|
Post by salopstick on Nov 2, 2014 22:42:30 GMT
I'm sure Crosby didn't advise ed to do a photo opportunity with (by the looks of the photo) a young able bodied homeless immigrant. I'm sure he didn't but I'm certain he ordered it to be splashed across the Tory press. As would the guardian if it had been Dave. Ed is the political version of peter crouch. He just doesn't look right
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Nov 2, 2014 22:48:28 GMT
I wouldn't mind looking like Crouchy if I had his wife :-)
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 2, 2014 23:36:00 GMT
Just a pity they decided to punish children by freezing child benefits if returned to power. Hence why he won't be getting my vote.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 2, 2014 23:37:12 GMT
I'm sure he didn't but I'm certain he ordered it to be splashed across the Tory press. As would the guardian if it had been Dave. Ed is the political version of peter crouch. He just doesn't look right Wouldn't have thought how someone looks is that important, is that to you then?
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 2, 2014 23:42:32 GMT
Just a pity they decided to punish children by freezing child benefits if returned to power. Hence why he won't be getting my vote. Seriously
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 2, 2014 23:43:43 GMT
As would the guardian if it had been Dave. Ed is the political version of peter crouch. He just doesn't look right Wouldn't have thought how someone looks is that important, is that to you then? Looks and image are more important than you think if you want to be taken seriously. Fact of modern life m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28492281
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Nov 3, 2014 9:21:56 GMT
Depends how you define 'out of control'. It may not have been 'spiralling' but it was certaintly consisently higher than it needed to be hence we entered the crisis with a structural defict that was one of the highest in the entire developed world. All Osborne's figures show is a mockery of these supposed spending cuts. Yes, we're in agreement, amazingly enough. Given that the current debt rates are not out of control, I'd consider it fair enough to say that those several times lower under the previous govt were also not out of control. Debt is currently much, much higher than is comfortable but since the UK is still perfectly capable of borrowing at acceptable rates and is nowhere near and never has been anywhere near going bankrupt, I also wouldn't describe the current situation as out of control, as I'm sure Osborne wouldn't either! Isn't everyone in agreement? It's clear as day that we are in a pretty shit position.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Nov 3, 2014 16:11:53 GMT
That sums a lot of it up FYD We could make out as though Lukey was a thick twat hardly worth bothering with on the basis that he once told us PFI added 9% to the debt and what was it he once told you...something like that 'tax receipts didn't affect the debt' .... but constantly digging such errors up would just be childish, pointless, daft etc etc Tut tut and tut again, what dreadful misquoting from someone who is so against it! Actually, if you remember, mcf, which you never can do, the figure of 9% for PFI impact on national debt I quoted was from the "thick twats" as you would so charmingly put it from a rightwing thinktank. I chose that figure deliberately as it was by far the highest one I could find. Unlike them to have got it so spectacularly wrong! The actual OBR figure some time later was about 1.5%. Hardly worth getting your knickers in a twist over, although some folk do love to bang on about PFI but not in criticism of George Osborne's love of PFI, oddly enough! Just to be clear again, tax receipts don't affect the debt, they affect the deficit, which is the difference between revenue and spending. Subsequent borrowing which, amongst other things, may be used to offset any deficit is what increases the debt. That quality understanding again, mcf! For someone that started out blaming our current predicament on a fall of tax receipts rather than Labour's rampant spending then I guess you must have spent hours and hours and hours arguing with yourself in a mirror. You are simply being daft.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 3, 2014 16:16:47 GMT
Tut tut and tut again, what dreadful misquoting from someone who is so against it! Actually, if you remember, mcf, which you never can do, the figure of 9% for PFI impact on national debt I quoted was from the "thick twats" as you would so charmingly put it from a rightwing thinktank. I chose that figure deliberately as it was by far the highest one I could find. Unlike them to have got it so spectacularly wrong! The actual OBR figure some time later was about 1.5%. Hardly worth getting your knickers in a twist over, although some folk do love to bang on about PFI but not in criticism of George Osborne's love of PFI, oddly enough! Just to be clear again, tax receipts don't affect the debt, they affect the deficit, which is the difference between revenue and spending. Subsequent borrowing which, amongst other things, may be used to offset any deficit is what increases the debt. That quality understanding again, mcf! For someone that started out blaming our current predicament on a fall of tax receipts rather than Labour's rampant spending then I guess you must have spent hours and hours and hours arguing with yourself in a mirror. You are simply being daft. surely if tax receipts dont affect the debt but only affect the deficit and we have to borrow more to offset the deficit which increases the debt then reduced tax receipts affect the debt????
