to Jeremy Paxman to Ed fucking Milliband ;D Even I think that's a bit harsh on Clueless Ed ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 17:33:48 GMT
Bizarre and a depressingly accurate summary of your approach to a discussion, you're dead right ;D. Keep your eyes and ears open, Dave might want to go down the FYD route and toss in some statistical insights for good measure!
I thought I'd covered all the bases with "you're confusing me with someone else/making it all up/taking things out of context", but I forgot "facts which cease to be real if I ignore them". Damn it! So close, but I think we've finally nailed your arguments down for good ;D.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 18:10:57 GMT
Between 2008 and 2011, banking bailouts cost £109bn whereas as the rest of the deficit was £391bn. Current guesstimates land the banking bailout bill in the region of £20-£50 billion when it all plays out. We've made fortunes out our financial sector so why can we not take a hit like we would in any recession? Boom and busts will always happen and Brown, or anybody, that didn't know a recession would come at some point is an idiot. They pissed away a great position. They spent more than they needed to, and didn't tax enough. The public sector is bloated in number and by pay conditions. Welfare is a joke too. Labour didn't do enough with manufacturing either. It does ok though, just not enough to combat the position that Labour have now put us in. Supposedly Thatcher that ruined it yet it did better under her than Labour. It's this inherent fucked up structure that means Osbourne won't be handing over a 'great set of cards' to anyone. The more I look at this stuff again, reminds of how shit they really were. I hate to point out the obvious, mcf, but you don't back up your statements with much evidence. It'd help if you posted the sources which lead you to your conclusions. Those figures re the deficit and the impact of the bailouts, where did you get them from? Using your figures though, do you not consider an extra unplanned for 28% pretty impactful?! Shall we raise your mortgage payments by 28% and see if that causes any problems? Similarly, this 20-50bn guesstimate - where's this from? "Boom and busts will always happen and Brown, or anybody, that didn't know a recession would come at some point is an idiot".But Thatcher isn't because she was forced to sort out the mess of the seventies for a decade before preparing for a recession which she must have known was coming or she'd be an idiot. Strange then that we weren't better prepared for it isn't it? Especially given our record growth levels during the mid to late 80s. But never mind eh, she's ace and Labour aren't. By your definition, the Tories pissed away a great position too. Surpluses, record growth figures then straight into record deficits and massive debt levels in the 90s. This however is not utter wank and even translates to a great set of cards by the time Major gets kicked out, purely on the fact that the deficit is moving in the right direction! You keep coming back to this "Labour spent too much and didn't tax enough". You can't escape from the fact that if they'd spent too much the Tories would have been crowing about it for years, not promising to match their spending. Secondly, while I agree that taxation is the way to fund improvements in the country, our electorate, overall, doesn't vote for higher taxes. We have a strange belief in this country that we can have improvements without paying for them. Can you demonstrate to me how the public sector is bloated in number and pay conditions. Then show me how it impacted on our debt and deficit to the extent that we are now where we are since this is your belief. I think you're stuck with your conviction that Labour equals shit and Tory equals great and no amount of evidence will alter your opinion, which is why you will look at the same criteria differently for each government. You probably think the same of me, but I don't think Labour equals great and Tory equals shite. I've certainly never said I was a Labour-lover or Blair-lover in contrast to yourself who loves Thatcher! I simply think your lazy rightwing dogma that 13 years of utter wank (usually attributed almost exclusively to overspending on the public sector) got us in this mess is ignorant nonsense by and large.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 19:08:06 GMT
Between 2008 and 2011, banking bailouts cost £109bn whereas as the rest of the deficit was £391bn. Current guesstimates land the banking bailout bill in the region of £20-£50 billion when it all plays out. We've made fortunes out our financial sector so why can we not take a hit like we would in any recession? Boom and busts will always happen and Brown, or anybody, that didn't know a recession would come at some point is an idiot. They pissed away a great position. They spent more than they needed to, and didn't tax enough. The public sector is bloated in number and by pay conditions. Welfare is a joke too. Labour didn't do enough with manufacturing either. It does ok though, just not enough to combat the position that Labour have now put us in. Supposedly Thatcher that ruined it yet it did better under her than Labour. It's this inherent fucked up structure that means Osbourne won't be handing over a 'great set of cards' to