|
Post by salopstick on Nov 26, 2015 20:16:20 GMT
Or in the case of the Labour party under Corbyn based on the teachings of Chairman Mao, fuckin dinosaur bet all who voted for him are very proud of their decision, we needed strong opposition to the Tory's we ended up with the fuckin Marx brothers. You really don't have a clue do you? Considering the shadow cabinet can't agree on anything he is right they can't be strong opposition.
|
|
|
Post by jacques on Nov 27, 2015 1:16:08 GMT
That's actually wrong. Osborne has delayed cutting tax credits until Universal Credit comes in during the 2020 Parliament, at which point the same amount of money will still be cut. The plans would still take £1bn from working families next year and more than £3bn as the new universal credit system comes in. Osborne is still cutting child tax credit to a family’s first two children from 2017. And so he should If you need benefits for a third child you shouldn't have a third child. I agree. Its the same with squaddies. If one person decides to get shot at for a living, and then their son does, the whole lot deserve to get shot at.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 27, 2015 6:40:03 GMT
And so he should If you need benefits for a third child you shouldn't have a third child. I agree. Its the same with squaddies. If one person decides to get shot at for a living, and then their son does, the whole lot deserve to get shot at. I admire the time and effort it must take to create multiple email address just to register half a dozen accounts to post this wonderful insight.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 27, 2015 7:25:21 GMT
I agree. Its the same with squaddies. If one person decides to get shot at for a living, and then their son does, the whole lot deserve to get shot at. I admire the time and effort it must take to create multiple email address just to register half a dozen accounts to post this wonderful insight. I was wondering who Jacques is. I'm not sure he is who you think he is though. Admittedly that contribution is bizarre enough to be one person, but I've a feeling it's another familiar poster playing hide and seek. Let's see.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Nov 27, 2015 8:08:55 GMT
The worst October figures in 6 years, a bit of a misleading headline? The austerity has been slowing down the deficit and the debt, obviously not as much as we'd hoped as the lack of growth in Europe is not helping our eceonomy. What is your solution then Huddy, to spend, spend, spend and get us even into more debt? Well in very simple terms yes, if you want to put it that way. The very idea that you treat the national debt in the same way as you do a household overspend on your credit cards has been proven to fail for as long as there has been a measure on the economy. The facts are there for everyone to see and yet the Conservatives return to it every time they control the purse strings - in their own selective way of course. The very fact that the slower than expected growth in Europe is being blamed for the latest failure to make a dent in the debt is the clue. Despite the fact the government has spent the last five years raiding the pockets of those least able to pay off the debt and failing the penny still hasn't dropped. The only way that the national debt ever has been and ever will be addressed is through growth not reduction. That means investment. I have to say it amuses me to see so many who will continue to have there lives affected for the worse by more of the same failed medicine being at the front of the crowd cheering and calling for more. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas? Oh well I guess I can rely on Dave not dipping into my pocket to help out in destroying the social support structures that make this country stand out as a fair and just society.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2015 8:31:18 GMT
Not all that fair Mark when the govt is subsidising wages for some and allowing others to go through life never working and being as irresponsible as they like.The whole welfare system needs shaking up.China invested massively in infrastructure and look at them now,brand new towns with no inhabitants. Investment needs to be for the long term . Unfortunately govts don't look beyong their term in office
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2015 8:35:11 GMT
Not all that fair Mark when the govt is subsidising wages for some and allowing others to go through life never working and being as irresponsible as they like.The whole welfare system needs shaking up.China invested massively in infrastructure and look at them now,brand new towns with no inhabitants. Investment needs to be for the long term . Unfortunately govts don't look beyong their term in office If you take the time to read Corbyn's policy statements, you'll see he advocates just that.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 27, 2015 8:37:28 GMT
The worst October figures in 6 years, a bit of a misleading headline? The austerity has been slowing down the deficit and the debt, obviously not as much as we'd hoped as the lack of growth in Europe is not helping our eceonomy. What is your solution then Huddy, to spend, spend, spend and get us even into more debt? Well in very simple terms yes, if you want to put it that way. The very idea that you treat the national debt in the same way as you do a household overspend on your credit cards has been proven to fail for as long as there has been a measure on the economy. The facts are there for everyone to see and yet the Conservatives return to it every time they control the purse strings - in their own selective way of course. The very fact that the slower than expected growth in Europe is being blamed for the latest failure to make a dent in the debt is the clue. Despite the fact the government has spent the last five years raiding the pockets of those least able to pay off the debt and failing the penny still hasn't dropped. The only way that the national debt ever has been and ever will be addressed is through growth not reduction. That means investment. I have to say it amuses me to see so many who will continue to have there lives affected for the worse by more of the same failed medicine being at the front of the crowd cheering and calling for more. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas? Oh well I guess I can rely on Dave not dipping into my pocket to help out in destroying the social support structures that make this country stand out as a fair and just society. Are you another person that doesn't understand the difference between debt and the deficit? While you are running a deficit you cannot make a "dent in the debt", all you do is add to it. Reducing the deficit simply reduces the rate at which debt grows.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2015 8:46:41 GMT
