Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Filo on November 30, 2011, 10:06:31 pm
-
First class arsehole!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/11/30/jeremy-clarkson-striking-public-sector-workers-should-be-shot-115875-23600850/
-
His profession, as listed on who's not who, is rentagob and professional w**ker.
-
he obv doesnt really believe this just a joke all his opnions are to be funny, legend imo
-
Legend? Funny?
-
Made me chuckle!
-
he obv doesnt really believe this just a joke all his opnions are to be funny, legend imo
I don't know about legend but he's certainly something that ends in \"end\". The gret troll faced, arsectomied, waste of an ejaculation.
What is it about pug-f**king-ugly t**ts that turns them into obnoxious bas**rds? Jimmy Carr. Frankie Boyle. And the biggest Kitson from Tickhill. All three of them fairy tale scare-the-kids material. I guess spouting shite about someobody else is better than looking in the mirror.
I like the way The Mirror article ends though.
'A BBC spokesman said: \"The One Show apologised at the end of the show to viewers who may have been offended by Jeremy Clarkson's [strike]comments[/strike] face/dress sense/existence (delete as appropriate).\"
-
he obv doesnt really believe this just a joke all his opnions are to be funny, legend imo
Aye, Matt and Alex were in stitches...:silly:
-
Well he's allowed his opinion I guess...
-
To be fair, I laughed, although that was mainly because Clarkson will be paying for my pension.
-
I wonder how BST etc would have reacted had he said he wanted Thatcher and Cameron shot.....
-
If Thatcher and Cameron were fighting for their pensions and those of others them I would suggest the response would have been the same.
-
His views may be put across in a controversial manner but I bet the majority of private workers agree with the underlying point.
Most but not all public workers earn above the national average, and have a huge pension.
I like many others earn below the national average and to get a pension the same as an average payed nurse I would have to pay around £700 per month from the age of 25!
Yesterday I had to pay for a child minder, money I do not have! Do I not pay for food or miss a mortgage payment?
Never mind at least you'll have a decent retirement. bas**rds.
-
If you actually watch the video, you'd be daft to think that he's being serious. His tone of voice is a dead giveaway.
Whether you think he/his comments are funny or not, they're clearly not heartfelt and he's more joking around than believing what he says. In fact, how stupid do you have to be, upon watching the video, to think that he's actually taking the comments seriously? Especially to the extent where you'd pick up the phone and complain about it - the fact that the BBC complaints phone line was jammed with calls obviously shows that the population is full of people who a) can't sense a joke by the tone of someone's voice, and b) have nothing better to do than complain about some meaningless throwaway remarks that make absolutely no difference whatsoever.
-
the bloke is an arsehole and a complete embarrassment to his home town of Doncaster.
i live in Solihull, nr Birmingham. i will never forget his oh so terribly amusing comments on Rover and his hilarious modification of the Rover basdge to say Over instead when they collapsed.
i am proud to work here for Bournville College as we helped just some of these 6,000 people to rebuild their lives,
Longbridge is an industrial wasteland, like many of our former factories and pits in south yorkshire.
each of these 6,000 was not a statistic, or an economic indicator, but a person with stories to tell whose life had just imploded. any one of them is more value to society than this idiot
i was given free tickets to see Top Gear Live, but didn't as i wouldn't know whether to stick a Paddingtomn Bear in his big mouth or up his arse.
-
I wonder how BST etc would have reacted had he said he wanted Thatcher and Cameron shot.....
I'd have said he was a troll faced arsectomied bell end.
I don't give a shit about his politics. My gripe with him is that he's never said a funny thing in his life - he's just a deliberately controversial Kitson.
People who like him are the sort who like to snigger behind their hands at bullying presented as comedy. Kitsons, the lot of em.
-
I wonder how BST etc would have reacted had he said he wanted Thatcher and Cameron shot.....
I'd have said he was a troll faced arsectomied bell end.
I don't give a shit about his politics. My gripe with him is that he's never said a funny thing in his life - he's just a deliberately controversial Kitson.
People who like him are the sort who like to snigger behind their hands at bullying presented as comedy. Kitsons, the lot of em.
Depends on your sense of humour doesn't it? Because I find him funny means i'm a Kitson? Fantastic argument. I also like Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr.
-
Basically he's what the Americans would call a \"Shock Jock.\" He bases his career on saying controversial things, most of which I doubt he really means.
He gets off on the fact that people either love him or hate him. I can't stand him, but I prefer to ignore him rather than make a fuss about what he says as it doesn't really count for anything.
Rather than getting the police involved (have they nothing better to do?) the unions would be better off persuading their members to boycott his DVD (which he's trying to promote.)
My only encounter with him was when he pitched up in the Park Hotel before that game with Frickley and imagined that those present were interested in him. On the whole I agree with BST's description of him- but the best way to treat him is to deny him the oxygen of publicity he seeks.
Just a shame he had to be born near Doncaster!
-
He's an unfunny, self opinionated arsehole and an embarrassment to Doncaster. It's about time he was given the boot from the telly. Hopefully this might be the beginning of the end for him.
-
He's an unfunny, self opinionated arsehole and an embarrassment to Doncaster. It's about time he was given the boot from the telly. Hopefully this might be the beginning of the end for him.
I doubt it. He brings in the viewing figures, and rightly so.
-
It's funny that. He has the exact opposite effect with me. He might drag in the immature, illiterate, spotty 17 year old 1.1 litre Saxo driving Top Gear viewer, I'll grant you.
-
FFS, Lighten up.
-
Anyone would think he has a DVD out, oh, wait...........
-
Here we go again, nothing much changes. BST’s disciples waiting for him to endorse his views so that they can follow suit.
Embarrassing really. :blush:
-
I wonder how BST etc would have reacted had he said he wanted Thatcher and Cameron shot.....
I'd have said he was a troll faced arsectomied bell end.
I don't give a shit about his politics. My gripe with him is that he's never said a funny thing in his life - he's just a deliberately controversial Kitson.
People who like him are the sort who like to snigger behind their hands at bullying presented as comedy. Kitsons, the lot of em.
Depends on your sense of humour doesn't it? Because I find him funny means i'm a Kitson? Fantastic argument. I also like Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr.
MrFrost, I wish you'd stop commenting. Because the more you do, the more I'm agreeing with you!! ;) :chair:
-
It didn't surprise me tbh, something typical that Clarkson would say, depends on your sense of humour.
Ask yourself this: Would you rather it affected your pension? Or your Sons/daughters/grandchildren's pension? This is whole point, future generations shouldn't be punished for what this generation has done, and had Labour been open we may not be bearing the blame so much.
As for the topic, there is as much public debt as their is private debt, we can't keep spending and hoping it will all go away, and we can't cut the private sector anymore if we have any hope of growth returning. Therefore we must try and make sacrifices elsewhere, or would you rather the government add 50p to a litre of fuel to make the money?
It's all fine and dandy saying \"Tory tw*ts this and tory scum\" but they stood on an election platform to cut back NOW and save later, and they are delivering, no matter which way you look at it, the public sector pensions is one of the only areas that can be decreased without severly damaging that sector.
Yes I'm a tory, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they do, tbf I don't, but I understand why, I'd rather this generation pay for it then the future generation.
-
It didn't surprise me tbh, something typical that Clarkson would say, depends on your sense of humour.
Ask yourself this: Would you rather it affected your pension? Or your Sons/daughters/grandchildren's pension? This is whole point, future generations shouldn't be punished for what this generation has done, and had Labour been open we may not be bearing the blame so much.
As for the topic, there is as much public debt as their is private debt, we can't keep spending and hoping it will all go away, and we can't cut the private sector anymore if we have any hope of growth returning. Therefore we must try and make sacrifices elsewhere, or would you rather the government add 50p to a litre of fuel to make the money?
It's all fine and dandy saying \"Tory tw*ts this and tory scum\" but they stood on an election platform to cut back NOW and save later, and they are delivering, no matter which way you look at it, the public sector pensions is one of the only areas that can be decreased without severly damaging that sector.
Yes I'm a tory, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they do, tbf I don't, but I understand why, I'd rather this generation pay for it then the future generation.
They may not be paying for it financially, but by God will they end up paying in other ways.. Believe you me, always the same when the Tories get their hands on the keys to #10.
-
It doesn't surprise me at all that Frosty and Clarkson agree, both seem to have an intense dislike for most of the population of where they originate. Unfortunately I pay this ungracious and ignorant fool's wages through my licence fee, and just like a public servent who was so obnoxious, I would like him not to receive any more of my money. I wonder if he is worried about his pension that we have all paid for? I doubt it as he has already taken a fortune out of the public purse, maybe he ought think a little more before he opens his mouth and empties another pile of manure into the ether. Some hope, he is completely ignorant and selfish as most of his ilk are.
-
It doesn't surprise me at all that Frosty and Clarkson agree, both seem to have an intense dislike for most of the population of where they originate. Unfortunately I pay this ungracious and ignorant fool's wages through my licence fee, and just like a public servent who was so obnoxious, I would like him not to receive any more of my money. I wonder if he is worried about his pension that we have all paid for? I doubt it as he has already taken a fortune out of the public purse, maybe he ought think a little more before he opens his mouth and empties another pile of manure into the ether. Some hope, he is completely ignorant and selfish as most of his ilk are.
:cry:
-
Jimmy Carr is awesome by the way.
-
Because I find him funny means i'm a Kitson?
It's one of the reasons.
-
Because I find him funny means i'm a Kitson?
It's one of the reasons.
Hark at the keyboard warrior. Surprising how BST only ever comes out of his cave to dish out abuse to those who don't agree with his politics.
-
It didn't surprise me tbh, something typical that Clarkson would say, depends on your sense of humour.
Ask yourself this: Would you rather it affected your pension? Or your Sons/daughters/grandchildren's pension? This is whole point, future generations shouldn't be punished for what this generation has done, and had Labour been open we may not be bearing the blame so much.
As for the topic, there is as much public debt as their is private debt, we can't keep spending and hoping it will all go away, and we can't cut the private sector anymore if we have any hope of growth returning. Therefore we must try and make sacrifices elsewhere, or would you rather the government add 50p to a litre of fuel to make the money?
It's all fine and dandy saying \"Tory tw*ts this and tory scum\" but they stood on an election platform to cut back NOW and save later, and they are delivering, no matter which way you look at it, the public sector pensions is one of the only areas that can be decreased without severly damaging that sector.
Yes I'm a tory, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they do, tbf I don't, but I understand why, I'd rather this generation pay for it then the future generation.
1) They're not delivering. It's not cut now and save later, its cut now and cost later. Borrowing's now projected to go up from what both what the Coalition initially forecast, and what the previous administration forecast. They're not going to meet their own target of reducing the debt by the end of the parliament, because...
2)..despite everyone telling them what would happen if they did, they've cut too hard and it's stagnated growth....
3)..which means its not going to effect my granchildren's or children's pensions, its going to effect their lives and jobs. Household income's actually going to keep dropping over the coming years.
-
Because I find him funny means i'm a Kitson?
It's one of the reasons.
Hark at the keyboard warrior. Surprising how BST only ever comes out of his cave to dish out abuse to those who don't agree with his politics.
Wind your neck in. I was dabbling in Clarksonesque humour. I thought you found that sort of thing funny?
-
Because I find him funny means i'm a Kitson?
It's one of the reasons.
Hark at the keyboard warrior. Surprising how BST only ever comes out of his cave to dish out abuse to those who don't agree with his politics.
Wind your neck in. I was dabbling in Clarksonesque humour. I thought you found that sort of thing funny?
I laughed. I just didn't want you to see the benefit.
-
\"I think they (the strikes) have been fantastic. Absolutely. London today has just been empty. Everybody stayed at home, you can whizz about, restaurants are empty,\" he said.
\"It's also like being back in the 70s. It makes me feel at home somehow,\" said the Top Gear presenter, before adding: \"But we have to balance this though, because this is the BBC\" and went on: \"Frankly, I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?\"
When the presenters pointed out that these were Clarkson's personal views, he said: \"They're not. I've just given two views for you.\"
Thats what he said, he was clearly being sarcastic, not like the british public to be brainwashed into jumping on the bandwagon of hating someone for something that doesn't really affect anything.
-
this is why we are a shit country people cant say any thing for fear of d**kheads complaining and sending the leagel and i bet most people who wernt on strike thougt the same as him anyway as bad as f**king gipos
-
this is why we are a shit country people cant say any thing for fear of d**kheads complaining and sending the leagel and i bet most people who wernt on strike thougt the same as him anyway as bad as f**king gipos
I agree - you still can't spell or type.
-
this is why we are a shit country people cant say any thing for fear of d**kheads complaining and sending the leagel and i bet most people who wernt on strike thougt the same as him anyway as bad as f**king gipos
I agree - you still can't spell or type.
And that matters how?
-
this is why we are a shit country people cant say any thing for fear of d**kheads complaining and sending the leagel and i bet most people who wernt on strike thougt the same as him anyway as bad as f**king gipos
I agree - you still can't spell or type.
And that matters how?
Doesn't - I just felt like saying something without people complaining or sending the leagel.
-
Been thinking about Clarkson (it beats contemplating tomorrow's score...)
I reckon it's all down to his lack of buttocks. My grandad always said to me: Never trust a slack arsed bas**rd. He was right. Here's my theory.
Clarkson's lack of buttocks points to a chronic lack of capability in the physical act of love. He can't thrust.
Now, realise that and everything falls into place. He is full of self-loathing and internal despair. So, in a very Freudian way, he does what all impotents do - he sublimates his natural carnal desires and gets obsessed about cars as a cock substitute.
And he takes his self loathing out on others by constantly feeling the need to bully and belittle people. It's so obvious that I feel sorry for him. If only he had a proper, firm, athletic, manly arse (like mine for example), he'd be at peace with the world.
Instead, he's a slack arsed bas**rd, serving up shit for other slack arsed bas**rds.
-
this is why we are a shit country people cant say any thing for fear of d**kheads complaining and sending the leagel and i bet most people who wernt on strike thougt the same as him anyway as bad as f**king gipos
I agree - you still can't spell or type.
And that matters how?
One of the shit things about this country is the illiterate, workshy, chavvy underclass that has developed in the last decade.
Mr Sedward will find spelling will matter a great deal when he's competing in the job market with Eastern Europeans who have a better grasp of the English language than he has.
-
How to run a tabloid.
One - Take a famous person's quote out of context. (see Gervais, Carr, Clarkson etc)
Two - Give update on number of complaints.
Three - Scour the internet for outrage from people who have never liked person anyway and have been waiting for the opportunity to call for their resignation.
Four - Report that victim of remark is 'taking legal advice' or 'threatening to sue'.
Five - Give new update on number of complaints which is rising due to you flogging the story like a dead horse.
Six - Wait for next mug to put his/her foot in it.
Just because Clarkson's a t**t it doesn't make this a newsworthy story.
And while I'm at it, stop printing fecking stories about a child who has been suspended from school because of their haircut/earrings/dress sense. Complete with picture of mother & child both looking glum whilst she bangs on about how this is hurting her little lamb's education.
-
Just because Clarkson's a t**t it doesn't make this a newsworthy story.
Just the one line there that kept you on the side of BST.....well done!
-
I think the nation's divided on this one, some people consider him a t**t for what he said and the rest who agreed with his comments think he's a t**t for apologising and not having the b*llocks to stand by his comments.
-
Just because Clarkson's a t**t it doesn't make this a newsworthy story.
Just the one line there that kept you on the side of BST.....well done!
Does this mean you think I'm in some sort of BST led clique you hinted at on the previous page?
Looking through my previous posts I can't see it so would you please provide some links?
Thanks in advance.
-
Six - Wait for next mug to put his/her foot in it.
Oops. Step forward Mr Clarkson again re: selfish suicides
-
made me chuckle too as it had to be tongue in cheek
and if anything it will keep the strike and its reasons in the press for far longer than the reports of one days strike
don`t get why he mentioned the suicide though as he has probably commited one now
-
His views may be put across in a controversial manner but I bet the majority of private workers agree with the underlying point.
Most but not all public workers earn above the national average, and have a huge pension.
I like many others earn below the national average and to get a pension the same as an average payed nurse I would have to pay around £700 per month from the age of 25!
Yesterday I had to pay for a child minder, money I do not have! Do I not pay for food or miss a mortgage payment?
Never mind at least you'll have a decent retirement. bas**rds.
My wife has got one of these pensions and she is very grateful for it.
-
Johnny Opposite strikes again.
-
OK so he's said a couple of things this week he probably shouldn't have. Despite coming across as a bit of a t**t and having views that a lot of people find objectionable, I think he can be entertaining.
I'll let you make your own minds up as to whether I'm on about Clarkson or MadMick.
