Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on July 15, 2010, 09:55:05 am
-
Chaps.
You two who have banged on about how iniquitous the last labour Government was in introducing fees for University students.
Here's a quote from the most soft liberal member of the new Government.
\"Students may have to pay more\"
That's from Vince Cable who has responsibility for try to keep something vaguely resembling a First World higher education system in place while George Osbourne runs round doing his \"Here's Johnny!\" act and swinging his axe over his head everytime he spots a penny being spent by Government.
The Browne commission meanwhile is expected to recommend that fees more than double AND University places are cut back.
There you go. You poured criticism on the last Government. Thank your lucky stars that you weren't going into education NOW!
EDIT: 'Course, Cable and Clegg campaigned on manifesto that pledged the removal of Tuition Fees. Liberals eh? What exactly DO they believe in? Apart from anything whatsoever that will get them a seat at the Cabinet?
-
I find it interesting BST, how in the other thread, you asked me to point out examples of labour overspending, of which you suggested there were none.
Well, I have posted my examples, and find it quit odd that you haven't turned them on their end to strengthen your side of the argument.
-
I've just written a long and detailed response to your comments, then had the browser crash on me.
Ain't got time to re-do it, so I'll sum it up in a short synopsis.
\"You are wrong.\"
-
I'm wrong because you say I am.
It's a wonder folk like you and Bob don't stand for election. You are that perfect and political views so correct that surely everything would be perfect under your rule.
Or more simply could you both be self proclaimed \"know it alls\"
-
Paper down. Waders on. Reckon I've got a bite lads.
-
Is it a keeper? (http://www.igooner.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/fishing2.gif)
:P
-
I've no objection to reducing the number of university places. Surely the whole point of getting a degree is that sets you apart as an academic achiever. Now every Tom, Dick and HArry has one it kind of defeats the object. I firmly believe that the limited places should go to those who have earned them on merit rather than the old red-brick school tie system but that's an altogether different subject...
-
MrFrost wrote:
I'm wrong because you say I am.
It's a wonder folk like you and Bob don't stand for election. You are that perfect and political views so correct that surely everything would be perfect under your rule.
Or more simply could you both be self proclaimed \"know it alls\"
Funny thing is people like Billy and Bob are EXACTLY the kind of people Labour need to pull back to the Left away from Blairism, which has left the Labour party unrecognisable from what the party was historically set up to do, which is represent the working class. And my Trade Union is at the forefront of that fight and is training activists in political schools country wide to be able to fight elections in their local constituencies, instead of having bell ends like Dave and Ed Miliband representing people they have no idea about, just so their guaranteed office. Did Miliband care about the Jarvis workers? Did he shite. Will he care that thousands of hard working folk in Doncaster who are staring into the idealogical Tory abyss? Will he shite.
Give me Billy or Bob any day of the week. And as for self proclaimed know it alls? They've probably forgot more than you know on Tory policy and the economy. Even the Daily Fascist today say Gideon's cuts will send us spiralling back into recession. But you keep on believing and do a bit of praying while your at it because I'd hate to be a small business with what's round the corner. Mind you with some of the bile you've spewed on here, it couldn't happen to someone more deserving.
-
jonrover wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I'm wrong because you say I am.
It's a wonder folk like you and Bob don't stand for election. You are that perfect and political views so correct that surely everything would be perfect under your rule.
Or more simply could you both be self proclaimed \"know it alls\"
Funny thing is people like Billy and Bob are EXACTLY the kind of people Labour need to pull back to the Left away from Blairism, which has left the Labour party unrecognisable from what the party was historically set up to do, which is represent the working class. And my Trade Union is at the forefront of that fight and is training activists in political schools country wide to be able to fight elections in their local constituencies, instead of having bell ends like Dave and Ed Miliband representing people they have no idea about, just so their guaranteed office. Did Miliband care about the Jarvis workers? Did he shite. Will he care that thousands of hard working folk in Doncaster who are staring into the idealogical Tory abyss? Will he shite.
Give me Billy or Bob any day of the week. And as for self proclaimed know it alls? They've probably forgot more than you know on Tory policy and the economy. Even the Daily Fascist today say Gideon's cuts will send us spiralling back into recession. But you keep on believing and do a bit of praying while your at it because I'd hate to be a small business with what's round the corner. Mind you with some of the bile you've spewed on here, it couldn't happen to someone more deserving.
So because I take a different opinion, I deserve my business to go bust and my family to go hungry.
I'm not at all worried for my business as it happens. And I embrace the changes the coalition have put in place to support businesses. The reduction in co-operation tax for one. We had already budgeted for a VAT rise, so that is irrelevant.
You have also yourself admitted that Labour no longer represents the working class. What happens now then? It could take a generation for that to change.
-
MrFrost wrote:
jonrover wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I'm wrong because you say I am.
It's a wonder folk like you and Bob don't stand for election. You are that perfect and political views so correct that surely everything would be perfect under your rule.
Or more simply could you both be self proclaimed \"know it alls\"
Funny thing is people like Billy and Bob are EXACTLY the kind of people Labour need to pull back to the Left away from Blairism, which has left the Labour party unrecognisable from what the party was historically set up to do, which is represent the working class. And my Trade Union is at the forefront of that fight and is training activists in political schools country wide to be able to fight elections in their local constituencies, instead of having bell ends like Dave and Ed Miliband representing people they have no idea about, just so their guaranteed office. Did Miliband care about the Jarvis workers? Did he shite. Will he care that thousands of hard working folk in Doncaster who are staring into the idealogical Tory abyss? Will he shite.