anyone. The more I look at this stuff again, reminds of how shit they really were. I hate to point out the obvious, mcf, but you don't back up your statements with much evidence. It'd help if you posted the sources which lead you to your conclusions. Those figures re the deficit and the impact of the bailouts, where did you get them from? Using your figures though, do you not consider an extra unplanned for 28% pretty impactful?! Shall we raise your mortgage payments by 28% and see if that causes any problems? Similarly, this 20-50bn guesstimate - where's this from? "Boom and busts will always happen and Brown, or anybody, that didn't know a recession would come at some point is an idiot".But Thatcher isn't because she was forced to sort out the mess of the seventies for a decade before preparing for a recession which she must have known was coming or she'd be an idiot. Strange then that we weren't better prepared for it isn't it? Especially given our record growth levels during the mid to late 80s. But never mind eh, she's ace and Labour aren't. By your definition, the Tories pissed away a great position too. Surpluses, record growth figures then straight into record deficits and massive debt levels in the 90s. This however is not utter wank and even translates to a great set of cards by the time Major gets kicked out, purely on the fact that the deficit is moving in the right direction! You keep coming back to this "Labour spent too much and didn't tax enough". You can't escape from the fact that if they'd spent too much the Tories would have been crowing about it for years, not promising to match their spending. Secondly, while I agree that taxation is the way to fund improvements in the country, our electorate, overall, doesn't vote for higher taxes. We have a strange belief in this country that we can have improvements without paying for them. Can you demonstrate to me how the public sector is bloated in number and pay conditions. Then show me how it impacted on our debt and deficit to the extent that we are now where we are since this is your belief. I think you're stuck with your conviction that Labour equals shit and Tory equals great and no amount of evidence will alter your opinion, which is why you will look at the same criteria differently for each government. You probably think the same of me, but I don't think Labour equals great and Tory equals shite. I've certainly never said I was a Labour-lover or Blair-lover in contrast to yourself who loves Thatcher! I simply think your lazy rightwing dogma that 13 years of utter wank (usually attributed almost exclusively to overspending on the public sector) got us in this mess is ignorant nonsense by and large. Taken from th IFS. If the Government had managed to maintain the “bang for each buck” at the level it inherited in 1997, it would have been able to deliver the quantity and quality of public services it delivered in 2007 for £42.5 billion less. Alternatively, it could have improved the quality and quantity of public services by a further 16% for the same cost. But perhaps service quality has improved in ways not captured by the ONS’s measures. Or perhaps we were to bound to see diminishing returns to additional spending when it was increasing so rapidly. To the extent that additional spending boosts output fully only with a lag, we may not yet have seen the full benefit. I'm sure Sif will disagree with this 'I simply think your lazy rightwing dogma that 13 years of utter wank (usually attributed almost exclusively to overspending on the public sector) got us in this mess is ignorant nonsense by and large' Those comments are not very intelligent...Are they Have a good weekend Sif. At the next Stoke game listen to the Leek Stokie...You may learn some day son
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2012 9:23:59 GMT
It's so hard to know what one is permitted to agree or disagree with concerning that IFS report, RMB72! You see some parts are subjective bollocks according to our resident statistical comedian Followyoudown and some parts aren't. I'll let you hazard a guess at which parts he considers are and which aren't ;D. Perhaps it's the omission of any tit/bollock references that weaken the report! Also, adhering to the FYD doctrine, you're clearly a fool for posting the reports of others, although apparently this is now a selectively applicable saying made up by someone who doesn't apply his criteria selectively ;D No doubt I made this up, or confused him with someone else or it simply never happened ;D. "Or perhaps we were to bound to see diminishing returns to additional spending when it was increasing so rapidly". You do realise that the "it" in that sentence refers back to the previous subject, improvements in service quality, I take it! All subjective bollocks though! Perhaps, RMB72, you'd clear up why you think the Tories were happily promising to match Labour's reckless overspending? What do you think about Osborne pushing through a further 61 PFI projects since becoming chancellor? Not something FYD's ever commented on, despite being asked! This must fall into the category of "things which cease to be real if I ignore them" ;D. I did have a good chat with the bloke from Leek. Not only did he have a good grasp of the Stoke team and its deficiencies, he also didn't have a great deal of time for Cameron and Osborne!