-
Couldn't agree more. Those in the public sector with their cushy jobs, brilliant holidays and excellent sick pay entitlement don't know they are born. My wife has worked in the private sector and is currently working in the public sector and she can't believe how easy the job is and how lazy the public sector workers are.
There are at least 2 public sector workers for every one private sector worker in the real world. How they've got the cheek to complain about their gold plated pensions is totally beyond me.
My wife has got one of these gold plated pensions and we both agree that it is daylight robbery of the private sector. All you in the private sector are being taken for mugs big time.
How can it be right that the police can retire after 30 years on an amazing pension when they have only contributed about 10% of the value of the pension? They've got the cheek to expect people in the private sector who've got no pensions to keep paying tax to fund their scheme the robbers.
It's time the private sector said to all these lazy public sector people get a grip and stop moaning about your brilliant pensions. Give me a gun and I'll be stood right next to Jeremy mowing them down.
I assume both you and your wife are standing by the courage of your convictions and refusing to take her pension?
Might see a bit hypocrital otherwise.
-
I assume both you and your wife are standing by the courage of your convictions and refusing to take her pension?
No way. I'm looking forward to getting some of my tax back.
-
Indeed. Doesn't weaken your arguement at all.
Not a bit.
-
I just wish that some of the people in the public sector would own up (like my wife has done) and say ' Thank you'.
-
Madmick I'm not sure you can handle the truth but lets live in hope. I pay over £200 a month for my pension. From April it will be over £300 if the government gets its way. I have had a pay freeze for the last two years and apparently will get no more than 1%(and could be less) per year for the next 4 years. The way my pension is calculated will also change so that I get less. As a teacher I can retire(on a much reduced pension) at 60 or get a full pension (linked to number of years I have been teaching)at 65. The government keep on about life expectancy going up but they will never tell you that this is not the case with teachers. A teacher who retires at 60 has an average life expectancy. A teacher who retires at 65 on average dies at 68. They want teachers to carry on working until 68. Well that's a very clever way to ensure you never have to pay out. Do you want someone teaching your kids or grandchildren at 68 anyway? Also older public sector workers in jobs will block younger getting jobs thus increasing youth unemployment. A settlement was reached in 2007 that was both fair to the public and to the public sector. When you take inflation into consideration 48 Billion more has been paid into the teachers pension scheme since it started than has ever been taken out. The pension raid is nothing more than a stealth tax. All the public sector pensions with the exception of the armed forces pension are fully funded.Then again I don't begrudge the pensions our brave armed forces get. Times are hard but the current government tells one lie after another. Teachers can receive a full pension after 30-40 years depending on when they started teaching as long as they are also retirement age. MP's get a full pension after 15 years not to mention various other perks.Are we truly all in this together? If the MP's accepted what they are offering me I would agree reluctantly to what is being suggested. Yes teachers do get lots of holidays but what you don't realise is we only get paid for the days we teach and that pay is then averaged out through the year.Besides which I work through most of mine (with the general exception of the summer holidays). I am also up most days well past midnight marking and planning. The Government could easily raise the money that is needed by cutting over a longer period of time and by tightening up on tax avoidance of the mega rich. Also remember that bankers got us into this mess and have a certain moral responsibility to get us out. Try looking at this website http://robinhoodtax.org/ It is easier for the Government just to target middle Britain- the nurses and teachers who they didn't think would strike. The pay in the public sector in general does not match up with professionals in the private sector. A decent pension is seen as a trade off for accepting lower annual pay when negotiations take place. Remember your roots. I'd rather strike for my rights than be a scab. Anyway although I could go on I think I've written enough.
-
I just wish that some of the people in the public sector would own up (like my wife has done) and say ' Thank you all you mugs in the private sector for guaranteeing us a very happy, wealthy retirement. I realise that you probably don't have a pension or if you do it is a very poor one due to having to subsidise our scheme.'
Sadly Mick, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one trying to get a bite. I might try to be annoyed if I actually thought you meant what said, you didn’t make ‘facts’ up, and hadn’t just been trolling threads to provoke a reaction seeing as we won yesterday and you’ve nothing to bang on about on that front.
-
I just wish that some of the people in the public sector would own up (like my wife has done) and say ' Thank you all you mugs in the private sector for guaranteeing us a very happy, wealthy retirement. I realise that you probably don't have a pension or if you do it is a very poor one due to having to subsidise our scheme.'
And. And. And!
What's the last time a teacher managed a shot on target for us? Eh? Eh?
-
I just wish that some of the people in the public sector would own up (like my wife has done) and say ' Thank you all you mugs in the private sector for guaranteeing us a very happy, wealthy retirement. I realise that you probably don't have a pension or if you do it is a very poor one due to having to subsidise our scheme.'
God you talk shite.
-
I'm. Suprised it took you so long to come to that conclusion grayx.
-
Madmick I'm not sure you can handle the truth but lets live in hope. I pay over £200 a month for my pension. From April it will be over £300 if the government gets its way. I have had a pay freeze for the last two years and apparently will get no more than 1%(and could be less) per year for the next 4 years. The way my pension is calculated will also change so that I get less. As a teacher I can retire(on a much reduced pension) at 60 or get a full pension (linked to number of years I have been teaching)at 65. The government keep on about life expectancy going up but they will never tell you that this is not the case with teachers. A teacher who retires at 60 has an average life expectancy. A teacher who retires at 65 on average dies at 68. They want teachers to carry on working until 68. Well that's a very clever way to ensure you never have to pay out. Do you want someone teaching your kids or grandchildren at 68 anyway? Also older public sector workers in jobs will block younger getting jobs thus increasing youth unemployment. A settlement was reached in 2007 that was both fair to the public and to the public sector. When you take inflation into consideration 48 Billion more has been paid into the teachers pension scheme since it started than has ever been taken out. The pension raid is nothing more than a stealth tax. All the public sector pensions with the exception of the armed forces pension are fully funded.Then again I don't begrudge the pensions our brave armed forces get. Times are hard but the current government tells one lie after another. Teachers can receive a full pension after 30-40 years depending on when they started teaching as long as they are also retirement age. MP's get a full pension after 15 years not to mention various other perks.Are we truly all in this together? If the MP's accepted what they are offering me I would agree reluctantly to what is being suggested. Yes teachers do get lots of holidays but what you don't realise is we only get paid for the days we teach and that pay is then averaged out through the year.Besides which I work through most of mine (with the general exception of the summer holidays). I am also up most days well past midnight marking and planning. The Government could easily raise the money that is needed by cutting over a longer period of time and by tightening up on tax avoidance of the mega rich. Also remember that bankers got us into this mess and have a certain moral responsibility to get us out. Try looking at this website robinhoodtax.org/ It is easier for the Government just to target middle Britain- the nurses and teachers who they didn't think would strike. The pay in the public sector in general does not match up with professionals in the private sector. A decent pension is seen as a trade off for accepting lower annual pay when negotiations take place. Remember your roots. I'd rather strike for my rights than be a scab. Anyway although I could go on I think I've written enough.
I agree, you've written more than enough.
-
Madmick I'm not sure you can handle the truth but lets live in hope. I pay over £200 a month for my pension. From April it will be over £300 if the government gets its way. I have had a pay freeze for the last two years and apparently will get no more than 1%(and could be less) per year for the next 4 years. The way my pension is calculated will also change so that I get less. As a teacher I can retire(on a much reduced pension) at 60 or get a full pension (linked to number of years I have been teaching)at 65. The government keep on about life expectancy going up but they will never tell you that this is not the case with teachers. A teacher who retires at 60 has an average life expectancy. A teacher who retires at 65 on average dies at 68. They want teachers to carry on working until 68. Well that's a very clever way to ensure you never have to pay out. Do you want someone teaching your kids or grandchildren at 68 anyway? Also older public sector workers in jobs will block younger getting jobs thus increasing youth unemployment. A settlement was reached in 2007 that was both fair to the public and to the public sector. When you take inflation into consideration 48 Billion more has been paid into the teachers pension scheme since it started than has ever been taken out. The pension raid is nothing more than a stealth tax. All the public sector pensions with the exception of the armed forces pension are fully funded.Then again I don't begrudge the pensions our brave armed forces get. Times are hard but the current government tells one lie after another. Teachers can receive a full pension after 30-40 years depending on when they started teaching as long as they are also retirement age. MP's get a full pension after 15 years not to mention various other perks.Are we truly all in this together? If the MP's accepted what they are offering me I would agree reluctantly to what is being suggested. Yes teachers do get lots of holidays but what you don't realise is we only get paid for the days we teach and that pay is then averaged out through the year.Besides which I work through most of mine (with the general exception of the summer holidays). I am also up most days well past midnight marking and planning. The Government could easily raise the money that is needed by cutting over a longer period of time and by tightening up on tax avoidance of the mega rich. Also remember that bankers got us into this mess and have a certain moral responsibility to get us out. Try looking at this website robinhoodtax.org/ It is easier for the Government just to target middle Britain- the nurses and teachers who they didn't think would strike. The pay in the public sector in general does not match up with professionals in the private sector. A decent pension is seen as a trade off for accepting lower annual pay when negotiations take place. Remember your roots. I'd rather strike for my rights than be a scab. Anyway although I could go on I think I've written enough.
I agree, you've written more than enough. So you pay a measly £200 per month into a pension on your not insignificant salary of must be about £40k. No doubt your partner is also in the public sector and has a gold plated scheme as well. Do you know how much that kind of contribution would get you in the real world in the private sector. I bet you haven't a clue. I'll tell you, about £4000 per year.
Here's a typical example. A teacher on £32,000 a year can retire with a pension equivalent to having built up a private sector pension pot of £500,000 - 20 times higher than the average. Every British family faces a total bill of £13,500 to pay pensions for teachers.
Teachers can on average retire on annual pensions of £24,000 plus a lump sum of £70,000, and headteachers get £42,000 a year. These payouts don’t come from some great bank vault full of cash that teachers have contributed over the past. The teachers’ pension scheme is ‘unfunded’. That means the cash comes from current government expenditure. More plainly, it comes from tax or government borrowing.
Assuming you don't get promoted you are currently looking at about £26,664. Quite a difference from £4,000 in the private sector isn't it. Who makes up the difference? The mugs in the private sector. I've ignored the fact that you've been paying less than £200 per month into your scheme as no doubt your salary was considerably lower when you first started teaching. So in the real world you wouldn't even get £4,000.
You currently also have the benefit of your pension being based on your final salary. So if you get promoted you will be in line for another considerable windfall at the private sectors expense. So bleating on about having to pay an extra 3% towards your pension is truly ungrateful of you. Retiring on a full pension after just 30 years is really taking the biscuit.
You've had a pay freeze have you? Well excuse me for not feeling sorry for you. You've still got a job and an excellent salary with lots of perks that we in the private sector could only dream of. It also seems to have escaped your notice but the private sector has suffered considerably more than the public sector and it's time you took some of the pain.
You also don't mention your unbelievable job security. How many teachers have been sacked for incompetence in the last 40 years? I bet you haven't a clue. It's an amazingly small number of 18. Yes 18!!!! No wonder our school kids are being short changed.
The average life expectancy of a teacher is about 90 and it is rising. If you are daft enough to work right up to the last minute and decrease your life expectancy so dramatically then maybe you shouldn't be a teacher because you are obviously very unintelligent. No-one is forcing you to work to 68. You could easily afford to retire early. What about a career change to prolong life expectancy? You really should have been able to work that one out for yourself.
I know people that are teachers and they have a very good life. If you are up until after midnight regularly working then you must be rubbish at planning and need to go on a time management course.
Just because MP's take the biscuit with their pension arrangements there is no need for you to follow suit. The country is in a financial mess and there isn't enough tax being collected to fund your lavish pensions. We are still borrowing money to keep the lid on things. Instead of blaming the bankers why not try blaming Gordon Brown for his wild overspending and failure to regulate the banks.
What! so that the Tories can de-regulate them again this time around?
-
Madmick I'm not sure you can handle the truth but lets live in hope. I pay over £200 a month for my pension. From April it will be over £300 if the government gets its way. I have had a pay freeze for the last two years and apparently will get no more than 1%(and could be less) per year for the next 4 years. The way my pension is calculated will also change so that I get less. As a teacher I can retire(on a much reduced pension) at 60 or get a full pension (linked to number of years I have been teaching)at 65. The government keep on about life expectancy going up but they will never tell you that this is not the case with teachers. A teacher who retires at 60 has an average life expectancy. A teacher who retires at 65 on average dies at 68. They want teachers to carry on working until 68. Well that's a very clever way to ensure you never have to pay out. Do you want someone teaching your kids or grandchildren at 68 anyway? Also older public sector workers in jobs will block younger getting jobs thus increasing youth unemployment. A settlement was reached in 2007 that was both fair to the public and to the public sector. When you take inflation into consideration 48 Billion more has been paid into the teachers pension scheme since it started than has ever been taken out. The pension raid is nothing more than a stealth tax. All the public sector pensions with the exception of the armed forces pension are fully funded.Then again I don't begrudge the pensions our brave armed forces get. Times are hard but the current government tells one lie after another. Teachers can receive a full pension after 30-40 years depending on when they started teaching as long as they are also retirement age. MP's get a full pension after 15 years not to mention various other perks.Are we truly all in this together? If the MP's accepted what they are offering me I would agree reluctantly to what is being suggested. Yes teachers do get lots of holidays but what you don't realise is we only get paid for the days we teach and that pay is then averaged out through the year.Besides which I work through most of mine (with the general exception of the summer holidays). I am also up most days well past midnight marking and planning. The Government could easily raise the money that is needed by cutting over a longer period of time and by tightening up on tax avoidance of the mega rich. Also remember that bankers got us into this mess and have a certain moral responsibility to get us out. Try looking at this website robinhoodtax.org/ It is easier for the Government just to target middle Britain- the nurses and teachers who they didn't think would strike. The pay in the public sector in general does not match up with professionals in the private sector. A decent pension is seen as a trade off for accepting lower annual pay when negotiations take place. Remember your roots. I'd rather strike for my rights than be a scab. Anyway although I could go on I think I've written enough.
I agree, you've written more than enough. So you pay a measly £200 per month into a pension on your not insignificant salary of must be about £40k. No doubt your partner is also in the public sector and has a gold plated scheme as well. Do you know how much that kind of contribution would get you in the real world in the private sector. I bet you haven't a clue. I'll tell you, about £4000 per year.
Here's a typical example. A teacher on £32,000 a year can retire with a pension equivalent to having built up a private sector pension pot of £500,000 - 20 times higher than the average. Every British family faces a total bill of £13,500 to pay pensions for teachers.
Teachers can on average retire on annual pensions of £24,000 plus a lump sum of £70,000, and headteachers get £42,000 a year. These payouts don’t come from some great bank vault full of cash that teachers have contributed over the past. The teachers’ pension scheme is ‘unfunded’. That means the cash comes from current government expenditure. More plainly, it comes from tax or government borrowing.
Assuming you don't get promoted you are currently looking at about £26,664. Quite a difference from £4,000 in the private sector isn't it. Who makes up the difference? The mugs in the private sector. I've ignored the fact that you've been paying less than £200 per month into your scheme as no doubt your salary was considerably lower when you first started teaching. So in the real world you wouldn't even get £4,000.
You currently also have the benefit of your pension being based on your final salary. So if you get promoted you will be in line for another considerable windfall at the private sectors expense. So bleating on about having to pay an extra 3% towards your pension is truly ungrateful of you. Retiring on a full pension after just 30 years is really taking the biscuit.
You've had a pay freeze have you? Well excuse me for not feeling sorry for you. You've still got a job and an excellent salary with lots of perks that we in the private sector could only dream of. It also seems to have escaped your notice but the private sector has suffered considerably more than the public sector and it's time you took some of the pain.
You also don't mention your unbelievable job security. How many teachers have been sacked for incompetence in the last 40 years? I bet you haven't a clue. It's an amazingly small number of 18. Yes 18!!!! No wonder our school kids are being short changed.
The average life expectancy of a teacher is about 90 and it is rising. If you are daft enough to work right up to the last minute and decrease your life expectancy so dramatically then maybe you shouldn't be a teacher because you are obviously very unintelligent. No-one is forcing you to work to 68. You could easily afford to retire early. What about a career change to prolong life expectancy? You really should have been able to work that one out for yourself.
I know people that are teachers and they have a very good life. If you are up until after midnight regularly working then you must be rubbish at planning and need to go on a time management course.
Just because MP's take the biscuit with their pension arrangements there is no need for you to follow suit. The country is in a financial mess and there isn't enough tax being collected to fund your lavish pensions. We are still borrowing money to keep the lid on things. Instead of blaming the bankers why not try blaming Gordon Brown for his wild overspending and failure to regulate the banks.
Fascinating. I don't believe a word of it, and I doubt he does either.