Give me Billy or Bob any day of the week. And as for self proclaimed know it alls? They've probably forgot more than you know on Tory policy and the economy. Even the Daily Fascist today say Gideon's cuts will send us spiralling back into recession. But you keep on believing and do a bit of praying while your at it because I'd hate to be a small business with what's round the corner. Mind you with some of the bile you've spewed on here, it couldn't happen to someone more deserving.
So because I take a different opinion, I deserve my business to go bust and my family to go hungry.
I'm not at all worried for my business as it happens. And I embrace the changes the coalition have put in place to support businesses. The reduction in co-operation tax for one. We had already budgeted for a VAT rise, so that is irrelevant.
You have also yourself admitted that Labour no longer represents the working class. What happens now then? It could take a generation for that to change.
Co-operation tax?
You'd think that if you were in business, you'd at least know what tax you would be paying... Still, your business must be booming if the fall in CORPORATE tax rates is going to significantly support your ventures. Depending on the nature of the business, number of employees etc, the small reduction in SCR by a whole 1% is outweighed by increases in other areas.
-
Its funny what the human mind makes you type when you are having at the same time a conversation with your missus about who is going to the co-op to get some milk.
The reduction goes in part to offset the raise in VAT.
-
MrFrost wrote:
jonrover wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I'm wrong because you say I am.
It's a wonder folk like you and Bob don't stand for election. You are that perfect and political views so correct that surely everything would be perfect under your rule.
Or more simply could you both be self proclaimed \"know it alls\"
Funny thing is people like Billy and Bob are EXACTLY the kind of people Labour need to pull back to the Left away from Blairism, which has left the Labour party unrecognisable from what the party was historically set up to do, which is represent the working class. And my Trade Union is at the forefront of that fight and is training activists in political schools country wide to be able to fight elections in their local constituencies, instead of having bell ends like Dave and Ed Miliband representing people they have no idea about, just so their guaranteed office. Did Miliband care about the Jarvis workers? Did he shite. Will he care that thousands of hard working folk in Doncaster who are staring into the idealogical Tory abyss? Will he shite.
Give me Billy or Bob any day of the week. And as for self proclaimed know it alls? They've probably forgot more than you know on Tory policy and the economy. Even the Daily Fascist today say Gideon's cuts will send us spiralling back into recession. But you keep on believing and do a bit of praying while your at it because I'd hate to be a small business with what's round the corner. Mind you with some of the bile you've spewed on here, it couldn't happen to someone more deserving.
So because I take a different opinion, I deserve my business to go bust and my family to go hungry.
I'm not at all worried for my business as it happens. And I embrace the changes the coalition have put in place to support businesses. The reduction in co-operation tax for one. We had already budgeted for a VAT rise, so that is irrelevant.
You have also yourself admitted that Labour no longer represents the working class. What happens now then? It could take a generation for that to change.
Generally, people with your selfish \"I'm all right Jack, screw everyone else\" attitude deserve to reap what they sow. That is my opinion and you'll have to deal with it.
And don't worry about Labour old cock. These Tory cuts will see them elected for the next generation (according to Mervyn King.) Once were back in recession and the dole queue is pushing 4 million there will be riots like not seen since the poll tax riots that toppled Thatcher. It could be interesting with tens of Thousands less bobbies, maybe your lot will have the army turn its guns on civilians like they did on Bloody Sunday?
Like I said, Labour needs activists inside to push it back Left again, and then demand some social justice, tax the rich correctly, close the tax avoidance loopholes pricks like Tory cash cow Lord Ashcroft benefit from which robs £24 billion a year of the treasury, and demand the banks pay what they borrowed back to the public purse plus interest.
-
jonrover wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
jonrover wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I'm wrong because you say I am.
It's a wonder folk like you and Bob don't stand for election. You are that perfect and political views so correct that surely everything would be perfect under your rule.
Or more simply could you both be self proclaimed \"know it alls\"
Funny thing is people like Billy and Bob are EXACTLY the kind of people Labour need to pull back to the Left away from Blairism, which has left the Labour party unrecognisable from what the party was historically set up to do, which is represent the working class. And my Trade Union is at the forefront of that fight and is training activists in political schools country wide to be able to fight elections in their local constituencies, instead of having bell ends like Dave and Ed Miliband representing people they have no idea about, just so their guaranteed office. Did Miliband care about the Jarvis workers? Did he shite. Will he care that thousands of hard working folk in Doncaster who are staring into the idealogical Tory abyss? Will he shite.
Give me Billy or Bob any day of the week. And as for self proclaimed know it alls? They've probably forgot more than you know on Tory policy and the economy. Even the Daily Fascist today say Gideon's cuts will send us spiralling back into recession. But you keep on believing and do a bit of praying while your at it because I'd hate to be a small business with what's round the corner. Mind you with some of the bile you've spewed on here, it couldn't happen to someone more deserving.
So because I take a different opinion, I deserve my business to go bust and my family to go hungry.
I'm not at all worried for my business as it happens. And I embrace the changes the coalition have put in place to support businesses. The reduction in co-operation tax for one. We had already budgeted for a VAT rise, so that is irrelevant.
You have also yourself admitted that Labour no longer represents the working class. What happens now then? It could take a generation for that to change.
Generally, people with your selfish \"I'm all right Jack, screw everyone else\" attitude deserve to reap what they sow. That is my opinion and you'll have to deal with it.
And don't worry about Labour old cock. These Tory cuts will see them elected for the next generation (according to Mervyn King.) Once were back in recession and the dole queue is pushing 4 million there will be riots like not seen since the poll tax riots that toppled Thatcher. It could be interesting with tens of Thousands less bobbies, maybe your lot will have the army turn its guns on civilians like they did on Bloody Sunday?