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 16, 2012 7:02:35 GMT
Luke These financial figures came from an article that gets updated from a link that you posted I think - the one in the guardian by Polly Without getting all clever about it, raising my mortgage payments would be no issue but that is neither near nor there - who was it who said taking individual cases was stupid? You claim that its all down to bank bailouts and this 28% clearly shows that it isn't (and its likely to become a lot less over the years). The interest from that amount is also likely to be covered by the charges and fees (at least for the moment) - in short, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. It's all relative. Thatcher made mistakes and so did Major. Thatcher made some fundamental changes (from a really shit position) that gave us the ability to get into a surplus. So did Major. I've already posted links around the public sector growth under Brown since 2000 and the excess pay haven't I? You just choose to ignore them or brush them off and you choose to ignore questions about what really caused the financial crash....even though the impact is actually far less than you think. The over-riding excuse of the public sector and their unions is not that they get paid too much and that their pensions are too high, but those in the private sector are too low and need to be brought up. Brilliant, what tremendous insight. Getting such words of wisdom from a set of cunts that get money handed over to them from those that actually have to compete in the real world and suffer pay freezes/cuts. Clueless or selfish (I'll go with the latter) cunts to a man. The bottom line for all Laboour lovers and sympathisers is that they try to peddle the line that they fucked it because they followed the Tory model. The truth is that they took the decent position that it brought them (I openly admit that debt had been added but the structural position was far better after the Tory work in consideration to what the inherited in the 70s - it was one that could deliver surpluses) but carried on with their old spending ways - but they couldn't even be arsed to tax enough either - oh, and did not build on the business enterprise side. It doesn't matter what the Tories were or weren't saying -personally, I don't think they knew enough about it to put up a credible argument to get them back in. A government isn't just there to win the argument against the opposition - it's there for the good of country...even if that country is thick and stupid and doesn't understand how it works. Thatcher was demonised by many for telling the truth and making the tough calls - the kind of calls that Blair and Brown were not capable or willing to make. Your argument that Labour couldn't tax enough becuase they would have been shouted at the Tories probably holds true but what a pathetic reason. How could they not hold that honest argument of low taxes and low public services or vica versa? Absolutely pathetic. Time will tell us how Cameron and George will be remembered. I'm quite sure they will be voted out quickly because of the tough times to come (relatively speaking). The truth is they haven't cut anywhere near as much as they need to. That is what happens when you compete against a bunch that are happy to throw money away.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 16, 2012 7:17:39 GMT
www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?id=98682&method=news.detailThis article gives us an insight into a) the 'wonderful' redundancy package world of the public sector b) and how difficult it is for George to cut such numbers (I think Thatcher had the same issues with the miners etc - I knew you were interested where she spent her money)
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 16, 2012 7:40:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 16, 2012 13:13:33 GMT
Bizarre and a depressingly accurate summary of your approach to a discussion, you're dead right ;D. Keep your eyes and ears open, Dave might want to go down the FYD route and toss in some statistical insights for good measure! I thought I'd covered all the bases with "you're confusing me with someone else/making it all up/taking things out of context", but I forgot "facts which cease to be real if I ignore them". Damn it! So close, but I think we've finally nailed your arguments down for good ;D. I think its my indifference that really gets to you isn't it champ you really are turning delusional but still credit to you it's quite a skill you have to type so much tripe with your head stuck so firmly up your own rear ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2012 8:37:40 GMT
;D Sometimes I think I don't credit you with enough insight, FYD, then you post something which neatly underlines exactly what I'd written earlier and I think, no, got him pretty much nailed! Re getting to me, I think you're doing the old holding the mirror up to yourself routine again . Ever since you tried to show we've all got one tit and one bollock through stats, your posts just make me laugh! Even the ones which revert back to your oft tried response - attempts at being abusive! And I saw with some amusement that all you really came back with was a standard "you're delusional" - ;D. You really couldn't make this easier! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2012 11:50:32 GMT
mcf
I've never said it was all down to the banking bailouts, I don't know why you rightwingers keep insisting this! My point has always been that you guys insist on trotting out the usual "reckless overspending", "financial ineptitude" phrases etc as if the financial crisis never happened and we are where we are because of Labour spending.