We started out with \"There are at least 2 public sector workers for every one private sector worker in the real world\" which would mean a private sector workforce of 3 million and a total workforce of 9 million out of a population of 60 million. It's miracle we keep going as a nation.
That's made up off the top of his head, the rest undoubtedly is as well, let alone the convenient appearance of the hitherto-unknown MrsMadPubicSectorMick three days after the thread's started.
-
Fascinating. I don't believe a word of it,
Here's one piece of shocking evidence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/panorama/2010/07/join_the_debate_on_can_i_sack.html
-
We started out with \"There are at least 2 public sector workers for every one private sector worker in the real world\" which would mean a private sector workforce of 3 million and a total workforce of 9 million out of a population of 60 million. It's miracle we keep going as a nation.
You've misunderstood the point I was trying to make.
-
We started out with \"There are at least 2 public sector workers for every one private sector worker in the real world\" which would mean a private sector workforce of 3 million and a total workforce of 9 million out of a population of 60 million. It's miracle we keep going as a nation.
You've misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Let me elaborate. If the public sector was run like the private sector (in other words efficiently), there would be half as many public sector workers. That's because it takes 2 people in the public sector to do the equivalent job of 1 person in the private sector.
What an absolute load of sh*te! You really don't have a clue, and you're obviously on here just to wind people up; either that or you're a lunatic? :facepalm:
That sweeping statement of yours covers nurses, firemen, social workers, council workers, border agency staff, cleaners, teachers... you're saying if all these jobs were moved to the private sector the number of required employees in those sectors would halve?? :headbang:
-
We started out with \"There are at least 2 public sector workers for every one private sector worker in the real world\" which would mean a private sector workforce of 3 million and a total workforce of 9 million out of a population of 60 million. It's miracle we keep going as a nation.
You've misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Let me elaborate. If the public sector was run like the private sector (in other words efficiently), there would be half as many public sector workers. That's because it takes 2 people in the public sector to do the equivalent job of 1 person in the private sector.
Oh dear.
1) What has the ability/inability to sack a teacher got to do with the debate abaout pensions? You could just as easily counter with asking how many FTSE Top 100 companies have sacked their heads for incompetence, or how many top bankers have been sacked (emphasis on sacked) for financial mis-management, which has cost the economy substantially more.
2) Please show statistically where the private sector is exactly twice as efficient at providing ALL public sector services, otherwise it's again just something else you've made up off the top of your head.
In fact, on reflection don't bother. I think it's pretty safe to disregard anything you come out with non-football related as well as football related now.
-
Madmick I'm not sure you can handle the truth but lets live in hope. I pay over £200 a month for my pension. From April it will be over £300 if the government gets its way. I have had a pay freeze for the last two years and apparently will get no more than 1%(and could be less) per year for the next 4 years. The way my pension is calculated will also change so that I get less. As a teacher I can retire(on a much reduced pension) at 60 or get a full pension (linked to number of years I have been teaching)at 65. The government keep on about life expectancy going up but they will never tell you that this is not the case with teachers. A teacher who retires at 60 has an average life expectancy. A teacher who retires at 65 on average dies at 68. They want teachers to carry on working until 68. Well that's a very clever way to ensure you never have to pay out. Do you want someone teaching your kids or grandchildren at 68 anyway? Also older public sector workers in jobs will block younger getting jobs thus increasing youth unemployment. A settlement was reached in 2007 that was both fair to the public and to the public sector. When you take inflation into consideration 48 Billion more has been paid into the teachers pension scheme since it started than has ever been taken out. The pension raid is nothing more than a stealth tax. All the public sector pensions with the exception of the armed forces pension are fully funded.Then again I don't begrudge the pensions our brave armed forces get. Times are hard but the current government tells one lie after another. Teachers can receive a full pension after 30-40 years depending on when they started teaching as long as they are also retirement age. MP's get a full pension after 15 years not to mention various other perks.Are we truly all in this together? If the MP's accepted what they are offering me I would agree reluctantly to what is being suggested. Yes teachers do get lots of holidays but what you don't realise is we only get paid for the days we teach and that pay is then averaged out through the year.Besides which I work through most of mine (with the general exception of the summer holidays). I am also up most days well past midnight marking and planning. The Government could easily raise the money that is needed by cutting over a longer period of time and by tightening up on tax avoidance of the mega rich. Also remember that bankers got us into this mess and have a certain moral responsibility to get us out. Try looking at this website http://robinhoodtax.org/ It is easier for the Government just to target middle Britain- the nurses and teachers who they didn't think would strike. The pay in the public sector in general does not match up with professionals in the private sector. A decent pension is seen as a trade off for accepting lower annual pay when negotiations take place. Remember your roots. I'd rather strike for my rights than be a scab. Anyway although I could go on I think I've written enough.
Teacher? Really? I sincerely hope you are not an English Teacher.
Maybe you should be paid less regardless for your serious lack of appreciation of the paragraph??
Please assure me that you don't teach within the DN5 / DN6 area.
-
Observation is not your strong point is it TWD? A clue is in his user name :facepalm:
-
2) Please show statistically where the private sector is exactly twice as efficient at providing ALL public sector services, otherwise it's again just something else you've made up off the top of your head.
Anyone who has has worked in the public sector or knows anyone in the public sector who is honest knows that this is a fact. Not in all services but certainly in some.
-
T
eacher? Really? I sincerely hope you are not an English Teacher.
I also hope that he's not a maths teacher.
-
2) Please show statistically where the private sector is exactly twice as efficient at providing ALL public sector services, otherwise it's again just something else you've made up off the top of your head.
Anyone who has has worked in the public sector or knows anyone in the public sector who is honest knows that this is a fact. You sound like someone who has only ever worked in the public sector and hasn't got a clue about working life in the real world. In fact if Macdonalds ran the public sector I reckon you'd have 1 person doing the work of 3!
So your arguement hinges on \"...this is a fact\" It's much in the way of defence is it? Perhaps if you typed 'fact' in capitals it'd carry more weight? Maybe a larger font? Have you considered a career in international diplomacy? I can see you resolving be the Arab-Israeli conflict at the drop of a fact.
I've only comparatively recently moved into the public sector, having worked entirely in the private sector before that. Having been exposed to the private sector and (according to your searing analytical model) I should be imbued with the kind of workplace nouse only previously seen in Sir John Harvey Jones.
Subsequently I should now be able to do the job of two people, which short of developing some kind of multiple personality disorder, I assure you is unlikely to happen.
Sadly, as time goes on it's becoming apparent that the only difference between yourself and Ricardo Montalban is the lack of a height-restricted assistant.
-
I've only comparatively recently moved into the public sector,
Shouldn't be long before you realise what a cushy life you've now got with no fear of being sacked.
-
Sorry for not getting back sooner. Firstly I am not an English teacher. Secondly I think you will find that paragraphing is a convention that tends not to be used on computer forums such as this. I thought a few of you might appreciate at least seeing a truthful overview of things from a teacher. Anyway I've said my piece. Lets get back to supporting Rovers rather than politics.:scarf:
-
I've only comparatively recently moved into the public sector,
Shouldn't be long before you realise what a cushy life you've now got with no fear of being sacked.
I work for the NHS and there is nothing 'cushy' about a 6 month temp contract.
-
I've only comparatively recently moved into the public sector,
Shouldn't be long before you realise what a cushy life you've now got with no fear of being sacked.
Just because your body can do the work of two mouths by talking out of more than one orifice at the same time doesn't make it a rule than can be applied to everyone. :silly:
-
Oh MadMick, you don't half talk some crap.
I've worked in both sectors. I'll tell you now that I have never in my entire life worked harder than I did as junior lecturer at a University. 60+ hour weeks were the norm (paid for 35 of course, no overtime). And, as I've said elsewhere, the graduates I was turning out frequently got better salaries than I did, even though I was 10 years older than them, better qualified and highly experienced.
Compare that to my time working as an engineer in a private company - 37 hour week. Start at 08:45. Leave at 17:15 on the dot. Paid overtime for anything further and for weekend working. Regular bonuses when the company did well.
The competition for positions and promotion in public sector academia is ferocious. I'd regularly be working well past midnight just to keep up and I'll tell you something else - if I e-mailed a work colleague about work at 1am, there'd be a 50% chance I'd get a reply within minutes. Those colleagues were some of the very brightest and hardest working people you could ever wish to meet.
If private sector workers were twice as efficient as that, we'd be the richest country in the world by far.
Grow up. There are slackers and hard workers in both sectors.
-
I've worked in both sectors. I'll tell you now that I have never in my entire life worked harder than I did as junior lecturer at a University.
You must be the exception that proves the rule.
-
I've worked in both sectors. I'll tell you now that I have never in my entire life worked harder than I did as junior lecturer at a University.
You must be the exception that proves the rule.
And those people he'd e-mail at 1am...they're just exceptions too? :facepalm:
-
And those people he'd e-mail at 1am...they're just exceptions too?
Lets get a grip. Everyone knows that the public sector is cushy compared to the private sector.
-
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bXPu5snblqg[/video]
-
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bXPu5snblqg&CMP=EMCSOCEML657%25%25__AdditionalEmailAttribute1[/video]
-
5th time lucky..
Interesting viewing.
(www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXPu5snblqg)
-
I've only comparatively recently moved into the public sector,
Shouldn't be long before you realise what a cushy life you've now got with no fear of being sacked.
That the best you can do - surely by definition you'd have come up with two answers?
-
Interesting viewing.
Only if you're a leftie socialist. It's 13 years of Labour and in particular Gordon Brown that has got us in this mess. He should be shot. People need to cop themselves on and never allow the socialists any where near the levers of power ever again.
-
Interesting viewing.
Only if you're a leftie socialist. It's 13 years of Labour and in particular Gordon Brown that has got us in this mess. He should be shot. People need to cop themselves on and never allow the socialists any where near the levers of power ever again.
Hilarous. There's a pantomime missing a villan somewhere.
Sorry and all that Mick, I just can't take you seriously. I doubt you even believe what you say yourself by now. Cup of tea time I think.
-
Interesting viewing.
Only if you're a leftie socialist. It's 13 years of Labour and in particular Gordon Brown that has got us in this mess. He should be shot. People need to cop themselves on and never allow the socialists any where near the levers of power ever again.
That I am. But people still need to know this.
So you're saying he was wrong to fix Maggie's mess? \"Oh, sorry guys, we were very bad people to give you all these new schools and hospitals!\" I don't think so. The system's crashing again - you say we should \"never allow the socialists any where near the levers of power ever again\" but the capitalists haven't done a very f**king good job either..
That said - New Labour? socialist? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
That's what tipped it for me as well. Not a clue.
-
We`ll see what \"call me Dave\" stands for when the UK gets swallowed up by the Franco-German empire! ;)
-
We`ll see what \"call me Dave\" stands for when the UK gets swallowed up by the Franco-German empire! ;)
I can't see guile in any of his action so far, so until fuhrer notice, I don't expect any change.
:coat:
-
We`ll see what \"call me Dave\" stands for when the UK gets swallowed up by the Franco-German empire! ;)
I can't see guile in any of his action so far, so until fuhrer notice, I don't expect any change.
:coat:
One inkling of treaty change to UK`s detriment should trigger a referendum, I bet it does n`t though, they can`t risk upsetting rent boy Clegg can they?
-
We`ll see what \"call me Dave\" stands for when the UK gets swallowed up by the Franco-German empire! ;)
I can't see guile in any of his action so far, so until fuhrer notice, I don't expect any change.
:coat:
One inkling of treaty change to UK`s detriment should trigger a referendum, I bet it does n`t though, they can`t risk upsetting rent boy Clegg can they?
Whatever happens, Cameron's going to have to tread very carefully. Could be about to witness another of the Tories' almighty splits over Europe - as you say, with the Lib Dems involved this time, it could be even more catastrophic for him.
-
So you're saying he was wrong to fix Maggie's mess? \"Oh, sorry guys, we were very bad people to give you all these new schools and hospitals!\" I don't think so. The system's crashing again - you say we should \"never allow the socialists any where near the levers of power ever again\" but the capitalists haven't done a very fcuking good job either..
Thank God for Maggie. She sorted out most of those power crazed union bosses that were ruining the country. Only a few more left now to sort out. You think what Gordon has done is fixed Maggie's mess. He has left the country with massive debts through his wild overspending of money he didn't have.
He failed to regulate the banks compounding the problem, letting them get away with blue murder. He's the one that has caused the biggest mess the country has been in since the world wars. It's a fact that Labour always leave the country in a financial mess every time they leave power.
You can stick socialism where the sun don't shine.
-
Daniel Hannan told him straight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
-
So you're saying he was wrong to fix Maggie's mess? \"Oh, sorry guys, we were very bad people to give you all these new schools and hospitals!\" I don't think so. The system's crashing again - you say we should \"never allow the socialists any where near the levers of power ever again\" but the capitalists haven't done a very fcuking good job either..
Thank God for Maggie. She sorted out most of those power crazed union bosses that were ruining the country. Only a few more left now to sort out. You think what Gordon has done is fixed Maggie's mess. He has left the country with massive debts through his wild overspending of money he didn't have.
He failed to regulate the banks compounding the problem, letting them get away with blue murder. He's the one that has caused the biggest mess the country has been in since the world wars. It's a fact that Labour always leave the country in a financial mess every time they leave power.
You can stick socialism where the sun don't shine.
Oh, so what she did to the north was acceptable to you then? She destroyed what industry there was in the north, and since private companies wouldn't take all of the people that put out of a job onto their books, what else was there to do? Abandon the north?
I didn't say I agreed with what Scargill and that lot got up to in the 80s, at least not the way he went about it. And Cameron would've just deregulated again, as has been said earlier, cos \"that's what Tories do\". Another thing - as a proportion of GDP, British debt levels have only actually been lower in 50 of the last 250 years, so..
& I think the very same of the current way of doing things.
-
So you're saying he was wrong to fix Maggie's mess? \"Oh, sorry guys, we were very bad people to give you all these new schools and hospitals!\" I don't think so. The system's crashing again - you say we should \"never allow the socialists any where near the levers of power ever again\" but the capitalists haven't done a very fcuking good job either..
Thank God for Maggie. She sorted out most of those power crazed union bosses that were ruining the country. Only a few more left now to sort out. You think what Gordon has done is fixed Maggie's mess. He has left the country with massive debts through his wild overspending of money he didn't have.
He failed to regulate the banks compounding the problem, letting them get away with blue murder. He's the one that has caused the biggest mess the country has been in since the world wars. It's a fact that Labour always leave the country in a financial mess every time they leave power.
You can stick socialism where the sun don't shine.
You don't really mean any of that.
In fact, I don't think you're even mad.
Irate at best.
-
All you leftie socialists need an education in debt because that's all that socialism leaves as a legacy. To help you on the road to enlightenment here is a website outlining the devastating impact of Gordon's time in office.
http://www.debtbombshell.com/
-
Thanks Mad Mick. That's a real eye-opener. I hadn't realised that we had a debt crisis going on. Phew - it's bad int it? Lucky for us that there are some places like the one you showed us where one can find a balanced, even-handed discussion on the topic. Otherwise, where would we be?
Just one thing. Just to clear things up for a dullard like me. Why doesn't that site mention anything about the role of growth in sorting out a debt crisis? I mean, after WWII we had a debt far, far bigger than we have now. 240% of GDP so I've heard, but I might be wrong. You'll probably know the figures.
And in fact, I've heard that we didn't pay it back. Never. Not at all. What I heard was that the debt carried on growing. From £21billion in 1945 to £500billion by 2007. Terrifying int it?
But - here's a funny thing. I also heard that our GDP grew from £9 billion in 1945 to £1400billion in 2007. So that debt in 2007 wasn't so bad after all. A bit like me mam and dad who had a £2000 mortgage in 1965 that nearly crippled them, but by 1995 when they paid it off, the monthly payments were less than a round at Denaby Welfare. See, their income had gone up over that time. Mind, they were public sector workers, so what can you say eh?
Or maybe I've got that wrong. Sheesh, it's so hard to deal with all these numbers. It's a really difficult topic with lots of ins and outs int it? Fortunately, there's that website of yours to help us out. That really simplifies things down to \"DEBT=BAD, NO DEBT=GOOD\". That really helps get my head straight.
Although he doesn't mention the growth thing. Funny, that, int it? You don't think he might have a particular, very right wing agenda to peddle do you. And you don't think he might ignore facts that don't fit his story do you? Surely not. That'd be terrible.
-
More to the point did you buy him a pint on Paypal? Maybe your wife will lend you the money out of her generous public sector pay.
-
Debt can be a good thing if the money is invested wisely. Unfortunately Gordon was far from wise. How do you reckon we will achieve growth with such a mountain of debt holding us back? As a leftie socialist you no doubt think we should get into even more debt to sort the problem out. Well I think we've got quite enough debt thank you very much and I don't want to burden my children and my children's children with any more of it.