Like I said, Labour needs activists inside to push it back Left again, and then demand some social justice, tax the rich correctly, close the tax avoidance loopholes pricks like Tory cash cow Lord Ashcroft benefit from which robs £24 billion a year of the treasury, and demand the banks pay what they borrowed back to the public purse plus interest.
Then you can deal with my opinion can't you. That what you have stated will not happen.
-
Have a read of this
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/economics-weekly/2010-07-13.html
-
Watching the news tonight, talking of the police cuts, I love the way figures are tweaked so to speak, I see they are trumpeting a drop in SOME crime figures..I wonder why no mention of the really serious crimes, rape, murder ect. I wondered too, because I'm not all that up on numbers, (i'm so Dyscalsic) how the publics figures could 1% different to the police's.
It's a depressing thought isn't it? That obviously the most terrible of crimes aren't coming down in number.
By they I mean the BBC.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Have a read of this
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/economics-weekly/2010-07-13.html
Yeah and your point is? I could post ten that disagree with that document, a few from Tory rags and comments from the OBR that have come out in the last day or two. But what's the point?
The fact is, Gideon is taking a huge gamble and if it fails, which it is more likely too than not, we are all up shit creek without an oar.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Have a read of this
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/economics-weekly/2010-07-13.html
\"Cautiously optimistic\"? Wow, really nailed their colours to the mast with that, haven't they?
Talk about damned with faint praise.
-
jucyberry wrote:
Watching the news tonight, talking of the police cuts, I love the way figures are tweaked so to speak, I see they are trumpeting a drop in SOME crime figures..I wonder why no mention of the really serious crimes, rape, murder ect. I wondered too, because I'm not all that up on numbers, (i'm so Dyscalsic) how the publics figures could 1% different to the police's.
It's a depressing thought isn't it? That obviously the most terrible of crimes aren't coming down in number.
By they I mean the BBC.
It's OK, Jucy, they don't want to put people in prison anyway. It costs money to do that.
-
jonrover wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Have a read of this
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/economics-weekly/2010-07-13.html
Yeah and your point is? I could post ten that disagree with that document, a few from Tory rags and comments from the OBR that have come out in the last day or two. But what's the point?
The fact is, Gideon is taking a huge gamble and if it fails, which it is more likely too than not, we are all up shit creek without an oar.
It's your opinion that it will fail. Mine that it wont. I present an article which isn't all doom and gloom, but people refuse to take the labour tinted specs off, just for a moment.
I'm still waiting for someone to pull the evidence on Labour's overspending to pieces.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Have a read of this
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/economics-weekly/2010-07-13.html
Well done. You pick an obscure website where one self-appointed expert gives his opinion that things might just be OK, in a report full of caveats that effectively say \"we don't really know what on earth is going to happen in a recession like this because no-one below the age of 80 has ever seen one, but fingers crossed that the most drastic cutback in public expenditure in a century won't f**k us up eh?\"
Why trust that man's opinion instead of, say, Paul Krugman, the American Nobel Prize winning economist who has called Osbourne's policy of cutting so viciously \"economic lunacy\"? What about the IMF, with their diplomatic \"you are running some very significant downside risks\" comments?
And, if you actually bother to burrow down into that weblink you posted, you see PRECISELY why cutbacks on this scale are not required. We are being told a story that Labour was obscenely irresponsible in running up a huge deficit in the good times. Now go and look at Chart B in that website. Look at the Public Spending figures. In 2007, before the banking crisis exploded, public spending was ~40% of GDP and stable. It was at one of the lowest levels that we have seen in two generations. Then the banking crisis and the recession blew up, and public expenditure had to rise, just as it did in the recessions of 73-74, 80-81, 90-91. That is what happens in recessions. It's what ALWAYS happens in recessions. And equally, public spending as a proportion of GDP tends to reduce as we come out of a recession providing the private sector is strong enough to recover. All the previous recessions saw a return to equilibrium without anything remotely like cutbacks as vicious as the ones being put in train by this lot.
Go look at the chart. You put the weblink up so presumably you read and understood that data.
Yes, public spending has to be cut-back as an economy comes out of recession, but ONLY then. Cutting it too early and too deeply is an apalling risk - it risks destroying fragile economic confidence before recovery is established. What defies belief is that Osbourne, Cameron, and their gutless, principle-less Liberal supporters are implementing such unprecedented cut-backs at a time when there is still such deep uncertainty over whether the private sector really is strong enough to bounce back. Reckless and dangerous. Just as the IMF's diplomatic warnings and Paul Krugman say.
This is a FAR more dangerous approach than the shibboleth of a sovereign debt crisis for the UK, which simply does not exist as an immediate and serious threat. For the simple reason that the majority of the UK Government's debt is long-term debt, so even if the credit agencies DID downgrade our AAA rating - which they are a long, long way from doing - it would have no practical effect on the Government's ability to finance its debt. But the Greek crisis (where they really DO have a sovereign debt crisis) came at a perfect time for Cameron and Osbourne, giving them a bogeyman to scare people with and allowing them to let rip with what they always wanted to do for ideological reasons anyway.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Have a read of this
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/economics-weekly/2010-07-13.html
Well done. You pick an obscure website where one self-appointed expert gives his opinion that things might just be OK, in a report full of caveats that effectively say \"we don't really know what on earth is going to happen in a recession like this because no-one below the age of 80 has ever seen one, but fingers crossed that the most drastic cutback in public expenditure in a century won't fcuk us up eh?\"
Why trust that man's opinion instead of, say, Paul Krugman, the American Nobel Prize winning economist who has called Osbourne's policy of cutting so viciously \"economic lunacy\"? What about the IMF, with their diplomatic \"you are running some very significant downside risks\" comments?