I think the figures clearly show the huge impact that the banking bailouts had on the government's finances! The debt and deficit graphs are pretty clear about that - it's not spending on welfare or the public sector that increases the debt way beyond what was affordable since 2008. It's not "reckless spending" that caused a recession which created an enormous deficit! You can argue that they should have seen it all coming and that's a fair point, but very very few people did. Both Labour and Tories were happily assuming things would carry on as they had been, which is by far the most sensible explanation of why Osborne was promising to match Labour spending plans until 2011 (unless you're silly enough to think he'd pass up the opportunity to highlight the damage a Labour tax and spend policy was having on our finances simply to bullshit to get elected!)
If you don't consider a 28% increase in budget deficit as a result of a recession caused by a financial crisis impactful then I worry! And that is simply by adding the bailout cash figures directly into the deficit total, and disregards the associated liabilities, costs and effect of the recession on revenues!
I'm glad your mortgage would not be affected by extra spending equivalent to a 28% increase but I suspect that is not the case for the majority of people. Which was the thinking behind my statement, not that taking individual cases was stupid (not that I ever said that, btw, just that your point that your own experience of the NHS and education under Thatcher was ok, therefore it was ok across the board was a bit daft - since retracted I'm happy to acknowledge).
"I've already posted links around the public sector growth under Brown since 2000 and the excess pay haven't I? You just choose to ignore them or brush them off and you choose to ignore questions about what really caused the financial crash....even though the impact is actually far less than you think." Just indulge me for a moment and show me how the public sector spending under Brown post 2000 resulted in the mess we're now in. Also what do you think really caused the financial crash? Forgive me if I've missed these but just post them again would you?
"The over-riding excuse of the public sector and their unions is not that they get paid too much and that their pensions are too high, but those in the private sector are too low and need to be brought up. Brilliant, what tremendous insight. Getting such words of wisdom from a set of cunts that get money handed over to them from those that actually have to compete in the real world and suffer pay freezes/cuts. Clueless or selfish (I'll go with the latter) cunts to a man."
I genuinely don't understand this? Are the cunts the unions for having money handed to them or unemployed people?
"Your argument that Labour couldn't tax enough becuase they would have been shouted at the Tories probably holds true but what a pathetic reason. How could they not hold that honest argument of low taxes and low public services or vica versa? Absolutely pathetic".
Ok, so we've gone from "who could possibly moan if it was being paid for. Not Thatcher or the Tories" to the above! And this from someone who moments earlier made a comment about a country full of thick and stupid people who don't understand how it works! If nothing else, does this not show you how desperate you are to cast around for anything to show Labour in a bad light! First, they're shit for not being honest enough about where the money was to come from, then, when pointed out that this was probably because the Tories would have jumped all over them had they done so, they're pathetic! Brilliant - different criticisms for the same point, genius!
And your final conclusion is that Labour were a bunch who were happy to throw money away, despite acknowledging some posts earlier that the NHS record under the Tories was pretty poor and it therefore needed money spent on it, some of which was PFI schemes because, as a country we appear to believe we can have improvements without funding them through the public purse, that welfare spending under Thatcher was higher (as a % of GDP) and joblessness was higher under both previous Tory administrations.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 23, 2012 7:59:11 GMT
Luke
My position is this. Labour attacked the Tories for a poor record on the NHS and other public servcies. Labour should have been honest about higher taxes (or deferred taxes for our future generations) for better public services. I'm sure criticism from the Tories would have come but my point is that it wouldn't have really mattered if that it what the country had voted for. It would have been about straight choices that the country could have decided on. Labour's argument should have been that the country rejected the low taxes, low public services ie you decide what you spend your money on versus far better public service that would need to be paid for. Isn't this exactly what the argument boiled down to? Labour should have been able to hold their ground on this shouldn't they?