If the following facts don't make you pause for thought then there is nothing more I can do for you. You are a lost cause.
We owe £15,596 for every man, woman and child
That's more than £34,045 for every person in employment
Every household will pay £2,112 this year, just to cover the interest
What an incredible waste of money. Thank you very much Gordon Brown you incompetent buffoon.
-
More to the point did you buy him a pint on Paypal? Maybe your wife will lend you the money out of her generous public sector pay.
Another leftie socialist in denial.
-
Yeah Mick. Thanks for that considered response. I'm getting there now. You've clearly done a lot more thinking than me so please bear with me while I catch up.
But there's just one other thing that I'm struggling with.
See, I'd heard (could be wrong, it was a public sector worker who told me - you'll probably know the real answer) that by 2007, just before the GLOBAL credit catastrophe happened, our debt to GDP ratio was actually lower than it had been in 1997 when Labour took over. So (this public sector bloke sez) Brown had actually left us (before the Global disaster) in a better position than we'd been under Maggie and Major.
What do you make of that? I'm guessing it's probably lefty propaganda myself.
-
Yeah Mick. Thanks for that considered response. I'm getting there now. You've clearly done a lot more thinking than me so please bear with me while I catch up.
But there's just one other thing that I'm struggling with.
See, I'd heard (could be wrong, it was a public sector worker who told me - you'll probably know the real answer) that by 2007, just before the GLOBAL credit catastrophe happened, our debt to GDP ratio was actually lower than it had been in 1997 when Labour took over. So (this public sector bloke sez) Brown had actually left us (before the Global disaster) in a better position than we'd been under Maggie and Major.
What do you make of that? I'm guessing it's probably lefty propaganda myself.
This is my last attempt to make you see sense. You obviously believe all the rubbish spouted by the Labour party and try to pick one statistic to try to make everything in the garden rosy. You can't see the wood for the trees. Here's a link showing the true scale of our debt and the horrific legacy left behind by that idiot Gordon Brown.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3078296/the-true-extent-of-britains-debt.thtml
-
I see what you're getting at Mick. And that article by Fraser Nelson. Such a well balanced boy he is. Not at all the sort of person who you'd have down a a rabid right-winger who'd call Norman Tebbit a socialist. Even handed is his middle name.
But, see, I'm struggling again. Isn't cherub-faced Fraser talking about total UK debt in that article? Nothing to do with Gordon Brown or anyone else in Government, but the debt that our wonderful banks rang up, and the debts that you and I rang up with all them conservatories and holidays in the Canaries. (Not me of course. I was working too hard in the public sector to take holidays in the Canaries, but I know plenty of mates in the private sector who had 3 or 4 a year in the noughties. Always wondered how they paid for it....)
So what's the deal Mick? I'm sat at your feet here like Grasshopper in front of blind Master Po waiting for words of wisdom. Is it Gordon and the Government? Or is it all our decking and Benidorm holidays? And are we the only country in the world to have a debt problem? And how do you get out of a debt crisis without strong GDP growth. Has any country - ANY country in history ever done that?
-
I see what you're getting at Mick. And that article by Fraser Nelson. Such a well balanced boy he is. Not at all the sort of person who you'd have down a a rabid right-winger who'd call Norman Tebbit a socialist. Even handed is his middle name.
But, see, I'm struggling again. Isn't cherub-faced Fraser talking about total UK debt in that article? Nothing to do with Gordon Brown or anyone else in Government, but the debt that our wonderful banks rang up, and the debts that you and I rang up with all them conservatories and holidays in the Canaries. (Not me of course. I was working too hard in the public sector to take holidays in the Canaries, but I know plenty of mates in the private sector who had 3 or 4 a year in the noughties. Always wondered how they paid for it....)
So what's the deal Mick? I'm sat at your feet here like Grasshopper in front of blind Master Po waiting for words of wisdom. Is it Gordon and the Government? Or is it all our decking and Benidorm holidays? And are we the only country in the world to have a debt problem? And how do you get out of a debt crisis without strong GDP growth. Has any country - ANY country in history ever done that?
The research was done by Citigroup and is merely being reported by Fraser Nelson. Maybe you would take the research more seriously if it had been reported by the political editor of the Daily Mirror.
The point it makes is that government debt is just one part of the jigsaw. To get the true indebtedness of the nation you have to consider corporate and household debt as well. You can't just take one statistic like you want to do and base your whole argument on that. A bit too simplistic I'm afraid.
You can't say it has nothing to do with Gordon Brown and just blame the banks. Who was responsible for regulating the banks? The banks knew that they could gamble on risky investments because if it all went wrong Gordon would be there to bail them out.
Who kept saying he had abolished boom and bust? Are you then surprised that the banks leant money to a gullible public and business sector that they shouldn't have? Who massively increased the public sector in a bid to buy votes? This slack policy of Gordon then led to an unsustainable housing boom. We are now paying for that crash.
On top of this he did nothing to put us in good shape to weather any unforeseen global crisis. When the global crisis hit we were caught with our pants down.
The lesson you and your leftie socialist friends need to learn is that you can't just spend your way out of a crisis. If you've spent too much you need to cut back, pay off your debt and start living within your means. It's not fair on my children and my children's children to have to pick up the bill for our wastefulness. We spent it, we need to pay it back.
We've had the party now it's time for the hangover. If you've maxed out your credit card you don't just go and get another one and then another one and carry on spending. An idiot would know this route led to disaster, but not Gordon.
Good luck with your wish for growth. It's not going to happen any time soon. The only realistic solution is to do a Hong Kong when Murray Maclehose was their governor and cut back on the state as much as possible and cut taxes a lot.
-
I like it.
Then we can get the Royal Navy to flog smack to the Chinese, further increasing revenues.
Or you could just stop making things up (yet again), seeing as public spending actually increased under Maclehose.
-
Who was responsible for regulating the banks?
Erm, no one, the Tories de-regulated them!
-
Or you could just stop making things up (yet again), seeing as public spending actually increased under Maclehose.
My mistake. It was John James Cowperthwaite. http://gwulo.com/node/6190
-
Erm, no one, the Tories de-regulated them!
Doesn't mean that when they were obviously gambling like crazy that Gordon couldn't have introduced legislation to curb them. They helped him ruin the country on his not inconsiderable watch of 13 years.
-
Erm, no one, the Tories de-regulated them!
Doesn't mean that when they were obviously gambling like crazy that Gordon couldn't have introduced legislation to curb them. They helped him ruin the country on his not inconsiderable watch of 13 years.
So then, you`re obviously a supporter of the Tories and you wanted the Labour government to re-regulate the banks, even though you supported the Tories in de-regulating them? :S
-
Or you could just stop making things up (yet again), seeing as public spending actually increased under Maclehose.
My mistake. It was John James Cowperthwaite. http://gwulo.com/node/6190
So that’d be imposition of economic non-policies previously associated with a(and precipitated by) considerable existing growth in a small East Asian port 70 years ago, to vastly bigger 21st Century economy experiencing precisely no growth, with a developed public sector (like it or not) a large welfare bill (again, like it or not) and whose primary trading bloc is currently experiencing a severe crisis.
You’re definitely onto a winner there. Can’t see it failing at all.
Have you considered repealing the Corn Laws at the same time? The effects of taking all that Spanish Gold from the New World? Investing in Henge building? There's any number of historic precedents that will undoubtedly fit the current situation, regardless of relevance. I'm amazed no-one's thought of these before.
-
You’re definitely onto a winner there. Can’t see it failing at all.
It's about time you saw the light. I'm glad you have stopped believing the stupid myth that the solution to all our problems is to keep spending and borrowing. Welcome to the real world.
-
So then, you`re obviously a supporter of the Tories and you wanted the Labour government to re-regulate the banks, even though you supported the Tories in de-regulating them?
If it's a choice between leftie socialists who believe in tax and spend and the Tories then it's a no brainer. It's the people with no brains that support Labour.
Just to clarify, I am a fully fledged right winger and Daniel Hannan is God. You should try reading his blogs to learn the error of your ways.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100119741/memo-to-the-occupy-protesters-here-are-ten-things-we-evil-capitalists-really-think/
I didn't support the initial de-regulation as I was not politically aware in those days. With hindsight it may have been better if it never happened. I really don't know. What I do know is that Gordon should have reined the banks in but he didn't. Incompetence on a breathtaking scale.
-
You’re definitely onto a winner there. Can’t see it failing at all.
It's about time you saw the light. I'm glad you have stopped believing the stupid myth that the solution to all our problems is to keep spending and borrowing. Welcome to the real world.
Changing the subject again, and still not answering the question - how do you propose this will work?
Anyone would think you've got no idea what you're on about, and far from a searing economic insight this was based on you thrashing round for the biggest bit of free market in recent history and trying to make it stick wihtout really understanding the context.
Again, how do you see this working?
-
Mick
Calm down, stopping ranting and there's a sensible debate to be had here.
You keep blathering on about what Brown should have done. You DO realise that we're in a global economy?
What do you think would have happened to the UK economy had Brown unilaterally imposed onerous regulations on the banking industry in 1997. You reckon Fred Goodwin et al would have all started work as entrepreneurial technologists and we'd have suddenly turned ourselves into Germany? Or do you think the financial sector would have upped sticks and moved to America or Switzerland where they and their (then) highly successful business would have been welcomed with open arms?
I fully agree that the banking deregulation on a global scale was a catastrophic mistake which has led directly to our present problems. But it is a world wide mistake. Brown himself has admitted that his biggest mistake was not getting the whole world to rein in the banks. But us doing it ourselves would have been a disaster. We'd have been in recession for the noughties and still copped for the current problems. Go look at Germany's case over the last decade.
As for your continued assertion that cutting savagely is the way to bring down Govt debt, what's your take on what has happened to Japan over the last 20 years? That is by far and away the most apt recent example.
-
Y
ou keep blathering on about what Brown should have done. You DO realise that we're in a global economy?
What do you think would have happened to the UK economy had Brown unilaterally imposed onerous regulations on the banking industry in 1997. You reckon Fred Goodwin et al would have all started work as entrepreneurial technologists and we'd have suddenly turned ourselves into Germany? Or do you think the financial sector would have upped sticks and moved to America or Switzerland where they and their (then) highly successful business would have been welcomed with open arms?
I fully agree that the banking deregulation on a global scale was a catastrophic mistake which has led directly to our present problems. But it is a world wide mistake. Brown himself has admitted that his biggest mistake was not getting the whole world to rein in the banks. But us doing it ourselves would have been a disaster. We'd have been in recession for the noughties and still copped for the current problems. Go look at Germany's case over the last decade.
As for your continued assertion that cutting savagely is the way to bring down Govt debt, what's your take on what has happened to Japan over the last 20 years? That is by far and away the most apt recent example.
Brown should have at least intervened in 2005 when the banks were running out of control. He could have intervened without having to get the rest of the world onside. He didn't, in fact he called for even less regulation. As I said, incompetence on a breathtaking scale.
I don't agree with your thesis that if he had intervened we'd have had all the problems you mention. In fact we'd have coped far better with the American sub prime scenario that has caused so much mayhem.
I've not said anything about cutting savagely. The reason is because we are not cutting savagely. The national debt is still increasing. All that has happened with the so called savage cuts is that the rate our national debt is growing is slowing down. A common misconception amongst 90% of the public, in particular leftie socialists is that the government is cutting savagely. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are merely scratching the surface of the debt mountain.
How do we get out of this mess? Firstly Gordon Brown should be executed as a warning to other politicians not to take the piss with the electorate in future. Then we need to slash tax rates so people can keep more of what they earn and use it far more effectively than politicians. All they try to do is spend as much as possible to buy votes. Then we need to shrink the state massively and let people take over the daily running of their lives. John James Cowperthwaite's model which is still used to this day in Hong Kong is good enough for me. Problem sorted.
-
You keep blathering on about what Brown should have done. You DO realise that we're in a global economy?
What do you think would have happened to the UK economy had Brown unilaterally imposed onerous regulations on the banking industry in 1997. You reckon Fred Goodwin et al would have all started work as entrepreneurial technologists and we'd have suddenly turned ourselves into Germany? Or do you think the financial sector would have upped sticks and moved to America or Switzerland where they and their (then) highly successful business would have been welcomed with open arms?
I fully agree that the banking deregulation on a global scale was a catastrophic mistake which has led directly to our present problems. But it is a world wide mistake. Brown himself has admitted that his biggest mistake was not getting the whole world to rein in the banks. But us doing it ourselves would have been a disaster. We'd have been in recession for the noughties and still copped for the current problems. Go look at Germany's case over the last decade.
As for your continued assertion that cutting savagely is the way to bring down Govt debt, what's your take on what has happened to Japan over the last 20 years? That is by far and away the most apt recent example.
Brown should have at least intervened in 2005 when the banks were running out of control. He could have intervened without having to get the rest of the world onside. He didn't, in fact he called for even less regulation. As I said, incompetence on a breathtaking scale.
I don't agree with your thesis that if he had intervened we'd have had all the problems you mention. In fact we'd have coped far better with the American sub prime scenario that has caused so much mayhem.
I've not said anything about cutting savagely. The reason is because we are not cutting savagely. The national debt is still increasing. All that has happened with the so called savage cuts is that the rate our national debt is growing is slowing down. A common misconception amongst 90% of the public, in particular leftie socialists is that the government is cutting savagely. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are merely scratching the surface of the debt mountain.
How do we get out of this mess? Firstly Gordon Brown should be executed as a warning to other politicians not to take the piss with the electorate in future. Then we need to slash tax rates so people can keep more of what they earn and use it far more effectively than politicians. All they try to do is spend as much as possible to buy votes. Then we need to shrink the state massively and let people take over the daily running of their lives. John James Cowperthwaite's model which is still used to this day in Hong Kong is good enough for me. Problem sorted.
Off you toddle then :byebye
-
For those of you interested in how Gordon ruined our economy and what should be done to sort out the mess:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-trillion-pound-horror-story/4od
-
You keep blathering on about what Brown should have done. You DO realise that we're in a global economy?
What do you think would have happened to the UK economy had Brown unilaterally imposed onerous regulations on the banking industry in 1997. You reckon Fred Goodwin et al would have all started work as entrepreneurial technologists and we'd have suddenly turned ourselves into Germany? Or do you think the financial sector would have upped sticks and moved to America or Switzerland where they and their (then) highly successful business would have been welcomed with open arms?
I fully agree that the banking deregulation on a global scale was a catastrophic mistake which has led directly to our present problems. But it is a world wide mistake. Brown himself has admitted that his biggest mistake was not getting the whole world to rein in the banks. But us doing it ourselves would have been a disaster. We'd have been in recession for the noughties and still copped for the current problems. Go look at Germany's case over the last decade.
As for your continued assertion that cutting savagely is the way to bring down Govt debt, what's your take on what has happened to Japan over the last 20 years? That is by far and away the most apt recent example.
Brown should have at least intervened in 2005 when the banks were running out of control. He could have intervened without having to get the rest of the world onside. He didn't, in fact he called for even less regulation. As I said, incompetence on a breathtaking scale.
I don't agree with your thesis that if he had intervened we'd have had all the problems you mention. In fact we'd have coped far better with the American sub prime scenario that has caused so much mayhem.
I've not said anything about cutting savagely. The reason is because we are not cutting savagely. The national debt is still increasing. All that has happened with the so called savage cuts is that the rate our national debt is growing is slowing down. A common misconception amongst 90% of the public, in particular leftie socialists is that the government is cutting savagely. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are merely scratching the surface of the debt mountain.
How do we get out of this mess? Firstly Gordon Brown should be executed as a warning to other politicians not to take the piss with the electorate in future. Then we need to slash tax rates so people can keep more of what they earn and use it far more effectively than politicians. All they try to do is spend as much as possible to buy votes. Then we need to shrink the state massively and let people take over the daily running of their lives. John James Cowperthwaite's model which is still used to this day in Hong Kong is good enough for me. Problem sorted.
Still dodging this question (third time), which would seem to imply it probably destroys your arguement, or as usual you've made something up off the top of your head:
How will this work in the current context when Cowpwethwaite's model was based on a considerably smaller economy with pre-existing growth and little in the way of spending commitments (to the extent that as previously noted, his successor had to increase public spending significantly) Why aren't these policies followed verbatim in other large economies, if they guarantee prosperity?
Even if this model is an ultimate end, how do you propose the intervening period is managed?
Please explain.
Actually, as an addendum, are you sure his policies are still used in Hong Kong today? - how do these fit with central control from Beijing?
-
Did Clarkson get the sack or not?
-
Please explain.
The link in my previous post explains everything better than I can.