And, if you actually bother to burrow down into that weblink you posted, you see PRECISELY why cutbacks on this scale are not required. We are being told a story that Labour was obscenely irresponsible in running up a huge deficit in the good times. Now go and look at Chart B in that website. Look at the Public Spending figures. In 2007, before the banking crisis exploded, public spending was ~40% of GDP and stable. It was at one of the lowest levels that we have seen in two generations. Then the banking crisis and the recession blew up, and public expenditure had to rise, just as it did in the recessions of 73-74, 80-81, 90-91. That is what happens in recessions. It's what ALWAYS happens in recessions. And equally, public spending as a proportion of GDP tends to reduce as we come out of a recession providing the private sector is strong enough to recover. All the previous recessions saw a return to equilibrium without anything remotely like cutbacks as vicious as the ones being put in train by this lot.
Go look at the chart. You put the weblink up so presumably you read and understood that data.
Yes, public spending has to be cut-back as an economy comes out of recession, but ONLY then. Cutting it too early and too deeply is an apalling risk - it risks destroying fragile economic confidence before recovery is established. What defies belief is that Osbourne, Cameron, and their gutless, principle-less Liberal supporters are implementing such unprecedented cut-backs at a time when there is still such deep uncertainty over whether the private sector really is strong enough to bounce back. Reckless and dangerous. Just as the IMF's diplomatic warnings and Paul Krugman say.
This is a FAR more dangerous approach than the shibboleth of a sovereign debt crisis for the UK, which simply does not exist as an immediate and serious threat. For the simple reason that the majority of the UK Government's debt is long-term debt, so even if the credit agencies DID downgrade our AAA rating - which they are a long, long way from doing - it would have no practical effect on the Government's ability to finance its debt. But the Greek crisis (where they really DO have a sovereign debt crisis) came at a perfect time for Cameron and Osbourne, giving them a bogeyman to scare people with and allowing them to let rip with what they always wanted to do for ideological reasons anyway.
Supposing this doesn't happen. What will you say then? I presume you are the kind of person that would never admit they are wrong.
-
While we're at it, that Chart B tells you, in one graph, everything you need to know about Labour vs Tory policy.
The Tories and Tory press (and Mr Frost) are screaming that Labour was criminally reckless in its public spending whilst in power. Chart B shows that in fact, before the recession hit, public expenditure was at a modest level by historical standards.
By contrast, the Thatcherite, viciously anti-state, anti-society policy over the 80s and 90s had manically driven down public expenditure to levels lower than we had seen for more than half a century. That was their ideology.
And the result?
Cutting public expenditure doesn't come without a cost. Anyone above the age of 35 from our area knows damn well what that cost was after 20 years of Thatcherite driving down of public expenditure.
Crumbling, overcrowded schools.
A collapsing rail system
The NHS all but dead on its feet.
Post-industrial communities left to rot after state support was pulled away.
In the 13 years of Labour being in power, there was a modest reversal of that approach. Public expenditure rose gently, back to more sane levels. The results are there to see for anyone.
The NHS incomparably better than it was.
Schools invested in.
The train system finally functional again.
Look at a photo of Donny from 1995 and compare it to how Donny is today. THAT alone tells you all you need to know.
And the Tories are telling us that Labour spending 42-43% of GDP on public spending (before the recession hit) was madness and reckless? What it actually was, was a sensible and fair redistribution after the wild-eyed ideologues had wreaked their damage over the previous 2 decades.
And now the Kitsons are patting us on the head and saying \"Let's get back to 80s public spending levels again folks...\"
-
MrFrost wrote:
Supposing this doesn't happen. What will you say then? I presume you are the kind of person that would never admit they are wrong.
You stupid dick. You think I actually WANT this to happen? You think this is about winning an academic debate?
If this doesn't happen, I'll be f**king delighted. Because it'll mean that we DON'T go back to the devastation that these Kitsons wrought in the 80s and 90s. Because, unlike you, I actually care about what happens to people.
f**king well grow up.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Supposing this doesn't happen. What will you say then? I presume you are the kind of person that would never admit they are wrong.
You stupid dick. You think I actually WANT this to happen? You think this is about winning an academic debate?
If this doesn't happen, I'll be fcuking delighted. Because it'll mean that we DON'T go back to the devastation that these cnuts wrought in the 80s and 90s. Because, unlike you, I actually care about what happens to people.
fcuking well grow up.
I wondered how long it would take before you resorted to good old fashioned name calling.
Personally, I think you would be delighted if it happened, as it would prove you were right all along. And i'm betting you would remind me of the fact.
-
MrFrost wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to pull the evidence on Labour's overspending to pieces.
We didn't need to do. You answered your own question by posting that link with Chart B. Thanks very much.
What that chart shows, is the TOTAL picture. Not a few, selected, anecdotal examples chosen to support a particular argument. The chart shows that by any standards other than extreme Thatcherite ones, the last Labour Government was a sensible, pretty level-headed spender of public money. End of argument.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to pull the evidence on Labour's overspending to pieces.
We didn't need to do. You answered your own question by posting that link with Chart B. Thanks very much.
What that chart shows, is the TOTAL picture. Not a few, selected, anecdotal examples chosen to support a particular argument. The chart shows that by any standards other than extreme Thatcherite ones, the last Labour Government was a sensible, pretty level-headed spender of public money. End of argument.
End of argument because you say it is? Who are you? My father?
-
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Supposing this doesn't happen. What will you say then? I presume you are the kind of person that would never admit they are wrong.
You stupid dick. You think I actually WANT this to happen? You think this is about winning an academic debate?