'We're in a fucking big mess now overwhelmingly because of the impact of the financial crisis'
They were your words and it's simply not true.
The country was set up poorly for the recession because Blair/Brown either spent too much or taxed too little - its as simple as that. The financial crisis in this country was as much to do with him for taking housing out of the inflation calcuations as anything else.
We are now in a position where the structural make up of the country will keep us with a massive deficit and debt levels that we haven't seen for a long time (certainly in my lifetime) and it's to do with the position that Labour left us in.
Even the most basic of cuts, that Darling knew he would have to make himself, are now being rounded upon by Balls and Co.
We've already seen what splurging money on the public sector does without Balls trying to convince a thick public that its the way forward.
|
|
|
Post by seasidestokie on Apr 23, 2012 8:06:36 GMT
Let's face it... we're all right and all wrong... so if right is wrong and wrong is right then things would be all right... and nobody would be wrong. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2012 12:29:14 GMT
With the greatest of respect, mcf, I think you're being a bit naive. Our electorate simply doesn't vote for higher taxes. We want a socialised health system (the NHS), among other public services, but we won't vote for a party which promises to raise taxes to fund this directly. The LibDems were the only party (until recently ) who did do this and look where it got them: consistently nowhere near government (until they decided to sacrifice the majority of their manifesto pledges for the sake of being in coalition, that is). Btw, I'm not saying that this was the only reason not many voted for them, our system is probably a big factor, just that they were the only ones open about their taxation plans. I'm all for your argument, btw, an open statement like "you pay peanuts, you get shit services" which is essentially what it boils down to. (They pay shedloads of tax in Denmark (to take just one example) and they have fantastic public services - it's not unfathomable). But we, as an electorate, apparently prefer a party which says something like "you don't need to pay more tax and you can still have great services: we'll simply cut out the wastage and inefficiency", which sounds great doesn't it (and no-one sane would argue against it) so everyone votes for them. But in practice it doesn't work despite every government in the last 30 years promising exactly that and none of them achieving it. And this is why the Tories love to portray Labour as a tax and spend party because it doesn't sit well with the UK electorate for the above reasons and why Labour has tried to distance itself from that tag. Now, given the fact that the NHS and education were shit under the Tories, how do you propose to improve them if not by spending money on them? But if you can't openly promise to improve them by raising taxes, what do you do? "The country was set up poorly for the recession because Blair/Brown either spent too much or taxed too little - its as simple as that. The financial crisis in this country was as much to do with him for taking housing out of the inflation calcuations as anything else." OK, a couple of questions here: which is it, spent too much or taxed too little? Either way, I hope you now consider Osborne and Cameron to be fucking useless too since they were planning on carrying on in exactly the same way until 2011. Second: this poor set up for the upcoming recession, this doesn't apply to Thatcher because she got the spending about right and the tax about right I presume? So the fact we then had record deficit and enormous debt levels is just an unfortunate coincidence and a legacy of the 70s she was forced to deal with? But having to spend money on a shit NHS and education system inherited from the Tories doesn't count in Labour's defence I take it? Can you show some evidence of the bold statement above? I haven't seen anyone else state this was "as much a cause of the financial crisis as anything else". "We are now in a position where the structural make up of the country will keep us with a massive deficit and debt levels that we haven't seen for a long time (certainly in my lifetime) and it's to do with the position that Labour left us in." What does this mean? The structural make up of the country? You keep going on about splurging money on the public sector and "what it does" without ever showing exactly what this impact on our deficit and debt was. You just say "it's hard to quantify" and then carry on expecting statements like the above to be accepted at face value. If you're going to insist that overspending on the public sector was what caused the mess we're now in, which appears to be your position, don't you need to be able to demonstrate this? I can show you how the financial crisis fucked up our finances fairly easily. If I've missed your link on splurging money on the public sector and its impact I apologise, but just stick it up again if you would.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Apr 24, 2012 13:51:15 GMT