-
Unfortunately it doesn't, and regardless of this it doesn't explain why they're not enmployed anywhere else (we'd have probably noticed and followed suit by now) which is why I've asked the question of you.
If these policies guarantee health, wealth and prosperity for all, why are they not used in other economies outside of (and larger) than Hong Kong in the 1960s/70s?
I assume they can be applied elsewhere outside of this geographical and historical timeframe. I can't think of any off the top of my head though, even the US has a large welfare bill. Wny have they not followed the Hong Kong model and eliminated this?
Logic would dictate that such sucessful policies would be adopted at the drop of a hat even by politicians, to ensure electoral success.
Presumably real-world issues can't negate them, otherwise it's much an abstract ideological model as Marxism?
-
Unfortunately it doesn't,
Yes it does. this documentary explains the problem and the solution. China is only now doing as well as it is due to learning from Hong Kong. Other countries don't follow suit as politicians will be out of work. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-trillion-pound-horror-story/4od
-
Unfortunately it doesn't,
Yes it does. this documentary explains the problem and the solution. China is only now doing as well as it is due to learning from Hong Kong. Other countries don't follow suit as politicians will be out of work. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-trillion-pound-horror-story/4od
Again, this doesn't answer the question. If these policies were the panacea you hold them to be, any politicians bringing them in would be guaranteed a job for life, surely?
Also, these policies work in China, which isn't exactly a democracy. If we ignore my previous point, follow yours and assume that politicians don't vote for Christmas, then we're back to the problem of this being a model that doesn't work elsewhere, it will by definition, never happen.
I'm afraid anyone can propose a hypothetical solution, it isn't going to cure real-world ills, which and the context we're all living in, which is a Western Democracy. You're proposing a solution that's only previously 'worked' (please see my final point) in non-Western non-Democracies. It's a pointless arguement.
Also, how does this explain the current Chinese slowdown? If this is due to internal issues, then the model's not infalible, if external issues then similarly any ecomony is liable to be effected by these?
-
Again, this doesn't answer the question. If these policies were the panacea you hold them to be, any politicians bringing them in would be guaranteed a job for life, surely?
Also, these policies work in China, which isn't exactly a democracy. If we ignore my previous point, follow yours and assume that politicians don't vote for Christmas, then we're back to the problem of this being a model that doesn't work elsewhere, it will by definition, never happen.
I'm afraid anyone can propose a hypothetical solution, it isn't going to cure real-world ills, which and the context we're all living in, which is a Western Democracy. You're proposing a solution that's only previously 'worked' (please see my final point) in non-Western non-Democracies. It's a pointless arguement.
Also, how does this explain the current Chinese slowdown? If this is due to internal issues, then the model's not infalible, if external issues then similarly any ecomony is liable to be effected by these?
Politicians for the most part, are only bothered about lining their own pockets. If they did what I suggest there would be far fewer of them required. That's why they keep things as they are because they do very nicely out of the status quo thank you very much. That is why it is incumbent on people like me to educate the masses as to what is going on and get it changed.
This policy led to to the Asian economic miracle. Other countries in Asia followed suit and saw their economies grow rapidly. Some of them were also democracies. It doesn't matter what type of government you have. As long as the state is small and taxes are low you will generate rapid economic growth.
This policy has also been followed in Russia and Eastern Europe. Their growth rates have been a lot higher than ours as well. So saying it has not been tried elsewhere and only by non democracies is very wide of the mark and shows you've not digested the information I have been spoon feeding you.
How you can use the example of China having a slowdown as evidence the system doesn't work is beyond me. I don't know what their current growth rate is but I do know it was 9.5% in July. 9.5%!!! Of course internal and external factors can affect the system. However it is a much better system than the one we currently employ and would rapidly sort our problems out. If the whole world followed this system there would be no talk of impending financial doom.
As a side issue, I will be standing for the job of Mayor of Doncaster next time it is up for grabs. I've decided to dedicate myself to sorting out the ills of Doncaster then using the job to push forward my agenda nationally, then globally. I was wondering if I could count on your support?
-
See Mick, I'm struggling again.
On the one hand, your philosophy seems to be that we shrink the state and give more money back to people and companies to do as they see fit.
On the other hand, you want more regulation.
Am I being really dim here or is there some contradiction?
And your debating style. I like the forthright \"Here's an example of someone who has written something that I agree with - end of debate\" style. It's spunky. But, see, I was brought up a Catholic, so when someone says, \"Read this and believe!\" I tend to assume that they are dealing in blind faith rather than reasoned debate.
Finally, you keep chucking up pointless examples of the economic policy of tiny colonies or countries developing rapidly from Third World economic performance. Why do you keep shying away from the exams of Japan? Surely you must have an opinion on how Japan screwed their economy for 20 years by Austerity in the teeth of a recession in the early 90s?
-
See Mick, I'm struggling again.
On the one hand, your philosophy seems to be that we shrink the state and give more money back to people and companies to do as they see fit.
On the other hand, you want more regulation.
Am I being really dim here or is there some contradiction?
And your debating style. I like the forthright \"Here's an example of someone who has written something that I agree with - end of debate\" style. It's spunky. But, see, I was brought up a Catholic, so when someone says, \"Read this and believe!\" I tend to assume that they are dealing in blind faith rather than reasoned debate.
Finally, you keep chucking up pointless examples of the economic policy of tiny colonies or countries developing rapidly from Third World economic performance. Why do you keep shying away from the exams of Japan? Surely you must have an opinion on how Japan screwed their economy for 20 years by Austerity in the teeth of a recession in the early 90s?
I want less regulation, much less. Where the banks are concerned, there needs to some regulation to stop them doing what they did before. So I think you are a bit dim and pedantic (however I make allowances as you are a leftie socialist).
I don't call China a tiny colony or country (I could give other examples but that one on it's own blows your argument out of the water). In the not too distant future it is likely to be the world's biggest economy.
Japan did well at first but fell into the trap of massive state intervention. That's why they are struggling. It is very simplistic to say all their problems are down to austerity.
Anyway I've given my assessment of the problem and a brilliant solution. What's your solution? On second thoughts I think I already know. Spend more money and when that doesn't work spend some more. Don't worry that we haven't got the money. Just get another credit card and max it out. Great solution.
-
James Delingpole, another hero of the right sums up the Clarkson affair very well and exposes the left for what it is:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100121163/how-the-bbc-ganged-up-with-the-militant-left-to-attack-jeremy-clarkson/
-
Fascinating.
With respect though, you still haven't answered my inital questions, just quoted other examples that have nothing to do with what I queried.
I'll simplify it if that'll help:
To resolve our current economic crisis, and to ensure future stability and prosperity you advocate adoption of a solution that:
Depsite offering a cure for all ills, has apparently only ever been seen in a limited number of other countries.
Has only ever been seen other countries with vastly different geographical, social, economic and hisstoric contexts to our current one.
By its very nature (and by your own argument) is unlikely ever to be adopted in a Western Democracy.
That you argue will do away with (and removes the need for) state intervention, despite the fact that your two primarly examples conversely had/have large state apparatus (colonial administration and the communist state respectively) and in China involves the state taking proactive steps to protect its currency.
That despite being a panacea, is currently experiencing an economic slowdown in its biggest proponent, and has failed to sustain the economic miracle in other Asian examples.
That provides no pathway between our current situation and adoption of this new model – the Hong Kong example being built on pre-existing growth, Russai, Eastern Europe, China and Vietnam gradual modifications of limited free-market policies in a Communist states, Korea benefiting from massive injectiosn of capital from the US
I don't think you've really any idea of what you're talking about beyond repeating rhetoric parrot-fashion, and I'm actually bored with taking your arguements apart now.
-
Fascinating.
With respect though, you still haven't answered my inital questions, just quoted other examples that have nothing to do with what I queried.
I'll simplify it if that'll help:
To resolve our current economic crisis, and to ensure future stability and prosperity you advocate adoption of a solution that:
Depsite offering a cure for all ills, has apparently only ever been seen in a limited number of other countries.
Has only ever been seen other countries with vastly different geographical, social, economic and hisstoric contexts to our current one.
By its very nature (and by your own argument) is unlikely ever to be adopted in a Western Democracy.
That you argue will do away with (and removes the need for) state intervention, despite the fact that your two primarly examples conversely had/have large state apparatus (colonial administration and the communist state respectively) and in China involves the state taking proactive steps to protect its currency.
That despite being a panacea, is currently experiencing an economic slowdown in its biggest proponent, and has failed to sustain the economic miracle in other Asian examples.
That provides no pathway between our current situation and adoption of this new model – the Hong Kong example being built on pre-existing growth, Russai, Eastern Europe, China and Vietnam gradual modifications of limited free-market policies in a Communist states, Korea benefiting from massive injectiosn of capital from the US
I don't think you've really any idea of what you're talking about beyond repeating rhetoric parrot-fashion, and I'm actually bored with taking your arguements apart now.
Just because every country in the world hasn't done it doesn't make it wrong. You've got to start somewhere. It's not my fault that in Western democracies most of the population are apathetic to politics and let the self serving politicians do as they please.
What difference does it make that it has has only ever been seen other in countries with vastly different geographical, social, economic and historic contexts to our current one? All countries have differences. Just shows the system can work almost anywhere. That is a strength not a weakness.
I've not said by it's very nature it is unlikely ever to be adopted by a Western democracy. However I do think it will take something like the inevitable breakup of the Eurozone and the collapse of the Euro to bring people to their senses and insist the politicians implement the system.
I haven't said do away with state intervention. I've said it needs cutting back dramatically. The state isn't just the government. In our country it includes the public sector, a point you are obviously missing. I repeat, the fact that the system can work in many different countries with different styles of government is a strength not a weakness. All governments try to manipulate their currencies. What's wrong with China doing the same? It's just one of the tools at governments disposal (unless of course you are part of the ill fated Eurozone).
The fact that some economies are experiencing a slowdown given the state of the world economy shouldn't surprise you. I've never said the system will work no matter what else is going on in the world. Also once the system starts to work, governments can't then resist interfering. Do you seriously think that all the countries that have tried the system have stuck rigidly to the rules? They haven't. If they had done they'd be doing better. Even so, they've still done better than us in terms of growth.
The pathway is to cut taxes and reduce the size of the state. Simple.
I think you are so obviously a leftie socialist with a closed mind that you are a lost cause. You don't want to hear the voice of reason. All you try to do is pick apart my argument with spurious reasoning. No doubt your solution is also to spend our way out of trouble thereby exacerbating the problem and leaving our children and our children's children to pick up the bill. That's if we don't descend into total anarchy beforehand.
-
Mick.
Let me simplify things for you, given that you like simplistic arguments. To look at the effect of the policies that you espouse, you don't see what they have done in tiny colonies, or in emerging ex-Third World economies. You see what they have done when applied to large, mature, capitalist democracies like ours. You've steadfastly refused to take Japan as an example, so I'll do it for you.
In 1990, Japan (along with the rest of the world) went into a sharp recession. In Japan's case, the problem had been a speculative property bubble. As happens in recessions, their deficit increased. By 1991, their debt to GDP ratio was around 60%, which is worryingly high. They decided to address this by strongly cutting back on public sector costs.
Sound familiar so far? Well then, let's have a look at what happened.
The collapse of public sector funding deepened their recession. It drew demand out of their economy. In simple terms, there were fewer people with money in their pockets to pay for the wonderful technological goods that the Japanese private sector excels in making. So the private companies lost orders. They had to put people out of work. So there were still fewer people to buy goods.
Crucially for the Government, there were also fewer people paying taxes. And fewer companies making profits on which they could be taxed. So, despite having set out to reduce the deficit and pay back the debt in EXACTLY the way that you suggest we should do, the deficit remained stubbornly high and the debt to GDP ratio went up.
Are you sat down now because the resulting figures are terrifying.
Japan's unemployment rate, which was legendarily low, increased by 150% between 1993 and 2000, at a time that everywhere else in the world, it was falling. It has never got back down to the sort of levels that they had before.
Japan's GDP has flat-lined for two decades. Before 1990, Japan was a by-word for technology-based capitalist growth. Since 1990, their real GDP growth rate has fluctuated around zero per cent. They have dropped in and out of recession regularly - since 1992, they have had 17 periods of economic contraction. In Japan, they have long called the 1990s, \"The Lost Decade\".
And the effect on the debt? Well, in 1992, the debt was about 60% of GDP. Today it is around 220%. That's what happens when you obsess about Austerity and ignore the effect on confidence and growth. You produce exactly the scenario that you want to avoid.
I could move on to Italy if you're still listening. Italy's deficit has been under control for more than a decade. Their problem is not that the public sector is out of control - they bring in enough in taxes to pay for the public sector quite comfortably. Their problem is that they took the tax cutting and public sector cutting route out of debt 10 years ago. And as a result, their GDP has bombed. Over the last 10 years, only Haiti and Zimbabwe have had worse GDP growth. So Italy's debt to GDP ratio remains frighteningly high.
So there you go. Two examples of mature capitalist democracies that have tried the Austerity route out of debt and failed cataclysmically. You want that for our country?
-
Mick.
You also go to great lengths to support your argument by giving links to people who have a very particular right-wing agenda to peddle.
James Delingpole? A self-publicized gobshite who thinks that Cameron and Osbourne are lefties. He has his own coterie of followers, sure. But look what happens when he is faced by someone who can surgically take his arguments apart and point out their fallacies. This video is a clip of Delingpole discussing climate change with the President of the Royal Society.
Delingpole has made his name by tub thumping and arguing a political line. Paul Nurse has made his career by reasoned, scientific discourse, which is always open to attack if the facts are wrongly interpreted or if new evidence emerges. See who you think comes out the better of the two in this encounter...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0
-
So there you go. Two examples of mature capitalist democracies that have tried the Austerity route out of debt and failed cataclysmically. You want that for our country?
Where have I ever said that austerity is the solution? You have made this statement more than once and it is patently untrue. What I've said is that we need to cut taxes and reduce the size of the state. This is a completely different strategy than just relying on austerity.
Like I said I am a right winger. I would say I am am on the very right hand edge of the Tory right. Therefore it follows that I don't agree with the policies of Cameron and Osbourne. What I do agree with though is that I would much rather have them running the country than Labour.
Japan got it wrong because their government couldn't stop themselves meddling. They stopped using my strategy and have subsequently suffered the consequences.
I've never said my strategy should be implemented overnight. It should be introduced gradually. The economy would then start to recover and we could get our debt paid off and all have a rosy future. Simple.
Out of interest I'd like to know what your strategy is. I know you are going to say borrow some more money. Given this is your view what would we do if investors lose faith in us and start demanding high rates of interest? The current mess we are in would then seem like a walk in the park. What is your contingency plan?
-
You also go to great lengths to support your argument by giving links to people who have a very particular right-wing agenda to peddle.
I'm a right winger. I've reached that position by evaluating the agendas from left, centre and right. Why do you seem surprised that I would use links to people who have similar views to my own?
I don't know enough about climate change, so don't know if Delingpole is right or wrong. Even if I decided he was wrong on that subject, it doesn't mean I then dismiss his political views.
-
I don't know enough about climate change, so don't know if Delingpole is right or wrong. Even if I decided he was wrong on that subject, it doesn't mean I then dismiss his political views.
That's not the issue. The issue is that Delingpole set himself up as an authority on the validity of the scientific method. He has preached about this for years, mostly through his own websites. When confronted on his opinions by someone who understands the subject deeply, he was made to look an ignorant an opinionated fool.
Delingpole starts with a political angle, then finds information to support that. His opinions are utterly worthless as a result.
-
So there you go. Two examples of mature capitalist democracies that have tried the Austerity route out of debt and failed cataclysmically. You want that for our country?
Where have I ever said that austerity is the solution? You have made this statement more than once and it is patently untrue. What I've said is that we need to cut taxes and reduce the size of the state. This is a completely different strategy than just relying on austerity.
Like I said I am a right winger. I would say I am am on the very right hand edge of the Tory right. Therefore it follows that I don't agree with the policies of Cameron and Osbourne. What I do agree with though is that I would much rather have them running the country than Labour.
Japan got it wrong because their government couldn't stop themselves meddling. They stopped using my strategy and have subsequently suffered the consequences.
I've never said my strategy should be implemented overnight. It should be introduced gradually. The economy would then start to recover and we could get our debt paid off and all have a rosy future. Simple.
Out of interest I'd like to know what your strategy is. I know you are going to say borrow some more money. Given this is your view what would we do if investors lose faith in us and start demanding high rates of interest? The current mess we are in would then seem like a walk in the park. What is your contingency plan?
So what is cutting taxes and massively reducing the size of the state if it's not \"Austerity\". That is the absolute definition of \"Austerity\" - cut back public costs to balance the books as quickly as possible.
OK. You say that if we simply cut taxes and let the state wither, we'd be in a better situation.
