I watched it and if it wasn't 'a bit early in the day old boy' I'd be on on my second treble Rum by now.The perfect fumble said:If you really want to know why the NHS is the way it is watch this....
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CSp6HsQVtw[/video]
Now you'll need a stiff drink.
Great post and I'm surprised Len and Russ ignored it.gordondaviesmoustache said:The economy was in recession from 1990 to 1993. At the time it was considered a deep recession. I remember it well, as I started working properly for the first time in early 1991, in a sales position, in a sector of the economy which is always one of the first to feel the effects of a downturn: consequently, my customers would remind me daily about how bad thins were. These complaints started to abate sometime in 1994, which ties in with that graph, funnily enough, when the deficit was reducing apace.Len Rum said:And 1990 -1996?gordondaviesmoustache said:Those figures between 2002 and 2007 are a fucking irresponsible disgrace.
Your slavish adherence to anything with a red rosette on it has, I suspect, blinded you to the point I was making. Gordon Brown oversaw around a decade of significant and, it should be said, commendable growth. If, during that period, he was unable to even contain the deficit, never mind reduce and eliminate it, then when was he ever going to do such a thing? The answer has to be "never"; and therein lies the rub. He, and other Labour Chancellors will always have this hardwiring to spend taxpayers money. It's like an addiction. It's for laudable, worthwhile reasons but when you're running the economy you've got a responsibity, to a significant exent, to put your perfectly understandable emotional desire to help people and make society fairer to one side, and run the economy in a prudent fashion. It might take longer to get there, but you can still achieve your aspirations, at least to a worthwhile extent. They seem to manage it by that route in Germany.
Of course, we'll hear to usual stuff about infrastructure projects and investment in the nations future, but there's a differece between building an extension on your house and constructing a swimming pool in your back garden. One might be be necessary and add value to your house, the other, a luxury that with its cost of upkeep actually diminishes the value of your home. Both might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but only one stands the test of time when you get made redundant a few years later.
In short, a Chancellor needs to be self-disciplined and robust, not someone with all the restraint of a drunken sailor on shore-leave. It's only way to make society fairer, long term imo.
Particularly Len, as it was his question I took the time to answer. As you say, surprising. Curiously so.SWP's back said:Great post and I'm surprised Len and Russ ignored it.gordondaviesmoustache said:The economy was in recession from 1990 to 1993. At the time it was considered a deep recession. I remember it well, as I started working properly for the first time in early 1991, in a sales position, in a sector of the economy which is always one of the first to feel the effects of a downturn: consequently, my customers would remind me daily about how bad thins were. These complaints started to abate sometime in 1994, which ties in with that graph, funnily enough, when the deficit was reducing apace.Len Rum said:And 1990 -1996?
Your slavish adherence to anything with a red rosette on it has, I suspect, blinded you to the point I was making. Gordon Brown oversaw around a decade of significant and, it should be said, commendable growth. If, during that period, he was unable to even contain the deficit, never mind reduce and eliminate it, then when was he ever going to do such a thing? The answer has to be "never"; and therein lies the rub. He, and other Labour Chancellors will always have this hardwiring to spend taxpayers money. It's like an addiction. It's for laudable, worthwhile reasons but when you're running the economy you've got a responsibity, to a significant exent, to put your perfectly understandable emotional desire to help people and make society fairer to one side, and run the economy in a prudent fashion. It might take longer to get there, but you can still achieve your aspirations, at least to a worthwhile extent. They seem to manage it by that route in Germany.
Of course, we'll hear to usual stuff about infrastructure projects and investment in the nations future, but there's a differece between building an extension on your house and constructing a swimming pool in your back garden. One might be be necessary and add value to your house, the other, a luxury that with its cost of upkeep actually diminishes the value of your home. Both might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but only one stands the test of time when you get made redundant a few years later.
In short, a Chancellor needs to be self-disciplined and robust, not someone with all the restraint of a drunken sailor on shore-leave. It's only way to make society fairer, long term imo.
Didn't ignore it mate ( see post 10.33 am).gordondaviesmoustache said:Particularly Len, as it was his question I took the time to answer. As you say, surprising. Curiously so.SWP's back said:Great post and I'm surprised Len and Russ ignored it.gordondaviesmoustache said:The economy was in recession from 1990 to 1993. At the time it was considered a deep recession. I remember it well, as I started working properly for the first time in early 1991, in a sales position, in a sector of the economy which is always one of the first to feel the effects of a downturn: consequently, my customers would remind me daily about how bad thins were. These complaints started to abate sometime in 1994, which ties in with that graph, funnily enough, when the deficit was reducing apace.