;D Sometimes I think I don't credit you with enough insight, FYD, then you post something which neatly underlines exactly what I'd written earlier and I think, no, got him pretty much nailed! Re getting to me, I think you're doing the old holding the mirror up to yourself routine again . Ever since you tried to show we've all got one tit and one bollock through stats, your posts just make me laugh! Even the ones which revert back to your oft tried response - attempts at being abusive! And I saw with some amusement that all you really came back with was a standard "you're delusional" - ;D. You really couldn't make this easier! ;D It's weird I put "you" in one post and you get that it's aimed at you champ, yet I put it in another and you think it's aimed at the whole messageboard ;D Abusive
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 24, 2012 14:35:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2012 11:50:52 GMT
;D Sometimes I think I don't credit you with enough insight, FYD, then you post something which neatly underlines exactly what I'd written earlier and I think, no, got him pretty much nailed! Re getting to me, I think you're doing the old holding the mirror up to yourself routine again . Ever since you tried to show we've all got one tit and one bollock through stats, your posts just make me laugh! Even the ones which revert back to your oft tried response - attempts at being abusive! And I saw with some amusement that all you really came back with was a standard "you're delusional" - ;D. You really couldn't make this easier! ;D It's weird I put "you" in one post and you get that it's aimed at you champ, yet I put it in another and you think it's aimed at the whole messageboard ;D Abusive Not entirely sure how that comment follows at all! But it's just so difficult to guess when you are applying made up "quotes" selectively or not ;D. Seriously, there's no need to explain it to me, if it's anything at all to do with transexuals, which given your tit/bollock and CWD suggestions I'm thinking may be another obsession of yours! Anything you want to tell us? ;D Just cos I'm so nice, I've a suggestion. Why not save yourself a little time and simply use this template every post: "You're confusing me with someone else/making it all up again/taking things out of context/delusional/struggling with english/you tit". That way you can cover all your usual responses in one go and avoid any daft statistical nonsense, telling references to ladyboys or claims about globally used but apparently meaningless measures of government debt! We'd also avoid the "repition" ;D of my saying something, you denying it, then posting something which confirms what I originally said a couple of posts later ;D. Meanwhile mcf and I could carry on having a discussion.
|
|
|
Post by meirmortal on Apr 25, 2012 13:39:10 GMT
So where does that leave people who have some left wing beliefs and some right wing beliefs ? You might be anti immigration for example which would have you labeled as a 'right winger' by some but you might also believe in socialism which most people would regard as being left wing , although not always the case
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2012 13:51:22 GMT
If you read the original report it says that people of lower cognitive and reasoning ability tend to demonstrate prejudice more readily and favour traditionally right wing beliefs as it makes them feel safer with regard to their own place in the world.
It doesn't mean that everyone falls neatly into that categorisation, of course, but based on the large (20,000 was it?) sample that they looked at, lower intelligence correlated significantly with rightwing beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2012 13:57:21 GMT
That's a quality find, mcf. You'll have to give me a short while to read it, though, mate! Skimmed through the first dozen or so pages and not seen anything yet which doesn't back up what I've been saying all along. The impact of the financial crisis was the over-riding factor as to where we now are, Figs 8 and 9 for example. More later, (bet you can hardly wait !). PS, what do you think of the double dip recession we're now in, which the Tories promised us their policies would steer us well clear of - utter wank, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on Apr 25, 2012 15:12:28 GMT
good read. I feel it's probably inherently politically biased along ideological rather than party lines (belief in a smaller state, pro business, the idea that "fairness" is a spurious notion) but either way there's a lot I agree with in there, and some novel suggestions that should at least be explored.