A nice simple economic philosophy. Trouble is, the facts don't support it.
In Europe, the highest taxed people of all are the Danes, followed by the Swedes. Not far behind are the Austrians and the Finns. Those are four of the very strongest economies in Europe.
At the other extreme, among the least taxed people are the Irish, the Greek, the Spanish, the Romanians and the Bulgarians. Go check the numbers for yourself. I have done. There is also very strong evidence that the US economy enjoyed more stable, long term growth in the era 1945-1980, when tax levels were high, than it has done in 1980-2010 when tax levels have been significantly lower.
There is simply no correlation between tax (or size of state) and economic performance. It is a myth peddled by the Right to justify a policy that they believe in for ideological reasons.
My approach?
You start off by accepting the fact that in 2007-08, the world narrowly avoided an utter economic catastrophe. The results of the banking crisis on public finances across the world have been devastating. The state of public finances is unsustainable, no question. But you look at the reasons for that. Which are categorically NOT that state spending was out of control before 2007. It wasn't. It was relatively low by historical standards. The cause of the current Govt debt problem is the breakdown in tax receipts as the economies of the world teetered on the edge.
If you are of a particular right-wing mindset, you see an opportunity here. You are ideologically against the idea of the state as having a useful role. So you blame the state for having run up the debts by being out of control. And you shout fro the state to be drastically cut back to balance the books. Except that, as Japan shows clearly, that is a phenomenally dangerous path to take.
My approach would be to accept that, yes, of course Govt spending has to be reined in, and the deficit has to be brought under control. But that has to be done over a decade or more. It is lunacy to pull the rug out from the state sector while the private sector is on its knees. We know that because we did that in the 30s. And Japan did it in the 90s. It is the road to total economic collapse.
So, you reduce the deficit at a slower rate, giving the private sector the opportunity to grow and pick up the slack. Which is EXACTLY what we did after 1945, in an era that saw us get our debt to GDP ratio down from 200% to 40% over 30 years. Not by cutting the state, but by expanding it and having the state help private industry get back on its feet.
-
His opinions are utterly worthless as a result.
Just because you think he is wrong on climate change you then say any of his opinions on any other subject are worthless. Very simplistic and a poor attempt to discredit one of my heroes.
-
His opinions are utterly worthless as a result.
Just because you think he is wrong on climate change you then say any of his opinions on any other subject are worthless. Very simplistic and a poor attempt to discredit one of my heroes.
No, no no. Read what I said. It has nothing to do with his opinions on climate change.
It is to do with the fact that his approach to the entire scientific method is flawed. In the scientific method, you gather facts, discuss them, consider arguments about what they might mean, then come to a conclusion. What Delingpole does, is to come to a conclusion, then scour the world for facts that support it.
Watch that video.
He was utterly kebabbed by the president of the Royal Society. He was shown up for the fool that he is. A would-be demagogue who's approach is, \"Don't bother me with facts and logic. THIS is what I believe in and I'll stick to that.\"
That makes him a tub thumper and a rabble-rouser for sure. he's very good at that because he tells certain people exactly what they want to hear. But his fundamental approach to marshalling facts for an argument is deeply flawed and mendacious. As that interaction with Paul Nurse shows. Delingpole's reaction when he realised what a dick he'd been made to look was, \"Errr, errr, err, I don't want to discuss that any more. Let's change the subject to something where I can spin a particular political and philosophical opinion.\" He's a fool and a worthless fool at that.
-
Billy, Vaya.
I love yous.
-
His opinions are utterly worthless as a result.
Just because you think he is wrong on climate change you then say any of his opinions on any other subject are worthless. Very simplistic and a poor attempt to discredit one of my heroes.
If you want to hang on the word of someone who has been shown to be a pillock, that's entirely up to you. But don't expect anyone else to take you seriously.
-
You all make this assumption that increased goverment spending would dramatically improve growth. Would it do this? Theory suggests yes (afterall it is part of the growth equation). But look at other aspects. Eventually the cut has to come and this economic situation won't be solved in the short term. Surely we're better off alligning ourselves in a position where we sort ourselves out quickly rather than dragging it out? Low growth and stagnation, perhaps even recession in my opinion is impossible to avoid in this economy there's just too many external factors at play that we cannot control. That's one way of looking at it. All well and good stating theory but theory has never been in this situation. That was the first thing I was ever taught studying finance, theory does not know your situation. That doesn't mean we should ignore the things of the past, but fact is really that neither the Tories or Labour could do things that much drastically different. Labour would spend more that is clear, but I'm not sure it would be significantly more than the Tories.
Ed Balls is a bit of a clown IMO I'm not a fan, but if you read some of his articles he's quite clear that the room for manouvre is rather small. They probably wouldn't have had much different an outcome I really don't feel we've that much scope to have an effect, the market forces are in charge. I find it quite tedious some of the arguments if I'm honest.
Look at today with the European treaty. I ask myself what would Labour do? They haven't said a word. All well and good stoking up the tension within the other party, but voters like me who could be swayed towards them want to know what they would do. That message has not got out at all. I think the Tory backbenchers need to wise up. There's a much bigger picture than getting a few powers back, but what is key is that we don't give in to the EU demands for these banking taxes etc. We must not let any of these powers go, because we have a strong services sector, if we lose that we're in trouble as other sectors clearly aren't that strong.
-
So what is cutting taxes and massively reducing the size of the state if it's not \"Austerity\". That is the absolute definition of \"Austerity\" - cut back public costs to balance the books as quickly as possible.
Cutting taxes and massively reducing the size of the state is not austerity it's common sense. Where have I said the books need to be balanced as quickly as possible? You are making inaccurate assumptions about what I am saying. The strategy has to be implemented gradually.
If taxes are cut it will stimulate growth because people will start to feel like it's worth starting a business and employing people. The higher the tax take the less likely this will happen. Lower taxes mean lower tax avoidance and more tax revenue. I firmly believe individuals will spend money far more wisely than politicians who just try to spend (and waste) money to try to get votes.
More businesses setting up will then mop up the 'redundant' public sector workers. So both elements of the strategy go hand in hand. The big mistake at the moment is raising taxes.
Eventually overall tax should be down to around 15% and I'm including 'hidden' taxes like VAT. Below a certain level of wages no tax at all should be paid. This strategy is simple and brilliant and would do the job. Sorted.
-
A nice simple economic philosophy. Trouble is, the facts don't support it.
In Europe, the highest taxed people of all are the Danes, followed by the Swedes. Not far behind are the Austrians and the Finns. Those are four of the very strongest economies in Europe.
At the other extreme, among the least taxed people are the Irish, the Greek, the Spanish, the Romanians and the Bulgarians. Go check the numbers for yourself. I have done. There is also very strong evidence that the US economy enjoyed more stable, long term growth in the era 1945-1980, when tax levels were high, than it has done in 1980-2010 when tax levels have been significantly lower.
There is simply no correlation between tax (or size of state) and economic performance. It is a myth peddled by the Right to justify a policy that they believe in for ideological reasons.
So the Asian economic miracle didn't happen? China didn't grow to the point it is likely to become the worlds largest economy in the not too distant future?
You make the mistake of looking at countries that are successful who have high tax rates and then assume this must be the way to go. A bit simplistic again I'm afraid. There are other factors at work helping them succeed to the point that they can cope with high tax.
The countries you list as low tax ones e.g. Ireland do not have low tax rates at all. They are very high compared to where I'm wanting to go. My target is 15% all in, including VAT, income tax, N.I. contributions, inheritance tax etc.
I'm not saying my strategy is the only one that will work. What I am saying though is that it is the only viable way forward for us given the mess we are in.
I believe in this strategy to sort out the mess we are in. I'm not ideologically driven. I've weighed up the options and don't care if it was a left winger or a right winger that came up with it. I've used my common sense and put all my prejudices to one side and have come down on the side of logic and reason. Too many people are ideologically driven to believe all things Tory are bad and all things Labour are good so they don't bother to engage their brains. They may as well not have one.
-
You start off by accepting the fact that in 2007-08, the world narrowly avoided an utter economic catastrophe. The results of the banking crisis on public finances across the world have been devastating. The state of public finances is unsustainable, no question. But you look at the reasons for that. Which are categorically NOT that state spending was out of control before 2007. It wasn't. It was relatively low by historical standards. The cause of the current Govt debt problem is the breakdown in tax receipts as the economies of the world teetered on the edge.
Totally disagree. Gordon Brown spent and wasted money on an unbelievable scale. He spent it like a drunken sailor. He didn't put anything aside when the going was good instead he just kept on recklessly spending and borrowing. State spending was way out of control.
Part of the reason tax receipts are down is because he made the unproductive part of the economy (the public sector) bigger than the productive part (the private sector). He did this to buy votes on borrowed money and to mask real unemployment.
He should be shot and I would quite happily pull the trigger.
-
If you are of a particular right-wing mindset, you see an opportunity here. You are ideologically against the idea of the state as having a useful role. So you blame the state for having run up the debts by being out of control. And you shout fro the state to be drastically cut back to balance the books. Except that, as Japan shows clearly, that is a phenomenally dangerous path to take.
I'm not against the state having a useful role. What I am against is having a state that is so big and unwieldy that it stifles the private sector. I'm against politicians thinking they have a divine right to spend and waste our money just so we will vote for them.
I want the state to be cut back to allow the private sector to grow not to balance the books. This will happen as the private sector thrives.
Japan has had problems because of massive state intervention amongst other things.
-
My approach would be to accept that, yes, of course Govt spending has to be reined in, and the deficit has to be brought under control. But that has to be done over a decade or more. It is lunacy to pull the rug out from the state sector while the private sector is on its knees. We know that because we did that in the 30s. And Japan did it in the 90s. It is the road to total economic collapse.
So, you reduce the deficit at a slower rate, giving the private sector the opportunity to grow and pick up the slack. Which is EXACTLY what we did after 1945, in an era that saw us get our debt to GDP ratio down from 200% to 40% over 30 years. Not by cutting the state, but by expanding it and having the state help private industry get back on its feet.
So do you think the current government is pulling the rug out from under the private sector? I've got news for you after 5 years of this government we will end up with a bigger national debt. We are still having to borrow like crazy thanks to Gordon. We can't go much slower than we already are.
Are you really saying we should expand the state? I can't get my breath. Expanding the state even more will kill off the private sector not help it.
Anyway, you've conveniently forgotten to mention your contingency plan in case our borrowing costs rise. What would you do if this happened?
-
You all make this assumption that increased goverment spending would dramatically improve growth.
I don't. It would have the opposite effect.
-
Mick
A strong state sector did not kill off the private sector between 1945 and 1970. With hindsight, that era was one if wonderfully serene and stable private sector growth. That was the era of Keynesian intervention.
By contrast, since the monetarist/free market revolution of the mid 70s, we've been on a terrifying roller coaster culminating in the current f**k up. Your response is more free market and less Government. Interesting take.
As for borrowing costs, I suggest that they are secondary. Japan had nigh on zero interest rates throughout the 90s. Didn't stop their economy tanking. Their problem, like ours now, is collapsed confidence leading to collapsed demand, leading to depressed evonomic activity, leading to higher debts, leading to call for more cuts.
Clever people learn from their mistakes. REALLY clever peoe learn from other prople's mistakes. Japan made the mistakes for us. Failing to learn those lessons is what really stupid people do.
-
If taxes are cut it will stimulate growth because people will start to feel like it's worth starting a business and employing people.
What, when consumer demand has nosed-dived?? You can only sell stuff when people can afford to buy. Where's the demand going to come from in a flat-lined economy with unemployment made even higher by your sacking the public sector workers in your dash for a smaller state - the demand fairy? :facepalm:
-
By the way Mick, that glib comment that \"Japan has had problems because of massive state intervention amongst other things\" really won't stand without some back-up.
So give us the back-up. How did state intervention cause the problems of Japan. And did Japan's phenomenal success before 1990 come about with no state activity?
Detail lad, detail. You're not James Delingpole. You can't get away with just stating an opinion then running away from justifying it.
-
What, when consumer demand has nosed-dived?? You can only sell stuff when people can afford to buy. Where's the demand going to come from in a flat-lined economy with unemployment made even higher by your sacking the public sector workers in your dash for a smaller state - the demand fairy?
If taxes are cut people will have more money to spend so consumer demand will increase. Simple. More jobs will be created which will take up the slack from the massively bloated public sector. Simple. Guess what we could also increase our exports with this strategy.
Borrowing even more money to keep people in unproductive work in the public sector is the economics of the madhouse.
-
What, when consumer demand has nosed-dived?? You can only sell stuff when people can afford to buy. Where's the demand going to come from in a flat-lined economy with unemployment made even higher by your sacking the public sector workers in your dash for a smaller state - the demand fairy?
If taxes are cut people will have more money to spend so consumer demand will increase. Simple. More jobs will be created which will take up the slack from the massively bloated public sector. Simple. Guess what we could also increase our exports with this strategy.
See. I'm REALLY trying to help you here, but you won't have it will you? I keep pointing you in the direction of Japan, but you simply will not learn the lessons.
Japan's Lost Decade shows that if you have a struggling economy, it doesn't matter how much money you put into people's pockets - they won't spend it.
And why should they. If the economy is tanking then there are two very, very good reasons to hang onto your money. For one, if you're in actual deflation, it makes sense to wait for a couple of years before you buy that washing machine - it'll be cheaper then. For two, if the economy is struggling, you save up for the time when YOU personally get hit by unemployment.
THAT is why Government has to intervene to stimulate demand and get us spending again.
-
THAT is why Government has to intervene to stimulate demand and get us spending again.
It is debt that got Britain into trouble in the first place. Let’s say we do as you want and add to the structural deficit with more borrowing. We’d be gambling the priceless fiscal credibility that this government has earned with the international markets on the bet that borrowing a few billion pounds more would make all the difference.
We’d be putting at risk our precious low interest rates on a change of course that would put those rates up in the full knowledge that any extra billion pounds of public spending would be wiped out by billions of pounds more in higher interest costs for families, businesses, and taxpayers.
We’d be abandoning the deficit plan that has brought us the stability other nations today crave, for say five, ten, twenty billion pounds more of borrowed spending on the illusion that such sums would transform our economy when we’re already spending three trillion pounds over the next few years.
The only realistic way to stimulate the economy is to reduce taxes.
-
What, when consumer demand has nosed-dived?? You can only sell stuff when people can afford to buy. Where's the demand going to come from in a flat-lined economy with unemployment made even higher by your sacking the public sector workers in your dash for a smaller state - the demand fairy?
If taxes are cut people will have more money to spend so consumer demand will increase. Simple. More jobs will be created which will take up the slack from the massively bloated public sector. Simple. Guess what we could also increase our exports with this strategy.
Borrowing even more money to keep people in unproductive work in the public sector is the economics of the madhouse. Public sector workers need to get real and stop relying on us in the private sector to maintain their cushy lives. It's time they started thinking about others instead of only thinking about what they can get out of others (the private sector).
Only those lucky enough to still have jobs in your model economy, and even then only by a small amount of their disposable income. Certainly not enough to compensate for the consumer demand eradicated by the shrinkage of the public sector (and the concomitant loss of jobs caused by this drop in demand) you espouse.
I'm also fascinated by your overall 15% tax rate. I'd like to know what you'd do with the rate of VAT?
-
THAT is why Government has to intervene to stimulate demand and get us spending again.
It is debt that got Britain into trouble in the first place. Let’s say we do as you want and add to the structural deficit with more borrowing. We’d be gambling the priceless fiscal credibility that this government has earned with the international markets on the bet that borrowing a few billion pounds more would make all the difference.
We’d be putting at risk our precious low interest rates on a change of course that would put those rates up in the full knowledge that any extra billion pounds of public spending would be wiped out by billions of pounds more in higher interest costs for families, businesses, and taxpayers.
We’d be abandoning the deficit plan that has brought us the stability other nations today crave, for say five, ten, twenty billion pounds more of borrowed spending on the illusion that such sums would transform our economy when we’re already spending three trillion pounds over the next few years.
The only realistic way to stimulate the economy is to reduce taxes.
Rising unemployment, rising inflation, stagnant growth. What wonderful stability. It's like saying a corpse has reached the peak of trancendental meditation.
-
Only those lucky enough to still have jobs in your model economy, and even then only by a small amount of their disposable income. Certainly not enough to compensate for the consumer demand eradicated by the shrinkage of the public sector (and the concomitant loss of jobs caused by this drop in demand) you espouse.
I'm also fascinated by your overall 15% tax rate. I'd like to know what you'd do with the rate of VAT?
Look, thanks to Gordon we are in one hell of a mess. There is no magic bullet that is going to sort things out overnight. Borrowing even more money is not the solution, any idiot can see that. However we are still having to borrow and will have to do for years to come because the mess is so horrendous. Your solution to borrow even more money to keep people in artificial jobs in the public sector would be an economic disaster for us as I've explained earlier.