Well in very simple terms yes, if you want to put it that way. The very idea that you treat the national debt in the same way as you do a household overspend on your credit cards has been proven to fail for as long as there has been a measure on the economy. The facts are there for everyone to see and yet the Conservatives return to it every time they control the purse strings - in their own selective way of course. The very fact that the slower than expected growth in Europe is being blamed for the latest failure to make a dent in the debt is the clue. Despite the fact the government has spent the last five years raiding the pockets of those least able to pay off the debt and failing the penny still hasn't dropped. The only way that the national debt ever has been and ever will be addressed is through growth not reduction. That means investment. I have to say it amuses me to see so many who will continue to have there lives affected for the worse by more of the same failed medicine being at the front of the crowd cheering and calling for more. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas? Oh well I guess I can rely on Dave not dipping into my pocket to help out in destroying the social support structures that make this country stand out as a fair and just society. Are you another person that doesn't understand the difference between debt and the deficit? While you are running a deficit you cannot make a "dent in the debt", all you do is add to it. Reducing the deficit simply reduces the rate at which debt grows. So Cameron and Osborne are both guilty of lying when both have been quoted as saying "we are paying down the debt"? Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Nov 27, 2015 8:52:08 GMT
Are you another person that doesn't understand the difference between debt and the deficit? While you are running a deficit you cannot make a "dent in the debt", all you do is add to it. Reducing the deficit simply reduces the rate at which debt grows. So Cameron and Osborne are both guilty of lying when both have been quoted as saying "we are paying down the debt"? Is that correct? They said the debt would be paid down within five years. It isn't. It isn't even close. They are now saying it will take another five years. They were wrong. Austerity never works. Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2015 8:55:08 GMT
So Cameron and Osborne are both guilty of lying when both have been quoted as saying "we are paying down the debt"? Is that correct? They said the debt would be paid down within five years. It isn't. It isn't even close. They are now saying it will take another five years. They were wrong. Austerity never works. Is that correct? Indeed it is.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 27, 2015 8:57:50 GMT
Are you another person that doesn't understand the difference between debt and the deficit? While you are running a deficit you cannot make a "dent in the debt", all you do is add to it. Reducing the deficit simply reduces the rate at which debt grows. So Cameron and Osborne are both guilty of lying when both have been quoted as saying "we are paying down the debt"? Is that correct? I think Cameron said that once a couple of years ago and got a whole stack of abuse for it in the media. Whether it was a lie or an error we'll never know. I'm more inclined to go with the latter because the message from the Tories has been consistently about deficit reduction. Still it was an embarrassing mistake to make - it allows folk to portray him as either mendacious or incompetent (or, indeed, both!). And as we know, public presentation is vital for a politician.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2015 8:59:52 GMT
I agree. Its the same with squaddies. If one person decides to get shot at for a living, and then their son does, the whole lot deserve to get shot at. I admire the time and effort it must take to create multiple email address just to register half a dozen accounts to post this wonderful insight. In fairness, that's a cheap and nasty shot at you there Al.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 27, 2015 9:06:32 GMT
The worst October figures in 6 years, a bit of a misleading headline? The austerity has been slowing down the deficit and the debt, obviously not as much as we'd hoped as the lack of growth in Europe is not helping our eceonomy. What is your solution then Huddy, to spend, spend, spend and get us even into more debt? Well in very simple terms yes, if you want to put it that way. The very idea that you treat the national debt in the same way as you do a household overspend on your credit cards has been proven to fail for as long as there has been a measure on the economy. The facts are there for everyone to see and yet the Conservatives return to it every time they control the purse strings - in their own selective way of course. The very fact that the slower than expected growth in Europe is being blamed for the latest failure to make a dent in the debt is the clue. Despite the fact the government has spent the last five years raiding the pockets of those least able to pay off the debt and failing the penny still hasn't dropped. The only way that the national debt ever has been and ever will be addressed is through growth not reduction. That means investment. I have to say it amuses me to see so many who will continue to have there lives affected for the worse by more of the same failed medicine being at the front of the crowd cheering and calling for more. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas? Oh well I guess I can rely on Dave not dipping into my pocket to help out in destroying the social support structures that make this country stand out as a fair and just society. Growth not reduction ? Do you mean the economy that has been growing compared to most of the world, or the growth of the debt by borrowing more to invest? It's a pity that Blair wiped out a lot of our manufacturing then and we need to rebuild from further back than we hoped, or that him and Brown got us so far into debt it was a peace time record, that we have to pay more to borrow to keep giving the people tax credits that so many rely on now as part of a wage to pay off rent that was hiked up when Brown bought in tax credits? I like how you say failed medicine, it wasn't so failed in 1997 when Blair and Brown took over a healthy economy, and by the time the recession hit we were borrowing far more than our comparable countries which made it far worse for us, and saddled with the huge PFI debts that we have to pay off for many, many years to come we have to borrow more, reducing peoples taxes and holding back on public spending on projects will give them more to spend which will help the economy. I think HS2 is something we can't afford at the moment and should be scrapped until the debt is reduced and we can afford it, the money needs to be spent better
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Nov 27, 2015 9:21:05 GMT
Not all that fair Mark when the govt is subsidising wages for some and allowing others to go through life never working and being as irresponsible as they like.The whole welfare system needs shaking up.China invested massively in infrastructure and look at them now,brand new towns with no inhabitants. Investment needs to be for the long term . Unfortunately govts don't look beyong their term in office You can't relate Britain to China, there is no comparison
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 27, 2015 9:25:50 GMT
The worst October figures in 6 years, a bit of a misleading headline? The austerity has been slowing down the deficit and the debt, obviously not as much as we'd hoped as the lack of growth in Europe is not helping our eceonomy. What is your solution then Huddy, to spend, spend, spend and get us even into more debt? Well in very simple terms yes, if you want to put it that way. The very idea that you treat the national debt in the same way as you do a household overspend on your credit cards has been proven to fail for as long as there has been a measure on the economy. The facts are there for everyone to see and yet the Conservatives return to it every time they control the purse strings - in their own selective way of course. The very fact that the slower than expected growth in Europe is being blamed for the latest failure to make a dent in the debt is the clue. Despite the fact the government has spent the last five years raiding the pockets of those least able to pay off the debt and failing the penny still hasn't dropped. The only way that the national debt ever has been and ever will be addressed is through growth not reduction. That means investment. I have to say it amuses me to see so many who will continue to have there lives affected for the worse by more of the same failed medicine being at the front of the crowd cheering and calling for more. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas? Oh well I guess I can rely on Dave not dipping into my pocket to help out in destroying the social support structures that make this country stand out as a fair and just society. Oh the old people are too stupid too know what they voted for, the funny thing is if you change the subject matter to football you just need a remember Charlton and it is the kind of thing TP supporters were writing.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 27, 2015 9:28:44 GMT
So Cameron and Osborne are both guilty of lying when both have been quoted as saying "we are paying down the debt"? Is that correct? They said the debt would be paid down within five years. It isn't. It isn't even close. They are now saying it will take another five years. They were wrong. Austerity never works. Is that correct? Take a step back and understand what is behind austerity. Gordon Brown after following tight public sector spending in the early years of New Labour embarked on a deliberate policy of, how to put it, spend, spend, spend. From 2001 to the end of New Labour, public spending as a percentage of GDP rose from 35% to 47%. He hoped (fantasised is a better word) that economic growth would pay for that spending - not an increase in taxation rates. This is why the 2008 crash hurt so much. Austerity is the term used to bring back down the public spend as a percentage of GDP. And let's be clear, unless you are prepared to increase taxation rates significantly, it has to be brought down. Other than the 50% tax rate for the rich (which is more about political posturing than economics) no one has advocated doing that, so "austerity" is inevitable. The only question is the rate it is applied. The Tories, as usual, are gung ho for it (and of course fell flat on their face this week as a consequence), the SNP (with their usual desire to have their cake and eat it) want it applied slower but still want to spend more (yes I know - a contradiction) while Labour, well I have no idea what they want to do. So to answer your question about whether austerity is working. I guess the answer is yes and no - yes in that the deficit is reducing and the public spend percentage of GDP is coming down, no in that, in both cases, they are reducing much slower than the Tories were planning. BTW, the Tories said they would remove the deficit in 5 years not the debt. You still struggling to understand the difference?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 27, 2015 9:30:31 GMT
So Cameron and Osborne are both guilty of lying when both have been quoted as saying "we are paying down the debt"? Is that correct? They said the debt would be paid down within five years. It isn't. It isn't even close. They are now saying it will take another five years. They were wrong. Austerity never works. Is that correct? I think you need to borrow Huddys economics book, they initially said they would eliminate the £150 billion+ a year deficit, they never claimed they repay the national debt within 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 27, 2015 9:34:42 GMT