If this doesn't happen, I'll be fcuking delighted. Because it'll mean that we DON'T go back to the devastation that these cnuts wrought in the 80s and 90s. Because, unlike you, I actually care about what happens to people.
fcuking well grow up.
I wondered how long it would take before you resorted to good old fashioned name calling.
Personally, I think you would be delighted if it happened, as it would prove you were right all along. And i'm betting you would remind me of the fact.
So. You ask me a question about my own opinions. I give you a straight answer. You reply by telling me what I actually think.
Perhaps we should set up a Forum where you can ask a question and answer on everyone's behalf.
-
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to pull the evidence on Labour's overspending to pieces.
We didn't need to do. You answered your own question by posting that link with Chart B. Thanks very much.
What that chart shows, is the TOTAL picture. Not a few, selected, anecdotal examples chosen to support a particular argument. The chart shows that by any standards other than extreme Thatcherite ones, the last Labour Government was a sensible, pretty level-headed spender of public money. End of argument.
End of argument because you say it is? Who are you? My father?
'kin hell. This is getting like Adam Boulton's response to Alastair Campbell.
Calm down man. It's the end of the argument because the figures on that graph that YOU posted answer your question. Unless you're now going to tell us that those figures are wrong as well.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to pull the evidence on Labour's overspending to pieces.
We didn't need to do. You answered your own question by posting that link with Chart B. Thanks very much.
What that chart shows, is the TOTAL picture. Not a few, selected, anecdotal examples chosen to support a particular argument. The chart shows that by any standards other than extreme Thatcherite ones, the last Labour Government was a sensible, pretty level-headed spender of public money. End of argument.
End of argument because you say it is? Who are you? My father?
'kin hell. This is getting like Adam Boulton's response to Alastair Campbell.
Calm down man. It's the end of the argument because the figures on that graph that YOU posted answer your question. Unless you're now going to tell us that those figures are wrong as well.
Not if you take the stance of the writer of the article.
-
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to pull the evidence on Labour's overspending to pieces.
We didn't need to do. You answered your own question by posting that link with Chart B. Thanks very much.
What that chart shows, is the TOTAL picture. Not a few, selected, anecdotal examples chosen to support a particular argument. The chart shows that by any standards other than extreme Thatcherite ones, the last Labour Government was a sensible, pretty level-headed spender of public money. End of argument.
End of argument because you say it is? Who are you? My father?
'kin hell. This is getting like Adam Boulton's response to Alastair Campbell.
Calm down man. It's the end of the argument because the figures on that graph that YOU posted answer your question. Unless you're now going to tell us that those figures are wrong as well.
Not if you take the stance of the writer of the article.
No. Have you no comprehension of the role that facts play in an argument.
I'll repeat.
That graph shows that by NO rational assessment can the last Labour Government be called profligate: UNLESS you subscribe to the belief that the public spending policies of the last Tory Government were an ideal that we should aspire to. That's not about opinion - it's simple factual interpretation of the data on that graph.
I can give you other figures if you want, from the OBR's own post-Budget report. You can find them in Chart C5 here: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/junebudget_annexc.pdf These figures show that, prior to the onset of the banking crisis and the worldwide recession, the Labour Government's spending was actually LOWER than it had been under John Major in 1996-7.
Labour's plans to reduce spending as we emerge from recession would, by 2015, have brought public spending as a proportion of GDP to something like what it was in 2007. Look at that C5 graph again and the comparisons with how long it took to get public spending back down after the previous two recessions. The trends were similar to what Labour had been planning. Now bear in mind that neither of the previous two recessions were as destructive to the fundamental economic base of the country as this one has been. So, Labour's spending reduction plans were sharp enough - on a par with what Thatcher did in the early 80s. Yet Osbourne's plans are to cut spending almost 50% faster again!
That would be a really hard job even after a \"normal\" recession. After one like we've just had, where NO-ONE knows how we will pick up (Alan Budd, the head of the OBR say his predictions are \"our best stab at an impossible job\") it's the gamble of the century.
If I'm going to be honest, I think that the Tories actually don't have a prayer of reducing public spending quite so quickly. Even Thatcher didn't manage to do that with a 150 seat majority and the manic certainty of the woman who won the Falklands War underpinning her. By comparison, the current lot are political pygmies with no electoral mandate. And they will have to rely on the continued support of a Liberal party that has effectively destroyed itself by signing up to this economic policy. I simply cannot see how such a weak Government can possible drive through the most divisive and controversial policies since the War and still survive. It defies all political logic. So we may be economically saved by circumstances.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Its funny what the human mind makes you type when you are having at the same time a conversation with your missus about who is going to the co-op to get some milk.
must be a common conversation in your house as its about the 4th time you've made the same mistake
or maybe your accountant is pulling a fast one on you making you pay this new \"co-operation tax\" and trousering the proceeds himself :woohoo:
-
Muttley wrote:
MrFrost wrote:
Its funny what the human mind makes you type when you are having at the same time a conversation with your missus about who is going to the co-op to get some milk.
must be a common conversation in your house as its about the 4th time you've made the same mistake
or maybe your accountant is pulling a fast one on you making you pay this new \"co-operation tax\" and trousering the proceeds himself :woohoo:
Your right.
Actually, i'm unemployed. A work shy tosser. I still live with my mum. :blush:
-
Are you ever wrong Frosty? You do come across as a bit of a prick. Do you want me to back that up with factual evidence? I bet you do, you prick.
-
How easy is name calling when your sat smug behind a computer screen.
I'm not saying i'm right or wrong. My gripe is being abused, mocked and spoken down to because I have different views to the majority.