If my tax policy was followed eventually people would have a lot more disposable income and the problem would be sorted. People in the public sector may even be encouraged to start their own businesses!!! Shock horror, can you believe it. They may start to think 'I'm going to have a go at standing on my own two feet' instead of always wanting the government to look after them. Who would you trust with your money the government or yourself? Who do you think would spend it more wisely? It's a no brainer.
The rate of VAT would eventually be zero. I've previously stated that the ultimate goal should be an overall tax rate of 15%. That covers any tax you can think of. Poor people wouldn't pay any tax. Simple. Problem sorted.
-
Rising unemployment, rising inflation, stagnant growth. What wonderful stability. It's like saying a corpse has reached the peak of trancendental meditation.
I'm glad you are starting to see what the tax and spend policy of Gordon has done to our economy. Welcome on-board. We need as many converts as we can get because most Labour supporters only vote Labour because their parents did and they are incapable of thinking things through for themselves. They have also fallen for the myth that Labour looks after ordinary people and the Tories only look after the rich. To that I would say one thing - Margaret Thatcher!!!
-
By the way Mick, that glib comment that \"Japan has had problems because of massive state intervention amongst other things\" really won't stand without some back-up.
Japan is a completely different economy to our own. However they do have one thing in common - massive debt. They have many other problems as well but massive debt has not helped them. Going on and on about Japan and other debt riddled countries is making you not see the wood for the trees but here is an article to back up what I've previously stated to keep you happy.
http://www.economist.com/node/15867844
-
The rate of VAT would eventually be zero.
So you want to leave the EU, including the Customs Union? Nice one, that slaps at least £60 on every single consignment of goods to and from the rest of Europe. If you don't understand why, it just shows how much you don't know what you're talking about.
-
So you want to leave the EU, including the Customs Union? Nice one, that slaps at least £60 on every single consignment of goods to and from the rest of Europe. If you don't understand why, it just shows how much you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes I do want to leave the EU. It costs us money and adds layer upon layer of bureaucracy to anything you can think of.
You assume that we'd have to stick with the current arrangements. Again this is indicative of the mindset of public sector leftie socialists. I would renegotiate our deal with them to our mutual benefit. I'd trade with the rest of the world. It's a pretty big place you know. Sorted.
-
Anybody fancy a pint?
Look on the bright side, it will soon be Christmas boys......and if you suffer from insomnia, then it's only 2 more sleeps. Result
-
So you want to leave the EU, including the Customs Union? Nice one, that slaps at least £60 on every single consignment of goods to and from the rest of Europe. If you don't understand why, it just shows how much you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes I do want to leave the EU. It costs us money and adds layer upon layer of bureaucracy to anything you can think of.
You assume that we'd have to stick with the current arrangements. Again this is indicative of the mindset of public sector leftie socialists. I would renegotiate our deal with them to our mutual benefit. I'd trade with the rest of the world. It's a pretty big place you know. Sorted.
Except import/export declarations of course, we don't have those when importing/exporting with the EU. That's what would instantly add £60 to the cost of every consignment going to or coming from Europe if we left the EU (and we'd have to if you want to get rid of (or even reduce) VAT), and no amount of 'negotiations' will change that fact of life. As you would put it, 'any idiot knows that'. How come YOU don't?
-
Except import/export declarations of course, we don't have those when importing/exporting with the EU. That's what would instantly add £60 to the cost of every consignment going to or coming from Europe if we left the EU (and we'd have to if you want to get rid of (or even reduce) VAT), and no amount of 'negotiations' will change that fact of life. As you would put it, 'any idiot knows that'. How come YOU don't?
You need to look at the bigger picture and not just look at one thing. That is far too simplistic. I think you'll find I know a lot more about the EU than you do. OK, you've asked for it. Here is the case for EU withdrawal.
Britain’s share of the increase in the EU budget this year – not our share of the budget, our share of the increase – will be £435million: enough to pay for 12,000 nurses, 15,000 police officers or 22,000 Army privates. But our direct contributions are only part, and not the most important part, of the overall costs of the EU.
The Common Agricultural Policy hurts our farmers and costs every household an extra £1,200 a year in higher taxes and higher food bills. The Common Fisheries Policy has wiped out what ought to have been a great renewable resource off our coasts.
Worst of all is the cost of red tape. Here, I can do no better than to quote a survey by the most recent internal market commissioner, Gunter Verheugen. He found that the cost of regulation in the EU was 600billion euros a year. On the European Commission’s own figures, the advantages of the single market are worth only 120billion euros a year. In other words, Eurocrats themselves admit that the costs of the EU outweigh the benefits by five to one.
What about commerce? We are often told that half of Britain’s trade is with the EU. True, but look at the balance of that trade. For most of the period of our membership, we have run a healthy surplus with the rest of the world but a deficit with Europe.
Since the financial crisis hit, we have run a small overall deficit on the non-EU share of our trade, too. Even so, our deficit with the EU last year was £14.4billion, as against just £1.1billion for the rest of the world.
Those figures are the answer to those who say that, if we left, our exports would suffer.
The other members benefit far more from cross-Channel commerce than we do. In any negotiation, the customer generally has the last word over the salesman.
In any case, we don’t need to be part of the EU’s political structures to be part of the single market. Norway and Switzerland both sell around twice as much per head to the EU as we do. They participate fully in the freedoms of the European market but are outside the CAP and CFP, police their own borders, settle their own human rights issues, trade freely with non-EU countries, and make only token contributions to the EU budget.
Oh, and unlike EU members, they pass the majority of their own laws.
Norway and Switzerland are thriving as independent states. So could Britain. I rest my case.
-
Good argument Mick. I takes hat off to you. You're better than I gave you credit for at putting a case together.
-
The Daily Express couldn't have put it any better...
...but they could have put it identically. (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/213564/European-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefits)
And did you know that Gideon has quoted you word for word (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/8804027/Conservative-Party-Conference-2011-George-Osborne-speech-in-full.html)
-
The Daily Express couldn't have put it any better...
...but they could have put it identically. (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/213564/European-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefitsEuropean-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefits)
And did you know that Gideon has quoted you word for word (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/8804027/Conservative-Party-Conference-2011-George-Osborne-speech-in-full.html)
Did Gideon say \"I think you'll find I know a lot more about the EU than you do\" as well, or did he say the truth, which is \"I think you'll find I think I know how to plagiarise someone else's words and try to pass them off as my own, but not as well as I think I do\"?
Perhaps all our debates should be cut'n'paste jobs. Much simpler, saves time and we don't have to think about things too hard, eh mick?
-
Good argument Mick. I takes hat off to you. You're better than I gave you credit for at putting a case together.
Cheers Bill. I like a man who knows when he is beaten and is prepared to admit it. Good on you. I just hope you are no longer a leftie socialist and have seen the light.
-
You're welcome Mick.
Course, when I said \"putting\", it was an iPhone auto-correct mistake. I actually meant to type \"pasting\".
-
You're welcome Mick.
Course, when I said \"putting\", it was an iPhone auto-correct mistake. I actually meant to type \"pasting\".
Quite. If I'd have wanted to bandy words with Daniel Hannan I'd have done it directly with the organgrinder, not his monkey.
Mind you, it explains all the times Mick's ignored questions in the thread - he's obviously just cut'n'pasted stuff without understanding it and therefore hasn't got a clue how to answer anything with anything except sneers.
-
I'm struggling to decide if this is the mother of all WUMs or if the lad is unhinged.
-
Mind you, it explains all the times Mick's ignored questions in the thread - he's obviously just cut'n'pasted stuff without understanding it and therefore hasn't got a clue how to answer anything with anything except sneers.
I think if you check back through the thread I have answered every single question that has been put to me. I've not just answered it I've demolished the opposing view. 90% of the questions I've asked have been ignored or partially answered with a load of old waffle. I on the other hand have only dealt in facts.
This forum dislikes my pugnacious debating style and people on it can't handle it when they are proved categorically wrong about something. They don't like it when they have been made to look foolish so they then try to find fault in any way possible with my views even if they agree with them. All they then end up doing is looking even more foolish.
Fair play to vaya he kept coming back at me but eventually the penny dropped that he was looking foolish so he stopped posting to limit the damage to his reputation. When Streatham Dave posted about how hard done to as a teacher he was, I spectacularly demolished his argument and he went away with his tail between his legs.
It's not my fault that I've got a photographic memory and incredible brain power. I can read an article and recall it years later no problem. I can categorically state that I have never cut and pasted anything on this forum. Indeed I have posted many links to help you all see the light. If anything I've posted seems like a cut and paste job then that is just testament to my amazing powers of recall.
Is it not obvious that I am extremely knowledgeable about what I post about? Why is it so easy for me to systematically take apart other peoples ill thought out arguments? It's because I have been blessed with a wonderful memory and extremely high level of intelligence.
Those of you that think I may be a wind up merchant couldn't be more wrong. I 100% believe everything I've posted and deep down most of you that have looked at the debate impartially know that my arguments have easily been the best. I admit I am not the most diplomatic person on this forum but I much prefer to deal with people who are straight talkers and can't bear people that beat about the bush. If you want to debate with me you better get your tin hat on because I will not pull any punches. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen like vaya and Streatham Dave have done.
-
It's a good job that you've now shown us not to take anything you post seriously otherwise BST could be right about you being unhinged.
-
So Cameron didn't budge in the European talks, that won't go down well with them, but he's done the right thing I think, they wanted things from our country to solve a problem that we didn't create. Clearly it's Euro countries who need to fix their problems not us.
-
So Cameron didn't budge in the European talks, that won't go down well with them, but he's done the right thing I think, they wanted things from our country to solve a problem that we didn't create. Clearly it's Euro countries who need to fix their problems not us.
I think this probably merits a new thread but I agree with you. The \"Merkozy\" plan seemed to have little to do with sorting out the Eurozone's debt crisis and more to do with creating a federal \"United States of Europe.\"
I'm not a Cameron fan but I'm glad he was representing the UK and not Mr \"DonnyWhite\" Ed. He'd have probably taken us into the Euro!
-
So Cameron didn't budge in the European talks, that won't go down well with them, but he's done the right thing I think, they wanted things from our country to solve a problem that we didn't create. Clearly it's Euro countries who need to fix their problems not us.
I think this probably merits a new thread but I agree with you. The \"Merkozy\" plan seemed to have little to do with sorting out the Eurozone's debt crisis and more to do with creating a federal \"United States of Europe.\"
I'm not a Cameron fan but I'm glad he was representing the UK and not Mr \"DonnyWhite\" Ed. He'd have probably taken us into the Euro!
Highly simplistic analyses going on here.
1) There is a worldwide problem that has developed over the last few years. Yes, EZ debt is a big part of that, but equally so, recklessly un-regulated global finance is a part of it. The EZ wants to rein in the City of London to prevent the pivs and barrow boys making their billions by unrestricted speculation. The EZ needs time to get things settled and sorted and constant buffetting by the markets is a disaster in this regard. This is an opportunity for politicians to come together and bring the City boys to heel. We've just stepped out of that. It speaks volumes for the Tory party.
2) Looking at the general worldwide responses this morning, it does not look good for the future of the Euro. The turbulence that Cameron has chucked into the mix by pandering to a few dozen swivelled-eyed Tory right wingers is a big part of that problem.
3) And don;t get me started on Clegg. Elected as an avowedly Euro-phile Lib Dem leader, he's now chucked that principle away, along with the other dross he's left behind him.
4) In a thread full of particularly stupid comments, that one about Miliband takes the biscuit. While the Tories and UKIP were spending the last decade flapping about Europe, it was the Labour party that actually kept us out of the Euro. Balls said this week that we'll never be members in his lifetime. Daft, daft comment to make TRB.
-
Agree on point 4 Labour did want the Euro but they were actually sensible enough to see it just wouldn't work out for us. I still firmly believe the Euro is a flawed plan and causes too many problems.
But the fact of the matter is that what Europe wanted from us was just not really acceptable. This financial transaction tax on the basis of it isn't that bad an idea IMO. But it has to be worldwide that much is clear. Give Cameron some credit he's stuck by what he said he would do all along. It's all well and good saying we should accept that the city needs tougher rules but equally do we want to push these skills, jobs and big impact on our economy away? It does grate me that the big thing they wanted would have impacted on the non Eurozone countries far more than those in the Eurozone. Don't be fooled that Europe doesn't need us, we take more in trade from them than they do from us. I've always said they're too loosly regulated but it has to be global, you can't just do it in one area and let the rest get away with it. If you were a bank what would you do? Stay in a heavily regulated London or move to a loosly regulated foreign country? We all know the answer to that, we've seen it with IT services and outsourcing, financial services would be no different.
On the Clegg point I tend to agree actually. He's always been pro europe so why change? Well you could argue he's doing what's right, you can be pro Europe without being a European puppet. But the more I hear from Clegg the more you sometimes think actually he's in the wrong party.
-
This is now nemesis for Cameron. He has pandered to his own right wing. He has then portrayed himself as the saviour of his country by saying that he would hold a referendum in the event of powers being passed to the EU. Now we are reaping the rewards of that approach.
It is massively, massively in our interests for the Euro to succeed, and for us to be part of the solution (more on that below). But Cameron has painted himself into a corner. He now could not sign an agreement that would leave him open to being ravaged by the Right of his party. So, to save Cameron's face and save him from a battering by his back benchers we refuse to sign up to something that would be massively in our favour.
Now, why was it in our favour to be on the side of the solution? Well, as it is, as Europe tries to pull itself together, we stand on the sidelines, give them the rods and say, \"Good luck lads\". Do you think there will be no payback for this? Either the Euro now tanks, which will be a catastrophe for us economically. Or the Euro survives and strengthens. And THEN the payback will come. Europe will stick the knife into us economically like you cannot begin to imagine. And they will be right.
As a French diplomat said on the radio today, Britain is behaving like a man who wants to join a wife swapping party, but refuses to bring his wife. We want all the benefits and none of the costs. Not a chance in a million that the rest of Europe will wear that.
But hey. Hungary agrees with us...
-
Well done Dave! Thank God red Ed isn't our prime minister. I'm over the moon. Let's hope this is the first stage to our complete withdrawal from the EU. It will be their loss. The Euro is a flawed currency and the less we have to do with it the better.
-
So Cameron didn't budge in the European talks, that won't go down well with them, but he's done the right thing I think, they wanted things from our country to solve a problem that we didn't create. Clearly it's Euro countries who need to fix their problems not us.
4) In a thread full of particularly stupid comments, that one about Miliband takes the biscuit. While the Tories and UKIP were spending the last decade flapping about Europe, it was the Labour party that actually kept us out of the Euro. Balls said this week that we'll never be members in his lifetime. Daft, daft comment to make TRB.
Not at all stupid. Miliband has refused to rule out joining the Euro. Credit where it is due- Gordon Brown was right to keep us out and given their closeness I wouldn't expect Balls to take a different view. But it was the then Labour leader, Tony Blair, who wanted to take us in.
You want to take off the Labour blinkers.
-
Also worth noting just how strict under this EU plan they would be on deficit control. If we had signed up we would be pretty quickly under sanction as sanctions would come in to place for countries with a structural deficit of greater than 3% with the aim to keep them all below 0.5% as a rule. How the hell then could labour reduce the deficit more slowly in this case? Intriguing that this one appeared to be in place against all countries not just the Eurozone countries. If we'd signed up what argument could they have had in the economy? Should we allow the EU to control our public spending? The more you read on these proposals you more you realise that we're better off out. It's all well and good Sarkozy preaching about financial regualtion, we already regulate more strictly than the Eurozone and we have the new report to come next month on the new regulation of financial services, which will make interesting reading.
Not sure the Irish will like the plan to have changes made to their corporation tax rates aswell. This isn't surprising, the Germans have been trying to get that changed for years.
-
As I said TRB. The Labour Party kept us out of the Euro. Yes Blair wanted to join. So what? He was wrong on that as he was wrong on many things. The Labour Party prevented him from taking us into the Euro.
As for today's decision, there will be immense ramifications for decades over this. Anyone who thinks that the rest of the EU is simply going to say, \"OK Britain. We understand that you want it different. Never mind. We'll sort out the mess then it'll be no hard feelings.\" is in cloud cuckoo land. It's going to be us against the rest for decades from now. Even Thatcher wasn't so pig headed as to put us in that situation (she spun it that it was us against the rest - in fact she was a hard but sensible negotiator). See what Malcolm Rifkind (one of Thatcher's \"one of us\") has to say about it. Utterly sensible line on how you conduct negotiations, whereas the rabid right, obsessed by Daily Mail leaders and Yesterday programmes about the War think it's all about us taking on the nefarious bas**rds in Europe on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and the streets and in the hills.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9657974.stm
We are on the verge of doing untold damage to our long term position. And all the talk about Norway and Switzerland won't change that. 1) They DON'T have all the benefits of being in the EU. 2) They are both far, far richer, stronger economies than ours, with overwhelming advantages in niche areas (oil, pharamaceuticals and banking) meaning that they can drive their own bargains. We by contrast are a relatively weak economy which will be told what the deal will be by Europe. We've now chucked away any right to be involved in the discussions over the next 20 years that will fundamentally affect our own position. Just to prevent Cameron having to face down his own minority of right wingers. Utter stupidity.