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Nov 3, 2014 16:17:51 GMT
Jesus that's lame even for you tax receipts don't affect the debt except when the government has to borrow more because tax receipts are lower than spending, Now who was that guy posting graphs showing governments run deficits most of the time, funnier than the prices in the saints bar, I thought you weren't bothering to 'engage' any more! You really are so 'over all this'! Hate to have to put you straight one more time, but that's what the conversation was about. mcf won't remember of course, but it was not long after I'd had to unravel his confusion between budget surplus/deficit and Balance of Payments exports/imports surplus/deficit. He then got similarly mixed up with debt and deficit so I explained it using that paragraph in bold above. I mean, feel free to say it's wrong if you think it is Of course I remember one of the previous times when you made a load more stuff up....it's what your good at.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Nov 3, 2014 16:19:09 GMT
For someone that started out blaming our current predicament on a fall of tax receipts rather than Labour's rampant spending then I guess you must have spent hours and hours and hours arguing with yourself in a mirror. You are simply being daft. surely if tax receipts dont affect the debt but only affect the deficit and we have to borrow more to offset the deficit which increases the debt then reduced tax receipts affect the debt????don't be daft...oscar pistorious didn't shoot his girlfriend...it was the gun's fault.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 20:59:12 GMT
Wouldn't have thought how someone looks is that important, is that to you then? Looks and image are more important than you think if you want to be taken seriously. Fact of modern life m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28492281Is that why nobody takes you seriously?!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 21:09:19 GMT
Tut tut and tut again, what dreadful misquoting from someone who is so against it! Actually, if you remember, mcf, which you never can do, the figure of 9% for PFI impact on national debt I quoted was from the "thick twats" as you would so charmingly put it from a rightwing thinktank. I chose that figure deliberately as it was by far the highest one I could find. Unlike them to have got it so spectacularly wrong! The actual OBR figure some time later was about 1.5%. Hardly worth getting your knickers in a twist over, although some folk do love to bang on about PFI but not in criticism of George Osborne's love of PFI, oddly enough! Just to be clear again, tax receipts don't affect the debt, they affect the deficit, which is the difference between revenue and spending. Subsequent borrowing which, amongst other things, may be used to offset any deficit is what increases the debt. That quality understanding again, mcf! For someone that started out blaming our current predicament on a fall of tax receipts rather than Labour's rampant spending then I guess you must have spent hours and hours and hours arguing with yourself in a mirror. You are simply being daft. Or possibly that you simply don't understand economics, as you've openly admitted many times! Most people are quite able to see the effect the recession had on our finances and to understand the link between falling tax revenues, the deficit, cutting spending, borrowing and the debt, but not some of those apparently less than 100 watt right wingers who continue to struggle! I'd stick some graphs up to show the step change post 2008 but we all know relying on the reports of others for evidence isn't the way forward!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 21:15:47 GMT
I thought you weren't bothering to 'engage' any more! You really are so 'over all this'! Hate to have to put you straight one more time, but that's what the conversation was about. mcf won't remember of course, but it was not long after I'd had to unravel his confusion between budget surplus/deficit and Balance of Payments exports/imports surplus/deficit. He then got similarly mixed up with debt and deficit so I explained it using that paragraph in bold above. I mean, feel free to say it's wrong if you think it is Of course I remember one of the previous times when you made a load more stuff up....it's what your good at. Yeah, yeah, all lies and made up, the stock response of your average right winger when faced with something they'd rather not deal with. Did I also make it up when you said you found it hard to understand global finances and economics? Did I make it up when you said your thinking is biased towards right wing ideology?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2014 21:36:03 GMT
For someone that started out blaming our current predicament on a fall of tax receipts rather than Labour's rampant spending then I guess you must have spent hours and hours and hours arguing with yourself in a mirror. You are simply being daft. surely if tax receipts dont affect the debt but only affect the deficit and we have to borrow more to offset the deficit which increases the debt then reduced tax receipts affect the debt????It's an entirely circular argument this, but tax revenue (and spending) are what the budget surplus or deficit are calculated from. Borrowing is what increases the debt. It is entirely possible to have falling tax revenues with no net borrowing, therefore no increase in debt, is it not? This is precisely the world that compassionate Conservative mcf wants to live in, by cutting spending drastically ("no spending until debt is zero, why not?").
