|
Post by spirered on Mar 29, 2015 18:44:23 GMT
Personally, i think that the major issue was a huge rise in public spending (mainly brought in by but not limited to the previous Labour government) that the country was never going to be able to sustain in the long term regardless of whether the recession occurred. Unfortunately, this had led to some people having an unjustified sense of entitlement to an unrealistic amount public money (not just benefits), that realistically the country could not afford to pay in the first place never mind the long term. (There are some things I don't include in this, such as the NHS as I think spending on this should have been protected) Which ever party formed a government this time was always going to have a tough time as there were only 2 real options, cut spending or raise taxes as borrowing more money simply wasn't an option. Personally I think most of the correct options have been taken and this is being shown in the slow but steady recovery we are seeing. One which is years ahead of most of Europe. Common sense comments Jonney, unfortunately it will be lost on the braindeads who can't accept that Labour max'd out the countries credit card though wreckless spending
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2015 18:48:18 GMT
He has to be one of the worst players to play in the Premier league.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 29, 2015 18:52:40 GMT
A banker led financial nose dive, driven by filthy greed and criminality and still people like to blame the weakest in our society. The Bullingdon boys aided by those evil poverty porn barons manufacturing Benefits Street and the like, really have worked a number on a few people haven't they?
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Mar 29, 2015 18:59:16 GMT
It was a global recession Harry. That isn't Labour's fault and the evidence suggests that the Conservatives would've done literally nothing differently (which is damning from a Labour perspective). There would have been a recession whoever was in power. Of course, it's allowed this shower of c**ts to target the poor and the vulnerable, which they couldn't fucking wait to do. It was a global recession as I said earlier , the routes of it came from the Bush administrations insistence on mortgages for all despite warnings of where it would lead . You may characterise the present government in those terms but any government will need to tackle our national debts, labour will need to make further cuts in public spending as they readily admit , the interest payment alone on our debt is £65 billion ( ish ) pa , more than we spend on education . They're dogmatists disguised as pragmatists, they couldn't wait to get stuck into the poor.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Mar 29, 2015 19:07:34 GMT
It was a global recession as I said earlier , the routes of it came from the Bush administrations insistence on mortgages for all despite warnings of where it would lead . You may characterise the present government in those terms but any government will need to tackle our national debts, labour will need to make further cuts in public spending as they readily admit , the interest payment alone on our debt is £65 billion ( ish ) pa , more than we spend on education . They're dogmatists disguised as pragmatists, they couldn't wait to get stuck into the poor. Don't agree , say what you like Rob the present government had to deal with a pretty difficult situation , spending had to be reigned in or don't you agree? . Proper control on universal benefits had to be put in place . The country has to live within its means whilst at the same time protecting the most vulnerable members of society . The only way IMO to provide a sustainable welfare system is wealth creation not tax , borrow and spend
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Mar 29, 2015 19:09:05 GMT
They're dogmatists disguised as pragmatists, they couldn't wait to get stuck into the poor. Don't agree , say what you like Rob the present government had to deal with a pretty difficult situation , spending had to be reigned in or don't you agree? . Proper control on universal benefits had to be put in place . The country has to live within its means whilst at the same time protecting the most vulnerable members of society . The only way IMO to provide a sustainable welfare system is wealth creation not tax , borrow and spend And how are this lot 'protecting the most vulnerable members of society'?
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Mar 29, 2015 19:10:31 GMT
Don't agree , say what you like Rob the present government had to deal with a pretty difficult situation , spending had to be reigned in or don't you agree? . Proper control on universal benefits had to be put in place . The country has to live within its means whilst at the same time protecting the most vulnerable members of society . The only way IMO to provide a sustainable welfare system is wealth creation not tax , borrow and spend And how are this lot 'protecting the most vulnerable members of society'? Depends on who you are talking about
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Mar 29, 2015 19:19:01 GMT
The disabled, carers, the unemployed for starters...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2015 19:54:44 GMT
The thing with politics is everybody is obsessed with change and policies never get a chance to last.
Having worked in education I've seen how ridiculous ideas and strategies spouted by both sides can be when you know how things work in a sector. It's frightening how many key policies are set that are both ineffective and take up valuable time, all to show the public that they are changing an imagined failure of previous incumbents of their role.
I imagine the same thing happens in finance, health, policing etc and unfortunately the public doesn't seem to question it. We'll be forever trapped in a labour then tory then labour then tory country where good ideas are scrapped as often as bad ones
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 29, 2015 20:18:02 GMT
Why? Because he isnt a fucking brainwashed Stoke moron that would vote for a fucking paving slab if it was painted red? Quite obviously people vote for who they think can do them the most good. No surprise labour give the most out in benefits to work shy cunters! H Some people vote for who they think will do the country the most good. Step forward St Peter. Yes a man who puts his socialist principles into practice by taking money off the exclusive millionaire clientele of bet 365. This money might fund Stoke but in terms of the poorest in society bookmakers aren't much morally higher than the likes of Wonga etc etc
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 29, 2015 20:34:33 GMT
Some people vote for who they think will do the country the most good. Step forward St Peter. Yes a man who puts his socialist principles into practice by taking money off the exclusive millionaire clientele of bet 365. This money might fund Stoke but in terms of the poorest in society bookmakers aren't much morally higher than the likes of Wonga etc etc They are highly regulated though and all voluntarily emblazoned their websites and shop windows with problem gaming insignia for a whole month recently. It is ethically questionable but compared to certain elements of banking, it's Sunday school stuff.