-
Let's not forget that it is far from certain that the treaty changes will sort the problem out. I don't think they can do anything that is going to work because the whole project was badly flawed from it's conception. It will still fail so we are better off having as little to do with it as possible.
-
As I said TRB. The Labour Party kept us out of the Euro. Yes Blair wanted to join. So what? He was wrong on that as he was wrong on many things. The Labour Party prevented him from taking us into the Euro.
As for today's decision, there will be immense ramifications for decades over this. Anyone who thinks that the rest of the EU is simply going to say, \"OK Britain. We understand that you want it different. Never mind. We'll sort out the mess then it'll be no hard feelings.\" is in cloud cuckoo land. It's going to be us against the rest for decades from now. Even Thatcher wasn't so pig headed as to put us in that situation (she spun it that it was us against the rest - in fact she was a hard but sensible negotiator). See what Malcolm Rifkind (one of Thatcher's \"one of us\") has to say about it. Utterly sensible line on how you conduct negotiations, whereas the rabid right, obsessed by Daily Mail leaders and Yesterday programmes about the War think it's all about us taking on the nefarious bas**rds in Europe on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and the streets and in the hills.
BST praises Thatcher shock. Never thought I'd see the day! Although I seem to recall that when she gained the rebate she was accused of weakening Britain's position.
What you're missing is that Cameron didn't go to renegotiate anything- which is what a large number of his backbenchers wanted him to do. He was put into a position where the French President (and the German Chancellor) tried to do a classic stitch-up. Whether you like it or not, the UK economy remains highly, not to say over-dependent on financial services. Cameron tried to secure an opt-out, the others refused, so he walked away. I take it you'd prefer him to say, tell you what, I'll sign up even though it will hit Britain disproportionately. Would the French be willing in return to scrap the CAP which benefits them massively and disproportionately? Not a chance.
Of course it suits the EU and certain leaders to portray Britain as the bad guy, but maybe they should look closer to home. They were warned that these consequences would arise from the Euro project unless they imposed strict entry conditions (that isn't me saying that, it was Jacques Delors the other day, hardly a Eurosceptic he!) It is wrong to expect Britain to bear the burden of digging them out of a hole.
-
PS. The idea that Blair was some kind of lone voice, crying in the wilderness against an implacably-opposed Labour Party is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. Two things prevented us from going in- the first that Blair had pledged a referendum and therefore needed to identify the optimum moment to call it, and second that (because of Brown's standing in the Cabinet and Party) he was forced to grant the Treasury a veto. In the unlikely event that public opinion AND economic circumstances had aligned at a point in time on the issue, we would have gone in, and a large part of the Labour Party would have supported the move. (Including, I dare say, Ed and David Miliband).
-
it`s not often I agree with the Tories, but I do on this one, and if the French and Germans want to exclude us from the bigger picture, fine, they obviously won`t miss our £103b subsidy to the EU!
-
Not to mention the myth that we'd lose too much in trade from it. We have a trade deficit with EU countries. No way would this have ever got through in this country it is as such that a referendum would have been required and we all know that the UK population would vote against the transfer of any powers.
Interesting to read some of the foreign press today. It's a mixed bag. Some say we've marginalised ourselves from the rest of Europe, the others are saying actually why should we have things imposed on us when we're not a part of the Eurozone? The whole thing is ridiculous IMO and why any non Eurozone country would sign up to it I do not know, in fact I'm not sure the population of many Eurozone countries will be entirely pleased by the new proposals as it really is starting to move towards a centralised Europe.
-
Having originally hinted that there wouldn't need to be a new Treaty, it seems there now will be one (although not including Britain.) In several countries any new treaty will need to be put to a referendum and all of them will have to have Parliamentary ratification. This seems a recipe for months of wrangling, not the quick, decisive solutions the Eurozone needs.
It may be an attempt to kick the can down the road but if it is I doubt it will work. However, what it really seems to be (as I said earlier) is a scheme to create a Federal USE, using the pretext of \"solving the debt crisis.\"
-
1) UK contribution to EU: We don't pay 103bn Euros per year to the EU. It is estimated that we will pay Euro103bn to the EU over the period 2007-13. We also get Euro50 billion back directly (the sort of stuff that subsidised the Frenchgate centre, Donny airport and the railport etc) plus large amounts in other funds that our companies can bid for competitively. Our net contribution per person is lower than Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. It is slightly higher than France.
2) The purpose of this is of course to build up markets in the other countries of the EU for the long term. If we build up the markets in Eastern Europe, it will be to the benefit of all of us and our kids. We will all be richer in the long run. It's similar to what America did with the Marshall Plan after the war. You help weaker countries and we all get richer as a result.
3) Balance of trade with the EU is nigh on irrelevant. Say we have a 30bn Euro per year trade deficit with the EU. You think that we will then be richer if we are outside the EU? That is economic illiteracy. Currently, our exports are about 160bn Euros per year to the EU. We import abput 190bn Euros worth of goods and services. If we end up with trade barriers with the EU (and we are now staring at that as a long term possibility), what happens is that both the imports and exports will reduce. Sure, we might end up with a surplus, but what use is that to the many, many companies who rely on the export trade to the EU. If we export 100bn Euros and import 95bn Euros, we won't be better off. We end up with 60bn Euros of lost trade activity for our exporting companies - maybe a million jobs gone up in smoke.
4) TRB. As I said several times. The Labour Party prevented us going into the Euro. Tony Blair would have liked us all to be baptised born-again Catholics, but that was never going to happen either.
-
But at the end of the day we all know full well that it's highly unlikely that trade will decrease that dramatically, it just will not. We trade no problem with China and America and India etc it wouldn't make that much difference, they need us just as much as we need them and they know that trade wise. Being part of the EU doesn't mean create this it clearly would happen with or without the EU. I mean do you buy an Audi because it's an EU car or do you buy it because you like the car?
On the UK politics of this look at the response of the UK population. If Cameron has done nothing he's made himself pick up a few more votes and Milliband's reaction has been pretty pathetic. Just read that on the websites etc, your average man agrees with Cameron's decision. Whether it's the right one or not it's clearly the one the UK population desires, surely that's a good thing as what we're seeing is the implementation of a Europe that the people have had no say in whatsoever.
Thing with Milliband is he would have stated the opposite of what Cameron did whatever. The alternative was to sign up quite clearly it was all or nothing, had he signed up he'd have called him weak and not standing up for the UK and what he said he was going to do. That's Milliband's position, three days ago he was laughing at him saying he didn't have the fight in Europe, today he came back without budging and Milliband called him weak for doing the opposite. Question I think a lot of us would want answering is what would Milliband have done? Yet again we don't know what Labour would have done, they seem to have no answers.
-
4) TRB. As I said several times. The Labour Party prevented us going into the Euro. Tony Blair would have liked us all to be baptised born-again Catholics, but that was never going to happen either.
I realise this is ancient history in political terms, but your contention that \"The Labour Party\" prevented British membership of the Euro is just not correct:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1942466.stm
There were pro-s and anti-s (some might even say that the party was split over the issue) and eventually the anti-s won the argument. But only because they ultimately had Gordon Brown and the Treasury on their side.
-
On a similar note, as anybody ever had pins and needles in their tail? I was at the gym the other day and did 20mins on the bike. When I finished and walked away to the free weights I had a weird sensation in my shorts. It just felt like my foreskin was pulled right back, but when I did a cheeky adjustment, I found the skin was still covering the bell.
It lasted for about a few minutes and I kept having to adjust my genital area (although there was no need), which made me a bit wary of everyone possibly looking at me. I think my tail must have been in a tense, tight position for the 20mins on the bike. Not sure if it was pins and needles or some form of tail cramp. As anybody ever had this happen to them?
In anticipation
-
BFYP
The point is that, if we were out of the EU, Audis for us, and much more importantly, anything we sell to the EU would be more expensive. So there would be less trade.
True, America and China still trade with the EU. We would still trade with them. But America and China, and now, potentially us in the future, do less trade than they would if they were part of the core bloc.
The EU will hit us, hard for this. They will not stand by and let us have the deal that we want and also all the benefits. The first one that we will get hit for is any discussion on reducing our net contribution to the EU. We WERE in a decent position to argue the case for a reduced net contribution. Our economy is now weaker than France, so we had a very strong case for negotiating for a lower net contribution than France. When we go to negotiate this next year, the EU will politely tell us to fcuk off. They will say that we have lost our negotiating position. The EU will tell us what deal is on offer and they will say that if we're not happy with that, we should consider our position. With all the consequent effects on our trade with them.
Much more to the point, what happens when it comes to negotiating trade deals between the EU, China and America. Do you think the EU will take our position into account? Do you think we'll have an effect on the discussions? Not a chance in a million. We'll be told to shut up and sit down while the big boys decide how the world is going to be organised.
THAT is what we have done today. As I said before, even Thatcher was never pig headedly stupid enough to but us so far on the periphery of Europe. She negotiated hard, then did deals. Cameron has painted himself into a corner and left himself with no option but to veto the overall deal and isolate us.
Stupidity on a historical scale. It's back to our approach in the 50s when we thought we were better than the Europeans. They raced ahead without us and we eventually had to go cap in hand begging to be let into the club and being told what the conditions were going to be. We paid for that short-sighted stupidity then and we will pay for it now for the next generation. We'll console ourselves that we are British, we are different and we are in control of our own destiny. But that destiny will be a poorer and more difficult one than it needed to be.
-
TRB.
I'm not sure how much clearer it has to be. The Labour Party were in power when the decision over joining the Euro was made. The party in power decided not to join the Euro. Spin it how you want, but that is the core fact of the matter.
Of course some Labour MPs, including the PM, wanted us to join the Euro. But we didn't. End of story.
-
I have no doubt that it would have been against the British national interest to accept what was on the table in Brussels from Merkozy. We would have been badly damaged had we accepted. What is now proposed for the 17 eurozone members, and those going along with them, will be deeply damaging to them all. The electorates of these countries, will simply not accept that their taxes and their budgets will be imposed upon them by a government that they did not elect. This will lead to a lack of proper implementation so it won't work (it wouldn't have worked anyway).
We will be affected by the continuing crisis in the eurozone for quite a few years yet. A crisis which is not the result of some great Anglo-Saxon conspiracy as Sarkozy is trying to make out. I dislike this man intensely, especially after he blanked our Dave after he had used the veto. The crisis is the result of the obvious flaws in the structure of the euro which were carefully explained by us vilified eurosceptics right from the start.
The euro has failed to make Europe more prosperous and is likely to provoke more civil disorder and disharmony. John Major should not have agreed to the Maastricht Treaty which created the euro in exchange for our opt-out. He should have used our veto as call me Dave has now done. He was a useless prime minister (nearly as bad as Gordon Brown).
I believe that we should be a self-governing nation and I'm desperately hoping that this is the first step towards withdrawal from the existing Treaty and a new relationship with the rest of Europe. If we never import anything from France again that will do for me. All the roads ahead are rocky but thank God we have taken a step along the right one.
Just because we are the only nation not to accept the deal doesn't mean we are wrong. Why climb aboard the Titanic when it is so obviously going to sink?
-
There's that photographic memory again (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100123010/camerons-veto-is-the-first-step-towards-a-new-relationship-with-our-fellow-europeans/)
-
TRB.
I'm not sure how much clearer it has to be. The Labour Party were in power when the decision over joining the Euro was made. The party in power decided not to join the Euro. Spin it how you want, but that is the core fact of the matter.
Of course some Labour MPs, including the PM, wanted us to join the Euro. But we didn't. End of story.
Excuse me- it is not me that is trying to spin anything- you said:
4) In a thread full of particularly stupid comments, that one about Miliband takes the biscuit. While the Tories and UKIP were spending the last decade flapping about Europe, it was the Labour party that actually kept us out of the Euro. Balls said this week that we'll never be members in his lifetime. Daft, daft comment to make TRB.
The Tories and (even more so) UKIP were consistently clear in their position- that we should not join the euro. Yes, there were members of the Tory Party (e.g. Ken Clarke, Heseltine, Ian Taylor, Quentin Davies and several then-MEPs) who said we should join. But the party leadership was pretty clear that joining the Euro was a no-no. Hague practically ran a General Election campaign on it in 2001 (he had precious little other ammo) and Duncan-Smith became leader after Hague mainly because he was opposed to the Single Currency. The real debate was in the Labour Party, and eventually the anti-s won, though only decisively once Brown had effectively applied the Treasury veto by setting a series of \"Tests\" that could never be met.
Your statement that Labour was in power when we decided not to join the Euro is, of course, correct. However, you seem to be trying to make out that the Labour Party was against the Euro, with the exception of Tony Blair and a few mavericks. I think you're confusing them with the position of the Tories.
-
BFYP
The point is that, if we were out of the EU, Audis for us, and much more importantly, anything we sell to the EU would be more expensive. So there would be less trade.
True, America and China still trade with the EU. We would still trade with them. But America and China, and now, potentially us in the future, do less trade than they would if they were part of the core bloc.
The EU will hit us, hard for this. They will not stand by and let us have the deal that we want and also all the benefits. The first one that we will get hit for is any discussion on reducing our net contribution to the EU. We WERE in a decent position to argue the case for a reduced net contribution. Our economy is now weaker than France, so we had a very strong case for negotiating for a lower net contribution than France. When we go to negotiate this next year, the EU will politely tell us to fcuk off. They will say that we have lost our negotiating position. The EU will tell us what deal is on offer and they will say that if we're not happy with that, we should consider our position. With all the consequent effects on our trade with them.
Much more to the point, what happens when it comes to negotiating trade deals between the EU, China and America. Do you think the EU will take our position into account? Do you think we'll have an effect on the discussions? Not a chance in a million. We'll be told to shut up and sit down while the big boys decide how the world is going to be organised.
THAT is what we have done today. As I said before, even Thatcher was never pig headedly stupid enough to but us so far on the periphery of Europe. She negotiated hard, then did deals. Cameron has painted himself into a corner and left himself with no option but to veto the overall deal and isolate us.
Stupidity on a historical scale. It's back to our approach in the 50s when we thought we were better than the Europeans. They raced ahead without us and we eventually had to go cap in hand begging to be let into the club and being told what the conditions were going to be. We paid for that short-sighted stupidity then and we will pay for it now for the next generation. We'll console ourselves that we are British, we are different and we are in control of our own destiny. But that destiny will be a poorer and more difficult one than it needed to be.
You seem to assume that the Sarkozy-Merkel model for the future of the EU is going to be a huge success. Leaving aside the fact that when countries other than Britain examine the \"fine print\" of the deal they might begin to question whether it is in their interests, do you really think the answer to the EU's problems is to grant more power to the centre? Or is getting more countries to sign up to the Euro, which seems to be the inescapable logic of their \"deal\" is going to be a solution?
Setting a one-size-fits-all Fiscal policy to go with a monetary one might be logical, but it strikes me as a recipe for low growth and growing friction between the centre and the periphery. And not one thing said at the summit addressed the real issue- the debt crisis that is actually threatening the Eurozone.
I do have a major criticism of Cameron in that he has never articulated a different vision for Europe, which makes it difficult for our natural allies- those countries outside the Eurozone- to rally towards him now. In fact I'm not sure he really has an alternative vision- Ed Miliband scored a rare hit on him at PMQs the other day when he asked which powers Cameron wanted to re-negotiate. But he knew that he couldn't sign up to greater EU central control- and so did Sarkozy.
-
It just shows that Britain`s power of veto was n`t worth the paper it was written on, Germany and France did n`t like it so they decide to create a new treaty excluding Britain, much the same when the Danish and Irish voted no in the referendums they had, it was a case of vote again until we get a yes vote! France never wanted us in the first place, did n`t De Gaulle, veto our first application to join?
-
Good on the Daily Express. I'll be buying it in future. All you leftie socialists that buy the Daily Mirror should give this a read as it blows your case for wanting to stay in Europe out of the water. What was the Daily Mirror headline yesterday after such a momentous EU summit? Louis Walsh has had a hair transplant. If that doesn't say it all about a rag of a paper I don't know what does. All you that buy it should be ashamed of yourselves.
http://www.express.co.uk/web/europecrusade