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 3, 2014 21:47:10 GMT
Is that why nobody takes you seriously?! I couldn't give a fuck but it's not all about policies for some voters. Are you telling me that image counts for nothing in voters mind. Yes it's style over substance im not saying it's always fair but it counts in some people's eyes. If people see a baffoon they might think they are getting a baffoon. Miliband obviously agrees with me by hiring pr consultants
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Nov 4, 2014 7:57:03 GMT
For someone that started out blaming our current predicament on a fall of tax receipts rather than Labour's rampant spending then I guess you must have spent hours and hours and hours arguing with yourself in a mirror. You are simply being daft. Or possibly that you simply don't understand economics, as you've openly admitted many times! Most people are quite able to see the effect the recession had on our finances and to understand the link between falling tax revenues, the deficit, cutting spending, borrowing and the debt, but not some of those apparently less than 100 watt right wingers who continue to struggle! I'd stick some graphs up to show the step change post 2008 but we all know relying on the reports of others for evidence isn't the way forward!! So tax revenues do affect the debt...there is a link!!!!!! In all seriousness, you have lost the plot.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Nov 4, 2014 8:05:15 GMT
Of course I remember one of the previous times when you made a load more stuff up....it's what your good at. Yeah, yeah, all lies and made up, the stock response of your average right winger when faced with something they'd rather not deal with. Did I also make it up when you said you found it hard to understand global finances and economics? Did I make it up when you said your thinking is biased towards right wing ideology? On this thread alone we've had 'hard to understand' and 'simply don't understand' What I did say was that I had a limited understanding.....which I still totally stand by. What you have said are lies, misquotes, bending the truth....however you want to cut it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 6:06:39 GMT
Just a pity they decided to punish children by freezing child benefits if returned to power. Hence why he won't be getting my vote. something needs to be done re child benefit, for too long the lazy have been pumping out little brats so they get more benefits [not to spend on the children but to pay for the luxuries many hard working folk cannot afford] i suggest benefits paid to the first two only.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 20:35:38 GMT
Yeah, yeah, all lies and made up, the stock response of your average right winger when faced with something they'd rather not deal with. Did I also make it up when you said you found it hard to understand global finances and economics? Did I make it up when you said your thinking is biased towards right wing ideology? On this thread alone we've had 'hard to understand' and 'simply don't understand' What I did say was that I had a limited understanding.....which I still totally stand by. What you have said are lies, misquotes, bending the truth....however you want to cut it. All the same thing really though aren't they? A lack of understanding, finding it hard to understand, however you want to describe it, they all amount to how you described your ability - you have limited understanding. Something I totally agree with you about. Hence the need in the original conversation to explain the difference between what affects the deficit and what affects the debt and why Balance of Payments surplus and deficits are different to budget surplus and deficits. You no doubt won't remember. Which is both ironic and symptomatic of that limited understanding in itself! Carry on pretending it's all lies and misquotes if you want, but you said it previously, you have a limited understanding. And you've just said it here again, so no point in splitting hairs about the words I use to describe your degree of inability to understand all this, which is basically all that you're doing to try to make it look like I've made it up!
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Nov 7, 2014 10:48:23 GMT
On this thread alone we've had 'hard to understand' and 'simply don't understand' What I did say was that I had a limited understanding.....which I still totally stand by. What you have said are lies, misquotes, bending the truth....however you want to cut it. All the same thing really though aren't they? A lack of understanding, finding it hard to understand, however you want to describe it, they all amount to how you described your ability - you have limited understanding. Something I totally agree with you about. Hence the need in the original conversation to explain the difference between what affects the deficit and what affects the debt and why Balance of Payments surplus and deficits are different to budget surplus and deficits. You no doubt won't remember. Which is both ironic and symptomatic of that limited understanding in itself! Carry on pretending it's all lies and misquotes if you want, but you said it previously, you have a limited understanding. And you've just said it here again, so no point in splitting hairs about the words I use to describe your degree of inability to understand all this, which is basically all that you're doing to try to make it look like I've made it up! To be honest Lukey, other than making cheap, pathetic jibes, I'm probably done with you. I should have taken squareball's advice from years ago. You are at it again, I don't have an 'inability' to understand all this. I have a limited understanding as quite frankly, it's not my profession - it's just something I read about on the side. I have no need to lie. I did not get mixed up about deficits and debts or the Balance of Payments. I know exactly what they are. I have no idea why you even bother respond to myself, or anyone on this board for that matter given you've made your position quite clear - be a Cambridge educated student or fuck off. I'll probably take that advice though and seek out the experts rather than someone who struggles to make up his mind as to whether tax receipts affect the debt or not.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 13:09:00 GMT
Labour will get my vote.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 18:34:42 GMT