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Mar 29, 2015 21:03:40 GMT
Some people vote for who they think will do the country the most good. Step forward St Peter. Yes a man who puts his socialist principles into practice by taking money off the exclusive millionaire clientele of bet 365. This money might fund Stoke but in terms of the poorest in society bookmakers aren't much morally higher than the likes of Wonga etc etc I know what you're saying but just how do you stop the poor spending their surplus welfare benefits at the bookies if they want to?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 29, 2015 21:04:12 GMT
Yes a man who puts his socialist principles into practice by taking money off the exclusive millionaire clientele of bet 365. This money might fund Stoke but in terms of the poorest in society bookmakers aren't much morally higher than the likes of Wonga etc etc They are highly regulated though and all voluntarily emblazoned their websites and shop windows with problem gaming insignia for a whole month recently. It is ethically questionable but compared to certain elements of banking, it's Sunday school stuff. Highly regulated wasn't that what they said about the banks? What does the most harm to society a Karl Henry tweet or ethically questionable bookmakers ?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 29, 2015 21:05:51 GMT
They are highly regulated though and all voluntarily emblazoned their websites and shop windows with problem gaming insignia for a whole month recently. It is ethically questionable but compared to certain elements of banking, it's Sunday school stuff. Highly regulated wasn't that what they said about the banks? What does the most harm to society a Karl Henry tweet or ethically questionable bookmakers ? Moral free bankers with a sense of utter entitlement. Scum.
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Mar 29, 2015 21:11:00 GMT
Highly regulated wasn't that what they said about the banks? What does the most harm to society a Karl Henry tweet or ethically questionable bookmakers ? Moral free bankers with a sense of utter entitlement. Scum. Would you care to define a banker a bit more clearly? There's a lot of good honest 'hard working people' (copyright Ed Milliband) who work in banks. Ta
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 29, 2015 21:11:44 GMT
Yes a man who puts his socialist principles into practice by taking money off the exclusive millionaire clientele of bet 365. This money might fund Stoke but in terms of the poorest in society bookmakers aren't much morally higher than the likes of Wonga etc etc I know what you're saying but just how do you stop the poor spending their surplus welfare benefits at the bookies if they want to? Not very compatible with socialist principles though is it. The Tories are scum for cutting benefits etc taking money from the poor, Peter is a saint even though as a guess I'd say he takes a large proportion of his money from the poor just because he puts some of it into Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Mar 29, 2015 21:18:45 GMT
I know what you're saying but just how do you stop the poor spending their surplus welfare benefits at the bookies if they want to? Not very compatible with socialist principles though is it. Well if you mean investing his money to create and run a business that provides thousands of ordinary people with jobs and pays a vast sum of Corporation Tax to fund welfare, hospital, schools etc, then I agree that's not a very socialistic principle is it?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 29, 2015 22:01:55 GMT
Not very compatible with socialist principles though is it. Well if you mean investing his money to create and run a business that provides thousands of ordinary people with jobs and pays a vast sum of Corporation Tax to fund welfare, hospital, schools etc, then I agree that's not a very socialistic principle is it? That's ok then as long as he pays tax, let's ignore how the money is made from some of the poorest in society. I expect to see no more criticism of moral free banks on the same basis then.
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Mar 29, 2015 22:20:12 GMT
They are highly regulated though and all voluntarily emblazoned their websites and shop windows with problem gaming insignia for a whole month recently. It is ethically questionable but compared to certain elements of banking, it's Sunday school stuff. Highly regulated wasn't that what they said about the banks? What does the most harm to society a Karl Henry tweet or ethically questionable bookmakers ? No, quite the opposite. For years the mantra was "light touch regulation". The body which was supposed to keep an eye on them (the FSA) and help protect consumers was staffed by bankers, run by bankers, for the benefit of bankers. It's generally accepted that one of the key factors in the global financial crash was too little effective regulation and oversight of the financial industry.
|
|
|
Post by The battheader chronicles on Mar 29, 2015 22:24:25 GMT
Good God no. By all means have a referendum and let the people speak, but leaving the EU would be disastous for British business and Britain as a whole
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Mar 29, 2015 22:24:29 GMT
Well if you mean investing his money to create and run a business that provides thousands of ordinary people with jobs and pays a vast sum of Corporation Tax to fund welfare, hospital, schools etc, then I agree that's not a very socialistic principle is it? That's ok then as long as he pays tax, let's ignore how the money is made from some of the poorest in society. I expect to see no more criticism of moral free banks on the same basis then. Hang on, are you saying that because he's not criticizing Bet365 because they pay their tax, therefore he shouldn't criticize banks? Even when they make money by avoiding tax and helping others to do so? How does that follow?