Your slavish adherence to anything with a red rosette on it has, I suspect, blinded you to the point I was making. Gordon Brown oversaw around a decade of significant and, it should be said, commendable growth. If, during that period, he was unable to even contain the deficit, never mind reduce and eliminate it, then when was he ever going to do such a thing? The answer has to be "never"; and therein lies the rub. He, and other Labour Chancellors will always have this hardwiring to spend taxpayers money. It's like an addiction. It's for laudable, worthwhile reasons but when you're running the economy you've got a responsibity, to a significant exent, to put your perfectly understandable emotional desire to help people and make society fairer to one side, and run the economy in a prudent fashion. It might take longer to get there, but you can still achieve your aspirations, at least to a worthwhile extent. They seem to manage it by that route in Germany.
Of course, we'll hear to usual stuff about infrastructure projects and investment in the nations future, but there's a differece between building an extension on your house and constructing a swimming pool in your back garden. One might be be necessary and add value to your house, the other, a luxury that with its cost of upkeep actually diminishes the value of your home. Both might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but only one stands the test of time when you get made redundant a few years later.
In short, a Chancellor needs to be self-disciplined and robust, not someone with all the restraint of a drunken sailor on shore-leave. It's only way to make society fairer, long term imo.
gordondaviesmoustache said:Particularly Len, as it was his question I took the time to answer. As you say, surprising. Curiously so.SWP's back said:Great post and I'm surprised Len and Russ ignored it.gordondaviesmoustache said:The economy was in recession from 1990 to 1993. At the time it was considered a deep recession. I remember it well, as I started working properly for the first time in early 1991, in a sales position, in a sector of the economy which is always one of the first to feel the effects of a downturn: consequently, my customers would remind me daily about how bad thins were. These complaints started to abate sometime in 1994, which ties in with that graph, funnily enough, when the deficit was reducing apace.
Your slavish adherence to anything with a red rosette on it has, I suspect, blinded you to the point I was making. Gordon Brown oversaw around a decade of significant and, it should be said, commendable growth. If, during that period, he was unable to even contain the deficit, never mind reduce and eliminate it, then when was he ever going to do such a thing? The answer has to be "never"; and therein lies the rub. He, and other Labour Chancellors will always have this hardwiring to spend taxpayers money. It's like an addiction. It's for laudable, worthwhile reasons but when you're running the economy you've got a responsibity, to a significant exent, to put your perfectly understandable emotional desire to help people and make society fairer to one side, and run the economy in a prudent fashion. It might take longer to get there, but you can still achieve your aspirations, at least to a worthwhile extent. They seem to manage it by that route in Germany.
Of course, we'll hear to usual stuff about infrastructure projects and investment in the nations future, but there's a differece between building an extension on your house and constructing a swimming pool in your back garden. One might be be necessary and add value to your house, the other, a luxury that with its cost of upkeep actually diminishes the value of your home. Both might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but only one stands the test of time when you get made redundant a few years later.
In short, a Chancellor needs to be self-disciplined and robust, not someone with all the restraint of a drunken sailor on shore-leave. It's only way to make society fairer, long term imo.
That's the real-world equivalent of answering someone's question and not looking in their eyes when you do so ;-)Len Rum said:Didn't ignore it mate ( see post 10.33 am).gordondaviesmoustache said:Particularly Len, as it was his question I took the time to answer. As you say, surprising. Curiously so.SWP's back said:Great post and I'm surprised Len and Russ ignored it.
Paulpowersleftfoot said:gordondaviesmoustache said:Particularly Len, as it was his question I took the time to answer. As you say, surprising. Curiously so.SWP's back said:Great post and I'm surprised Len and Russ ignored it.
Nothing surprising about that for Len
Surprised Rascals not outed his c**t
Wot?gordondaviesmoustache said:That's the real-world equivalent of answering someone's question and not looking in their eyes when you do so ;-)Len Rum said:Didn't ignore it mate ( see post 10.33 am).gordondaviesmoustache said:Particularly Len, as it was his question I took the time to answer. As you say, surprising. Curiously so.
I'm as chilled as a motherfucker, mate, hence the wink at the end of my post. I think the heat of the election campaign is starting to affect your judgement.Len Rum said:Wot?gordondaviesmoustache said:That's the real-world equivalent of answering someone's question and not looking in their eyes when you do so ;-)Len Rum said:Didn't ignore it mate ( see post 10.33 am).
Chill out mate, go for a walk round the block or do whatever you need to do to unwind.
The site was running slow for me which might have been due to the graphics on borrowing, so I replied as a new post rather than display it again as a 'quote' reply.
Hope that's ok with you.