They said the debt would be paid down within five years. It isn't. It isn't even close. They are now saying it will take another five years. They were wrong. Austerity never works. Is that correct? Indeed it is. Is it possible you could take a consistent approach you flip flop from one page to the next, at various points you've argued the deficit was not going down but had actually increased on another you agree it's a massive fail to have only reduced by 40%. Fair play to you for using the same username to argue with yourself, ************** needs a couple at least for this
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 27, 2015 9:43:39 GMT
They said the debt would be paid down within five years. It isn't. It isn't even close. They are now saying it will take another five years. They were wrong. Austerity never works. Is that correct? I think you need to borrow Huddys economics book, they initially said they would eliminate the £150 billion+ a year deficit, they never claimed they repay the national debt within 5 years. It's interesting how many folk seem to struggle with the idea of debt and deficit. The problem, of course, is not so much they don't understand the difference but they don't understand the connection.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2015 10:09:12 GMT
They said the debt would be paid down within five years. It isn't. It isn't even close. They are now saying it will take another five years. They were wrong. Austerity never works. Is that correct? I think you need to borrow Huddys economics book, they initially said they would eliminate the £150 billion+ a year deficit, they never claimed they repay the national debt within 5 years. So they failed at both. Correct?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2015 10:16:18 GMT
I think you need to borrow Huddys economics book, they initially said they would eliminate the £150 billion+ a year deficit, they never claimed they repay the national debt within 5 years. It's interesting how many folk seem to struggle with the idea of debt and deficit. The problem, of course, is not so much they don't understand the difference but they don't understand the connection. It's also interesting that many on here do not understand there can be another way of tackling both.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 27, 2015 10:25:12 GMT
It's interesting how many folk seem to struggle with the idea of debt and deficit. The problem, of course, is not so much they don't understand the difference but they don't understand the connection. It's also interesting that many on here do not understand there can be another way of tackling both. So come on then - what is Labour's plan to address the deficit?
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 27, 2015 10:25:40 GMT
I admire the time and effort it must take to create multiple email address just to register half a dozen accounts to post this wonderful insight. In fairness, that's a cheap and nasty shot at you there Al. Hence the need to hide behind multiple accounts
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 27, 2015 10:25:43 GMT
I think you need to borrow Huddys economics book, they initially said they would eliminate the £150 billion+ a year deficit, they never claimed they repay the national debt within 5 years. So they failed at both. Correct? What do you mean both?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 27, 2015 10:26:49 GMT
I think you need to borrow Huddys economics book, they initially said they would eliminate the £150 billion+ a year deficit, they never claimed they repay the national debt within 5 years. It's interesting how many folk seem to struggle with the idea of debt and deficit. The problem, of course, is not so much they don't understand the difference but they don't understand the connection. Indeed it is and just as many seem to struggle that the fact that the current government spends much of its time paying for whatever the previous government did or didn't do and why some long term decisions need to be taken away from party politics otherwise every government just leaves it for the next lot to sort out. Pensions and retirement age is one example, child credits a more recent one, another one coming up sometime is taxing of wealthy pensioners.
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Nov 27, 2015 10:32:04 GMT
Not all that fair Mark when the govt is subsidising wages for some and allowing others to go through life never working and being as irresponsible as they like.The whole welfare system needs shaking up.China invested massively in infrastructure and look at them now,brand new towns with no inhabitants. Investment needs to be for the long term . Unfortunately govts don't look beyong their term in office Your last sentence sums up everything that's wrong with British politics and, unless some real system changes are made, everything that ever will be.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 27, 2015 11:11:47 GMT
I think you need to borrow Huddys economics book, they initially said they would eliminate the £150 billion+ a year deficit, they never claimed they repay the national debt within 5 years. So they failed at both. Correct? If there is a point feel free to get too it anytime you like but to answer your non point again, the deficit has not reduced as much as forecast \ planned, if you run a deficit at all the debt goes up so not sure how you fail at something you weren't trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2015 11:37:05 GMT
So they failed at both. Correct? If there is a point feel free to get too it anytime you like but to answer your non point again, the deficit has not reduced as much as forecast \ planned, if you run a deficit at all the debt goes up so not sure how you fail at something you weren't trying to do. So when Osborne promised to eliminate the deficit by the end of his first term and didn't...is that not classed as failure then?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 27, 2015 11:39:10 GMT
So they failed at both. Correct? What do you mean both? They failed to eliminate the deficit as they stated they would by the end of their first term They have failed to bring down the debt also. That's what I mean.
|
|