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Mar 29, 2015 23:50:59 GMT
The crash occurred after 10 years of government by new labour rob , Blair was a closet capitalist as we know It was a global recession Harry. That isn't Labour's fault and the evidence suggests that the Conservatives would've done literally nothing differently (which is damning from a Labour perspective). There would have been a recession whoever was in power. Of course, it's allowed this shower of c**ts to target the poor and the vulnerable, which they couldn't fucking wait to do. Like me paying much less in tax now than I ever did under Labour? I'm on low pay by the way.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Mar 29, 2015 23:58:43 GMT
That makes him a complete moron as well as Stoke legend! Why? Because he isnt a fucking brainwashed Stoke moron that would vote for a fucking paving slab if it was painted red? Quite obviously people vote for who they think can do them the most good. No surprise labour give the most out in benefits to work shy cunters! H But Labour are the party of the working class!!!!! Everything was fucking wonderful under them.
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Mar 30, 2015 0:47:00 GMT
Good God no. By all means have a referendum and let the people speak, but leaving the EU would be disastous for British business and Britain as a whole Each to their own but UKIP have been a breath of fresh air.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 30, 2015 0:58:18 GMT
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of which party forms a government, it would be much better for Stoke-on-Trent if Labour's majority was very, very slim, as we would get much more attention and money from the Government. That's why party politics is a terrible system. I will probably vote for Labour, but only because Rob Flello seems to be quite a good MP.
For what it's worth, I feel that the Conservative cuts went too deep, too quickly. It was rooted in sheer ideology rather than financial recovery and it resulted in a double dip recession, as was predicted before the election. Worse still, the country is now locked into the Osborne spending plans, which will be carried out for the next two years regardless of who is in Number 11. Strangely, while his government has a patchy at best record, Cameron himself has been a reasonable leader in purely political terms. Holding together his party through a silly and improbable coalition, while fending off the divisive issue of Europe, is no mean feat.
The worst of all though are the Lib Dems. They are the Arsenal of politics nowadays. I'm almost more interested in seeing them completely wiped out than I am in who takes charge of the country. How wonderful it would be to see Wenger himself, Nick Clegg, toppled.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Mar 30, 2015 3:17:53 GMT
Good God no. By all means have a referendum and let the people speak, but leaving the EU would be disastous for British business and Britain as a whole Each to their own but UKIP have been a breath of fresh air. Yep, a racist breath of fresh air! H
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Mar 30, 2015 6:45:18 GMT
It was a global recession Harry. That isn't Labour's fault and the evidence suggests that the Conservatives would've done literally nothing differently (which is damning from a Labour perspective). There would have been a recession whoever was in power. Of course, it's allowed this shower of c**ts to target the poor and the vulnerable, which they couldn't fucking wait to do. Like me paying much less in tax now than I ever did under Labour? I'm on low pay by the way. I'm alright Jack.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 30, 2015 7:04:49 GMT
Like me paying much less in tax now than I ever did under Labour? I'm on low pay by the way. I'm alright Jack. Why ask the fucking question if you don't like the answer? The current government are helping many of the poor by creating conditions that allows millions more jobs to be created. Typical Labour voters...vote them in....it all goes tits up...and yet everyone else is to blame. Fucking idiots.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Mar 30, 2015 7:34:34 GMT
Like me paying much less in tax now than I ever did under Labour? I'm on low pay by the way. I'm alright Jack. God, what a hard hearted capitalist I am, actually wanting to take some of my pitiful wage home. Thank the Lord the good guys will be back in soon to make everything good again. Keep voting Labour, keep getting a wanky council that couldn't run a fucking bath; that's the message, is it?
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Mar 30, 2015 7:35:01 GMT
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of which party forms a government, it would be much better for Stoke-on-Trent if Labour's majority was very, very slim, as we would get much more attention and money from the Government. That's why party politics is a terrible system. I will probably vote for Labour, but only because Rob Flello seems to be quite a good MP. For what it's worth, I feel that the Conservative cuts went too deep, too quickly. It was rooted in sheer ideology rather than financial recovery and it resulted in a double dip recession, as was predicted before the election. Worse still, the country is now locked into the Osborne spending plans, which will be carried out for the next two years regardless of who is in Number 11. Strangely, while his government has a patchy at best record, Cameron himself has been a reasonable leader in purely political terms. Holding together his party through a silly and improbable coalition, while fending off the divisive issue of Europe, is no mean feat. The worst of all though are the Lib Dems. They are the Arsenal of politics nowadays. I'm almost more interested in seeing them completely wiped out than I am in who takes charge of the country. How wonderful it would be to see Wenger himself, Nick Clegg, toppled.
sheer ideology
1 million percent correct.
|
|