ali benarbia's studs
Well-Known Member
liberals..............then i did think BLAIR looked the real deal...how wrong were we!
I don't know who to vote for
- Thread starter JoeMercer'sWay
- Start date
Dannyctid
Well-Known Member
I think with Brown's experience as Chancellor he's exactly the person to see us continue out of the recession. [/quote]The Pink Panther said:
He was the worst chancellor I can remember.
This is the man who owned the goose that laid golden eggs and then ate the fookin goose.[/quote]
He not only ate the goose but he sold off all the golden eggs at record low prices. He would have got more by sticking em in an envelope and posting them to Cash for Gold.
£8bn in debt when labour took power.... We're a bit more than that now.
Skashion
Well-Known Member
Dannyctid said:
Whereas in the 80s we solved that with good old fashioned privatization. Erm, ok, what've we got left. It's got to be the NHS hasn't it really?
Dannyctid
Well-Known Member
Skashion said:
Not really if you consider the PFI model that Labour have used to claim credit for new hospitals. This is just a new form of privatisation that costs us more in the long run but without actually privatising anything.
Skashion
Well-Known Member
Dannyctid said:
You can't compare PFI directly to privatization - although I am a critic of both. I see the point. Labour has used PFI to hide extent of government spending and thus its spending appears lower than what it is. However, had PFI not been used - and assuming PFI-funded projects hadn't gone ahead, the net result would be zero. This is not true of privatization as it produces net income. Point being that in the 80s, from circa 1979 to 1988, Thatcher actually increased spending yet magically started producing budget surpluses from the mid-80s. That happened though privatization and council house sales. The fair comparison here would be Gordon Brown and the gold reserves - not PFI. However, the tories gained far more money from privatization and council house sales than Brown ever did from gold reserves, and by the same token also 'lost' more due to habitually selling at about half true market value. At any rate, because of the fact that both parties have made errors in this, and let us not forget Black Wednesday while we're at it, it's ridiculous to try and make this into a party-political yah-boo point because both parties look like twats and it's hard to say which is the bigger twat.
BTH
Well-Known Member
black mamba said:C'mon Bertie .....
it really is a 'no brainer '
you surely don't want five more years of this present lot , do you?
.
-- Wed May 05, 2010 11:12 am --
BTH said:
Labour have been MORE than bad for the country ...... the place is a complete mess
anything committed that was allegedly 'untowards' during the Thatcher reign should surely have been long 'corrected' by now ..... but it hasn't been , and it won't be , if this lot stay in power ...... because they simply haven't got a clue!
Yes, but... when you are elected it's for 4 or 5 years. It'll take a lifetime to rectify Thatcher's politics which basically amounted to sell everything off because we're rolling in it and you're not, so f*** off.
Basic Tory politics: look after your own, mainly the idle rich.
RIP Thatcher's wasted generation.
Dannyctid
Well-Known Member
You can't compare PFI directly to privatization - although I am a critic of both. I see the point. Labour has used PFI to hide extent of government spending and thus its spending appears lower than what it is. However, had PFI not been used - and assuming PFI-funded projects hadn't gone ahead, the net result would be zero. This is not true of privatization as it produces net income. Point being that in the 80s, from circa 1979 to 1988, Thatcher actually increased spending yet magically started producing budget surpluses from the mid-80s. That happened though privatization and council house sales. The fair comparison here would be Gordon Brown and the gold reserves - not PFI. However, the tories gained far more money from privatization and council house sales than Brown ever did from gold reserves, and by the same token also 'lost' more due to habitually selling at about half true market value. At any rate, because of the fact that both parties have made errors in this, and let us not forget Black Wednesday while we're at it, it's ridiculous to try and make this into a party-political yah-boo point because both parties look like twats and it's hard to say which is the bigger twat.[/quote]
Full circle as my first point was about selling the gold reserves, loosing between £2bm & £5bn in one foul swoop. With Black Wed costing £3.3bn that's porbably a draw. Although Browns error was more elementary. I do agree both parties are twats but Labour didn't stop selling off council houses they countinue to sell them now at ridiculously low prices.
The real national debt now is @ £1,340bn 103% of GDP. It depends where your politics sit on the scale but that is not acceptable to me. My preference would be for less reliance on the welfare state.
Full circle as my first point was about selling the gold reserves, loosing between £2bm & £5bn in one foul swoop. With Black Wed costing £3.3bn that's porbably a draw. Although Browns error was more elementary. I do agree both parties are twats but Labour didn't stop selling off council houses they countinue to sell them now at ridiculously low prices.
The real national debt now is @ £1,340bn 103% of GDP. It depends where your politics sit on the scale but that is not acceptable to me. My preference would be for less reliance on the welfare state.
Skashion
Well-Known Member
Dannyctid said:
Full circle was kind of my point. Both parties have made big errors so being party-political about it doesn't make sense. Both should be criticised.