All the same thing really though aren't they? A lack of understanding, finding it hard to understand, however you want to describe it, they all amount to how you described your ability - you have limited understanding. Something I totally agree with you about. Hence the need in the original conversation to explain the difference between what affects the deficit and what affects the debt and why Balance of Payments surplus and deficits are different to budget surplus and deficits. You no doubt won't remember. Which is both ironic and symptomatic of that limited understanding in itself! Carry on pretending it's all lies and misquotes if you want, but you said it previously, you have a limited understanding. And you've just said it here again, so no point in splitting hairs about the words I use to describe your degree of inability to understand all this, which is basically all that you're doing to try to make it look like I've made it up! To be honest Lukey, other than making cheap, pathetic jibes, I'm probably done with you. I should have taken squareball's advice from years ago. You are at it again, I don't have an 'inability' to understand all this. I have a limited understanding as quite frankly, it's not my profession - it's just something I read about on the side. I have no need to lie. I did not get mixed up about deficits and debts or the Balance of Payments. I know exactly what they are. I have no idea why you even bother respond to myself, or anyone on this board for that matter given you've made your position quite clear - be a Cambridge educated student or fuck off. I'll probably take that advice though and seek out the experts rather than someone who struggles to make up his mind as to whether tax receipts affect the debt or not. Oh, the irony. That, in itself, highlighted above, could be construed as a complete lie! But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just put it down to not remembering again. You very much did get those things mixed up, that's why we originally had the conversation about debt, deficit and BoP! That's why I had to explain how spending and tax are what affect the deficit directly and how borrowing increases the debt. That was the whole point of that conversation way back when. You probably don't remember and are now convincing yourself it never happened! Just like pretending you never said you'd have absolutely no spending until the debt reached zero. I asked you that direct question. You said "Why not?" It's stuff like this and not getting the global nature of the financial markets which very much does demonstrate a limited understanding. At least that bit is accurate. When did I say anyone should be a Cambridge educated student? Is this a reference to my citing a Cambridge Uni employed economist previously? Or perhaps another example of you Tories assuming stuff I've never actually said once again. And you lot so hot on misquoting and lies - ironic isn't it! Feel free to fuck off though, it's your choice whether you post or not!
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Nov 10, 2014 8:00:39 GMT
To be honest Lukey, other than making cheap, pathetic jibes, I'm probably done with you. I should have taken squareball's advice from years ago. You are at it again, I don't have an 'inability' to understand all this. I have a limited understanding as quite frankly, it's not my profession - it's just something I read about on the side. I have no need to lie. I did not get mixed up about deficits and debts or the Balance of Payments. I know exactly what they are. I have no idea why you even bother respond to myself, or anyone on this board for that matter given you've made your position quite clear - be a Cambridge educated student or fuck off. I'll probably take that advice though and seek out the experts rather than someone who struggles to make up his mind as to whether tax receipts affect the debt or not. Oh, the irony. That, in itself, highlighted above, could be construed as a complete lie! But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just put it down to not remembering again. You very much did get those things mixed up, that's why we originally had the conversation about debt, deficit and BoP! That's why I had to explain how spending and tax are what affect the deficit directly and how borrowing increases the debt. That was the whole point of that conversation way back when. You probably don't remember and are now convincing yourself it never happened! Just like pretending you never said you'd have absolutely no spending until the debt reached zero. I asked you that direct question. You said "Why not?" It's stuff like this and not getting the global nature of the financial markets which very much does demonstrate a limited understanding. At least that bit is accurate. When did I say anyone should be a Cambridge educated student? Is this a reference to my citing a Cambridge Uni employed economist previously? Or perhaps another example of you Tories assuming stuff I've never actually said once again. And you lot so hot on misquoting and lies - ironic isn't it! Feel free to fuck off though, it's your choice whether you post or not! Brilliant...more lies and misquotes. At no point did I say I was fucking off.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 19:25:00 GMT
It was a pisstake and joke, based on you having been to Poly and not Cambridge Uni and therefore having to "fuck off" I take it you completely missed it, limited understanding eh! ???
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 10, 2014 19:53:34 GMT
Your comedy is too high brow for the likes of me and mcf
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Nov 11, 2014 8:49:47 GMT
Humour, comedy.....bollocks.
It's just more shite to cover up yet more bollocks he's come up with.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 8:56:47 GMT
Your comedy is too high brow for the likes of me and mcf You pair do seem to struggle with the most obvious gags going! You do lend some extra credence to that famous study about right wingers being a bit less sharp than normal.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Nov 11, 2014 10:07:09 GMT
Your comedy is too high brow for the likes of me and mcf You pair do seem to struggle with the most obvious gags going! You do lend some extra credence to that famous study about right wingers being a bit less sharp than normal. Indeed We even missed your best yet gag yet... ...tax receipts don't affect debt. There we were laughing at you thinking you were a muppet when we really should have been wowed by your humour.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 10:21:27 GMT
Your comedy is too high brow for the likes of me and mcf You pair do seem to struggle with the most obvious gags going! You do lend some extra credence to that famous study about right wingers being a bit less sharp than normal. A fantasy that is imagined by arrogant left wingers who consider themselves part of a supposed intellectual " elite" in their own minds.......a " study " that holds no credence whatsoever in reality but exists in the thinking of the deluded on the left .....dream on
|
|