-
Tell me where you are and I'll come and call you a prick to yer face.
It's not smug, it's you mate. You're an idiot.
-
So now we turn to border line threats Well done sunshine. Quite the tough guy aren't you?
-
It's not a threat idiot boy. You make out that I'm smug behind a 'computer screen' as you call them. I'm saying that I'll call you an idiot in person, face to face.
You can decide for yourself whether I'm tough or not, but that's hardly the point is it idiot boy?
You might find you fancy your chances after all...
-
Just reading a few of your posts, the majority seem to throw abuse at TWD. Is that your main reason for visiting the forum, to throw abuse or namecall people you don't agree with.
I actually respect other people's opinions. You will see that if you actually can be bothered to read through my posts.
You bring nothing to the debate pal, other than intending to mock. So kindly, jog on.
-
What fcuking debate are you on about pal? Who do you intend to mock when you're critising everything Rovers? JR? SoD?
You're a prick, everyone knows it and laughs at you in the street.
-
Viking Don wrote:
What fcuking debate are you on about pal? Who do you intend to mock when you're critising everything Rovers? JR? SoD?
You're a prick, everyone knows it and laughs at you in the street.
That proves how simple you are. There are pages of debates on here. Or couldn't you grasp that? I personally haven't noticed anyone laughing at me in the street. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to when/where this has happened and who has done it?
-
Mr Frost, a word of advice - don't bite....ignore others!!
-
You're hilarious mate. You want people to laugh in front of you and tell you you're a t**t!
Let me let you into a (nomore)secret. I know who you are, and everyone thinks you're a prick. The fact that you actually want me to point out people in the street laughing at you makes me pizz myself. You're my new favourite.
-
Pintolager wrote:
Mr Frost, a word of advice - don't bite....ignore others!!
Cheers ;)
-
Oi Lee.... LEAVE IT! :laugh:
-
Viking Don wrote:
Oi Lee.... LEAVE IT! :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: oh ok Hamish!
-
Viking Don wrote:
You're hilarious mate. You want people to laugh in front of you and tell you you're a t**t!
Let me let you into a (nomore)secret. I know who you are, and everyone thinks you're a prick. The fact that you actually want me to point out people in the street laughing at you makes me pizz myself. You're my new favourite.
You know so much about me, yet I know so little about you. Come on, who are you? Or would you like to keep your anonymity?
-
Quite a few know who I am mate. Wanna meet? No threats or owt, just name-calling.
-
Viking Don wrote:
Quite a few know who I am mate. Wanna meet? No threats or owt, just name-calling.
I suppose a few do know who you are. I'd be surprised if they didn't. Although I just question your assumption that everyone thinks i'm a prick and laughs at me in the street. Define everyone......
-
Define EVERYONE? I don't know any group axioms that will cover that one I'm afraid.
Look Frosty, I'm starting to almost like you because of your insolence. Keep it up.
-
Viking Don wrote:
Define EVERYONE? I don't know any group axioms that will cover that one I'm afraid.
Look Frosty, I'm starting to almost like you because of your insolence. Keep it up.
So if you know who I am, you can tell me my full name, where I live, my kids name etc etc?
I must have really done something bad to you for you to pick on me like this :lol:
-
I wouldn't do that on here, neither would I pick on you specifically, Christ there's always TWDick to pick faults with if I fancy a bit of non-banter.
Hey, you're up after 0:00 so it's not all bad, I'm usually nice to the ones that stay up! I apologise if anything came over as a threat, twas not intented as. Just banter mate.
-
First point, I don't actually object to student fees, everybody who requires a service etc should have to pay for it, I've never objected to that.
Second point, I was quite smug when this was announced, I spent ages banging on about how people hadn't read the Lib Dem ideas on student fees that they were responsible for. Even the NUS sent e-mails begging students to vote Lib Dem to abolish fees when it was blatantly obvious that this was the system they favoured.
I'm in a minority in a way. This system could work out to be better than the system we have now (which does not work and is clearly unsustainable, the interest on my loan is around £60 per month and the total debt from 4 years at uni is now around £28,000). That figure is ludicrous, I don't think anyone can deny that, I'll be surprised if I earn that in one year within the next 10 years let alone pay it back at the rates they desire.
Overall, university has to be funded but the focus is on research at universities. The last system was supposed to encourage people from poorer backgrounds like us in Donny, when in fact it's making it much harder. Just look at student accomodation as one example. A first year at Sheffield uni would use up 90% of their maintenance for one year on the rent of their accomodation - are you telling me that attracts those from poorer backgrounds? It clearly does not.
-
This is a very, very difficult topic and your post gets to the nub of the problem BFYP.
The old system of grants was utterly unsustainable. It was designed for an era when only 5-6% of 18 year olds went to University. It was utterly iniquitous, in that the majority of those who DID go to University and received grants/free tuition, were from middle class backgrounds. So, effectively, it was a huge free subsidy to the middle classes, paid for by everyone else in society.
Despite what the flat-earthers will have you believe, we desperately do need to educate more young people to degree level. It's not some sort of rarified privilege, going to University, that should be rationed to a tiny proportion of high achievers (as was the case a generation or two ago). In those days, the UK paid its way by the vast majority of its workers doing relatively unskilled, unthininking manual work.
That's not the case any more. If we are going to be successful in a world economy, we need well educated designers, managers, innovators, entrepreneurs. In short - THINKERS. For the rest of our lifetimes at least, the process of simple, low-added cost labour jobs moving from the West to less developed areas will continue. China, India, and eventually, Africa will provide that labour pool, and they will effectively do the work that our working classes used to do. WE will earn our money by, for example, having the ideas that are then out sourced to other places to be made. Or by offering high end design/consultancy/service skills to other countries as they develop their infrastructure.