It's not acceptable but I fail to see what the the tories could have done drastically different. They would have spent less on schools and hospitals certainly, and probably wasted less. But would they have allowed the banks to collapse, really? Would they have had any choice but to up welfare spending during a recession? Evidence from the 80s suggests they would. The only difference is that then they balanced it with income from privatization and council house sales. What about the structural problems like our ageing population? The national debt might be slightly less of a problem under the tories but I don't see how it could be anything other than a drop in the ocean. By the way, using your methodology, what was the national debt according to you when the tories came to power. By my reckoning it's been an increase from 37% to about 73%. But you're using (tory) CPS figures.
inchy14
Well-Known Member
I think i'll do what that famous Mr. Brewster did..........................
"none of the above"
If we all did this they sort the system out the bent bunch of twats.
It's like driving your car slowly to protest against petrol prices, If nobody filled up all on a certain day they'd shit themselves and do something about that as well.
"none of the above"
If we all did this they sort the system out the bent bunch of twats.
It's like driving your car slowly to protest against petrol prices, If nobody filled up all on a certain day they'd shit themselves and do something about that as well.
Dannyctid
Well-Known Member
.[/quote]
Full circle was kind of my point. Both parties have made big errors so being party-political about it doesn't make sense. Both should be criticised.
It's not acceptable but I fail to see what the the tories could have done drastically different. They would have spent less on schools and hospitals certainly, and probably wasted less. But would they have allowed the banks to collapse, really? Would they have had any choice but to up welfare spending during a recession? Evidence from the 80s suggests they would. The only difference is that then they balanced it with income from privatization and council house sales. What about the structural problems like our ageing population? The national debt might be slightly less of a problem under the tories but I don't see how it could be anything other than a drop in the ocean. By the way, using your methodology, what was the national debt according to you when the tories came to power. By my reckoning it's been an increase from 37% to about 73%. But you're using (tory) CPS figures.[/quote]
The problem is you are right. It wouldn't be be drastically different, the welfare state has been beefed up since 97 with many people better off on the social. Without getting into it too much there are huge amounts of people not working. Yes I know the tories can be blamed for part of the problem but no party is currently giving any answers to solve the problem. I personally know people who are better off not working. They are turning down jobs because they get so much money in benefits. I don't believe any government will begin to solve this problem.
This is not short term either because their kids won't work and while we are determined to get "children out of poverty". This just compounds the problem by giving more in benefits. So our ageing population will be supported by the diminishing numbers of us who are working. This means higher taxes, or reducing government spending. I don't believe this Labour gov has any idea how to reduce spending by any meaningfull amount.
The big problem is no clear dividing line between parties. My personal politics may be conservative this is not reflected by the tories. The same can be said for labour who are no longer a socialist party.
Re the figures, as you know figures can say what you want them to say. The problem isn't the level of the debt it's how it's repaid. I feel Brown has never needed a reason to raise taxes, he has helped himself. Now he has a reason we will all be screwed to the floor.
Full circle was kind of my point. Both parties have made big errors so being party-political about it doesn't make sense. Both should be criticised.
It's not acceptable but I fail to see what the the tories could have done drastically different. They would have spent less on schools and hospitals certainly, and probably wasted less. But would they have allowed the banks to collapse, really? Would they have had any choice but to up welfare spending during a recession? Evidence from the 80s suggests they would. The only difference is that then they balanced it with income from privatization and council house sales. What about the structural problems like our ageing population? The national debt might be slightly less of a problem under the tories but I don't see how it could be anything other than a drop in the ocean. By the way, using your methodology, what was the national debt according to you when the tories came to power. By my reckoning it's been an increase from 37% to about 73%. But you're using (tory) CPS figures.[/quote]
The problem is you are right. It wouldn't be be drastically different, the welfare state has been beefed up since 97 with many people better off on the social. Without getting into it too much there are huge amounts of people not working. Yes I know the tories can be blamed for part of the problem but no party is currently giving any answers to solve the problem. I personally know people who are better off not working. They are turning down jobs because they get so much money in benefits. I don't believe any government will begin to solve this problem.
This is not short term either because their kids won't work and while we are determined to get "children out of poverty". This just compounds the problem by giving more in benefits. So our ageing population will be supported by the diminishing numbers of us who are working. This means higher taxes, or reducing government spending. I don't believe this Labour gov has any idea how to reduce spending by any meaningfull amount.
The big problem is no clear dividing line between parties. My personal politics may be conservative this is not reflected by the tories. The same can be said for labour who are no longer a socialist party.
Re the figures, as you know figures can say what you want them to say. The problem isn't the level of the debt it's how it's repaid. I feel Brown has never needed a reason to raise taxes, he has helped himself. Now he has a reason we will all be screwed to the floor.