|
|
|
Post by meirmortal on Apr 25, 2012 15:22:21 GMT
I think its a load of bollox written by some one who's left wing with an agenda myself. Its easy to label people as thick just because they have a different opinion , instead of taking everyones opinion on board, being open minded and accepting that everyone has different opinions and beliefs based on their own life experiences, shooting some one down for having their own mind reeks of egocentricism.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 25, 2012 15:49:07 GMT
I think it backs up my argument way more than yours I think the report suggests how much of the damage that led us to 2008 was actually started in 2000 and was then completely compounded with Brown's splurge around the time of the crash....where he basically uses the public purse to compensate for the drying up of private funds. He simply shouldn't have done this!!??? Surely???? This is where I believe that our 'structure' is now fundamentally wrong. I think the coalition had to cut 700,000 public sector jobs just to get back to pre-crash/post crash levels....which is a tough task with process, redundancy payments etc.....and we were in a wank position even b4 the crash. I was searching through the pages on here to find the article that I posted around hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs being added from 2000 and then an absolutely bucketful in 2008 but I can't find it. I will look harder when I get chance as you probably still seem to think it isn't the case and that Brown really spent it on lollipops. I'm not surprised by the double dip recession. It's too early to call judgment on Osborne and Cameron and I certainly don't think that Balls Plan B is remotely the answer - I think it even says in this report that Plan B has already been tried and failed. I think this report talks about the folly of paying to much attention to Brown's growth when it was based on borrowed money. However, if I was to give an early forcast on Osborne then I'd probably argue that he's not going anywhere near far enough...I'm guessing you think otherwise from some of your past comments. I'm not surprised though given your complete inability to accept some basic truths around this issue. blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/author/andrewlilico/2 good entries from this guy as well around austerity and the alternative to the banking bailouts.... I'm sure you won't be surprised to see me quoting from the Telegraph rather than the Guardian
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2012 8:52:05 GMT
I think its a load of bollox written by some one who's left wing with an agenda myself. Its easy to label people as thick just because they have a different opinion , instead of taking everyones opinion on board, being open minded and accepting that everyone has different opinions and beliefs based on their own life experiences, shooting some one down for having their own mind reeks of egocentricism. That would be fair enough, if it wasn't for the fact it was a scientific study based on a large sample set which found that people of lower intelligence and reasoning ability (tested) were more likely to subscribe to what are usually considered rightwing views and more prone to exhibit prejudice against other groups (gays, ethnic minorities etc). Their findings were statistically significant.
|
|
|
Post by meirmortal on Apr 26, 2012 10:54:37 GMT
I think its a load of bollox written by some one who's left wing with an agenda myself. Its easy to label people as thick just because they have a different opinion , instead of taking everyones opinion on board, being open minded and accepting that everyone has different opinions and beliefs based on their own life experiences, shooting some one down for having their own mind reeks of egocentricism. That would be fair enough, if it wasn't for the fact it was a scientific study based on a large sample set which found that people of lower intelligence and reasoning ability (tested) were more likely to subscribe to what are usually considered rightwing views and more prone to exhibit prejudice against other groups (gays, ethnic minorities etc). Their findings were statistically significant. And this 'scientific' study is 100% credible and from a trusted source with no history of twisting or manipulating so called 'facts' to suit a particular view point or agenda ? Who funded this 'scientific' study ? The Internet is a wonderful thing, if you search hard enough you can find 'evidence' to prove that the world is flat . No matter what your political/social views are , there is so called 'evidence' out there to prove your point and to 'prove' that everyone who doesn't agree is thick. I'm not saying the study is wrong, I'm saying until I'm presented with all the facts I'll keep an open mind. I can't see how some ones racist, homophobic , sexist opinions automatically equals low intelligence, there are racist, homophobic, bigoted people of all intellectual levels just like there are tolerate people of all intellectual levels Its too much of a generalisation for my liking and I suspect those who took part in the 'scientific' study weren't indeed selected at random but were hand picked to suit an agenda, what ever that agenda might be.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Apr 26, 2012 11:04:50 GMT
drink driving accounts fot 32% of all accidents on the road there fore sober drivers cause 68%
it is safer to be drunk on the roads than sober
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2012 14:59:12 GMT
Have you been taking a Followyoudown crash course in statistics, Al ;D You weren't in the original study were you?
|
|