What manufacturing stays in this country will increasingly involve hi-tech, high-complexity, hi-cost, hi-quality aspects, (such as what Forgemasters were trying to do before the Government shafted them).
All of these things require a better educated workforce.
So it is crucial that we raise the standard and the expectation of education and type of work for all levels in our society. Getting to the point where going to University is the expectation rather than the exception is the key way to do this.
How you fund that is the $64million question. Personally, as someone who went to University n the free tuition era, I feel very uncomfortable with my generation telling kids today that THEY have to pay for their own education. It smacks of downright hypocrisy. I personally would be delighted to vote for higher taxes to pay for free (or cheaper) higher education. But that's no longer the country we live in. Thatcher changed the terms of the argument and we now live in a country where low taxes are seen as a birthright. Overall, I'd agree that a Graduate Tax is probably the fairest solution - you pay back into society according to how successful you are, not at a fixed flat rate. That, to me, is the essence of a fair approach to taxation.
As for your comments on research, I understand that attitude coming from somene who has only experienced higher edcuation from a students' angle, but I'm afraid it misses the point. Research is VITAL, at the leading Universities at least, for a number of reasons.
1) It funds the Universities - fees would have to be a hell of a lot higher if Universities were not allowed to do research that brings in very, very large amounts of money.
2) Encouraging high-level academic research has been shown time and time again to be vital in maintaining and developing the economic competitiveness of economies. The nerdy, socially inadequate Prof working on some obscure theoretical research might be the person who saves the world. A mate of mine who is an academic at Sheffield is a perfect example of this. His research work was on a highly theoretical and esoteric field, with no obvious practical relevance. Then one day he presented some of his results to an audience that included a hard-headed practical engineer who realised that what he was describing could be used to solve a particular engineering problem. Between them, they developed a commercial software tool which is now used in engineering offices across the world (and costs a fortune to buy).
3) If you don't encourage (in fact, EXPECT) academics to do high level research, you store up two big problems. Firstly, your University educators will very quickly get divorced from the cutting edge, and so they will lose their relevance. And secondly, you will not attract the very best intellects into Universities, meaning that your University teachers will be the second raters. No brilliant thinker is going to go into a job that requires him to teach 30 hours a week, 45 weeks a year, when they could double their salary and work on far more rewarding technical problems at Universities in other countries.
-
an interesting debate aprt from page 2 that sounded like a playground
it seems that to sum up the real feature of what is being said is that investment works
if you invest in the right places with the right people at the right time you will reap the rewards
and it doesnt matter whether or not that is private or state funded you will only reap what you sow
so is the Football Association watching?
-
The trouble is Frosty, it's almost invariably you who begins the name calling. Take a few mimnutes to go back to the start of a few of these recent threads. The evidence is there - right in front of you.
So don't come all holier than thou mate. It really does make you look even more like a bloke who shoots from the hip without any ability to actually stop for a minute, never mind think.
BobG
-
MrFrost wrote:
I actually respect other people's opinions. You will see that if you actually can be bothered to read through my posts.
That has got to be just the biggest laugh of the year! Do you ever actually read what you write? It appears not. You are one of the most aggressive and abusive posters on this forum. You are the guy who sends menacing PM's to posters you don't agree with. You are the guy who is so blind he can't recognise an olive branch offered by someone who disagrees with just about everything you post - instead choosing to post more abuse.
Come on Mr Frost! FFS, I'm trying to help you here. You don't half make it fcuking difficult though.
BobG
-
More tensions in the coalition today. After Vince Cable suggests what is probably the fairest realistic way of funding Universities - a gradute tax - he has been slapped down by other Govt Ministers. Looks like the Tories are going out of their way to marginalise Cable, who was always closer to Labour than to the Tories anyway.
And yet more examples of the Tories showing their true colours. According to the BBC website, \"Ministers are understood to believe it would be unfair for high-earning graduates to pay back more than the cost of their degree. As one source put it, this would be seen as turning successful graduates into \"milch cows\" to subsidise the system.\"
Which, when interpreted means that they don't want the poor little rich kids who get fast tracked into their £1million jobs in the city thanks to Daddy's friends after they leave University to have to pay a bit more to subsidise the kid from the council estate who goes into nursing or social work after leaving University.
I'd forgotten just how bare-facedly protective of their own the Tories were. There's no subtlty or pretence about it. They just come straight out with comments like this, and expect the rest of us just to nod our heads and say, \"Yep, that sounds fair.\" This feels like a reversion to real politics. It's about asking yourself whether you think that people should put back into society at a rate proportional to their success, or whether the most successful should be able to pull up the rope ladder behind them.
-
The coalition will be lucky to last 12 months, either way the big losers in it all will be the Lib Dems when they get cast back into the political wilderness. It took years for the rank and file members of the Lib Dems to get to nearly becoming a challenging force to the big 2, all that sold down the river by rent boy Clegg, who then shits on his constituents by withdrawing the forgemasters deal. Clegg has thrown all that away for 5 minutes of glory!
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
More tensions in the coalition today. After Vince Cable suggests what is probably the fairest realistic way of funding Universities - a gradute tax - he has been slapped down by other Govt Ministers. Looks like the Tories are going out of their way to marginalise Cable, who was always closer to Labour than to the Tories anyway.
And yet more examples of the Tories showing their true colours. According to the BBC website, \"Ministers are understood to believe it would be unfair for high-earning graduates to pay back more than the cost of their degree. As one source put it, this would be seen as turning successful graduates into \"milch cows\" to subsidise the system.\"
Which, when interpreted means that they don't want the poor little rich kids who get fast tracked into their £1million jobs in the city thanks to Daddy's friends after they leave University to have to pay a bit more to subsidise the kid from the council estate who goes into nursing or social work after leaving University.
I'd forgotten just how bare-facedly protective of their own the Tories were. There's no subtlty or pretence about it. They just come straight out with comments like this, and expect the rest of us just to nod our heads and say, \"Yep, that sounds fair.\" This feels like a reversion to real politics. It's about asking yourself whether you think that people should put back into society at a rate proportional to their success, or whether the most successful should be able to pull up the rope ladder behind them.
More likely that they realise most of us graduates can't find a job anyway. I have my graduation ceremony on Friday but right now it feels like the 4 years meant little in terms of lifetime progression but lots in terms of debt.
-
Surely there must be some way where all university costs are paid for in a fair way. The tax seems to be the fairest, though it should be stopped once each student has paid back their loans. Surely it is simple, no?
I was a lucky one, first in family to go to Uni and had a full grant. I certainly agree that we need to increase the amount of young people to a degree level.
-
The cracks are showing now.
Clegg keeps coming out with or being quoted on his beliefs which are against Tory Policy.
Cameron calls us the Junior Partners in WW2.
All are suddenly back tracking on the middle east pull out of our boys.
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
The cracks are showing now.
Clegg keeps coming out with or being quoted on his beliefs which are against Tory Policy.
Cameron calls us the Junior Partners in WW2.
All are suddenly back tracking on the middle east pull out of our boys.
Clegg yesterday at Prime Minister's Questions was a gem. He had Osbourne and Hague sat behind him when he said the invasion of Iraq was illegal (which is absolutely NOT the Tory line). Hague's face looked like our old Sunday League manager's when someone replaced his snuff with ground up dried dog shit. Osbourne looked as vancant as ever - probably waiting for someone to tell him what was going on.
As for setting a deadline for getting thr troops out of Afghanistan - what planet is Cameron on? This is a WAR. You don't say \"this will be finished by Tuesday 23 March 2015\". It'll be finished when it's finished. If we pull out early to suit a political agenda (funny how he chose 2015 to bring the boys home eh? - the date of the next election) we could leave a catastrophic mess behind us and cause nightmarish problems for the next half century.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
CusworthRovers wrote:
The cracks are showing now.
Clegg keeps coming out with or being quoted on his beliefs which are against Tory Policy.
Cameron calls us the Junior Partners in WW2.
All are suddenly back tracking on the middle east pull out of our boys.
Clegg yesterday at Prime Minister's Questions was a gem. He had Osbourne and Hague sat behind him when he said the invasion of Iraq was illegal (which is absolutely NOT the Tory line). Hague's face looked like our old Sunday League manager's when someone replaced his snuff with ground up dried dog shit. Osbourne looked as vancant as ever - probably waiting for someone to tell him what was going on.
As for setting a deadline for getting thr troops out of Afghanistan - what planet is Cameron on? This is a WAR. You don't say \"this will be finished by Tuesday 23 March 2015\". It'll be finished when it's finished. If we pull out early to suit a political agenda (funny how he chose 2015 to bring the boys home eh? - the date of the next election) we could leave a catastrophic mess behind us and cause nightmarish problems for the next half century.
It would n`t be the first time the Tories have used a war to try and gain a few votes would it?
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Osbourne looked as vancant as ever - probably waiting for someone to tell him what was going on.
You mean this kind of \"where the f**k am I\" look?
(http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/jul2010/2/7/image-2-for-political-pictures-of-the-month-july-2010-gallery-925553585.jpg)
-
Clegg is just a puppet that allowed Cammo and the Eton boys in. In time he will be gradually shifted out of the limelight, and let loose for things like talking about climate change or changing the curriculum, probably at 9pm when all the MP's have f**ked off home or in the bar or laid on the bench snoring.
Clegster does remind me of Blair though with his smiley smug face and heavy use of the hands to depict a comfortable/trustworthy man
-
Filo wrote:
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Osbourne looked as vancant as ever - probably waiting for someone to tell him what was going on.
You mean this kind of \"where the fcuk am I\" look?
(http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/jul2010/2/7/image-2-for-political-pictures-of-the-month-july-2010-gallery-925553585.jpg)
Have a look at Osbourne at 0:32 on this video. He looks like Queenie off Blackadder after an armful of scag.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/21/nick-clegg-illegal-iraq-war-gaffe
Fascinating how the video fades out before Clegg's comment about the war. And also the fact that the video can't be found anywhere on the BBC website, even though it was the BBC that recorded it. I wonder who has been pulling strings to get the whole thing hushed up?
There's some serious shit going on behind the scenes. Apart from highlighting yet another fundamental political difference between the Liberals and Tories, there is a much more important issue. Clegg has been amateurish and utterly stupid here. Whatever his personal views on the war and invasion, the fact is that it happened. By saying what he said, in such a formal setting, he is giving cartloads of ammunition to anyone who wants to take the legal action against the UK over this. They can say, \"Of course the war was illegal - your own Deputy Prime Minister said so.\" Utter, utter, rank stupidity on his part.
Clegg went off on one because Straw was tying him up in knots and he flailed out with an off the cuff comment that he had not thought through. Just as we always thought, he's a decent Student Union-level politician who is totally out of his depth being anywhere remotely close to running the country.
-
BillyStubbsTears wrote:
Fascinating how the video fades out before Clegg's comment about the war. And also the fact that the video can't be found anywhere on the BBC website, even though it was the BBC that recorded it. I wonder who has been pulling strings to get the whole thing hushed up?
Surely not from this \"open and transparent\" government! :laugh: