Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And? They are doing nothing different to what the last lot did. They have some decent policies and I am quite willing to let them crack on for now. Before I get shot down too quickly (I served 24 years in the Army and now work for the Local Government) so am just as vulnerable to getting the bullet as anyone else." I TOLD YA!!! DONT COMPLAIN ABOUT IT NOW!!!! THE TORIES HAVE WON THEY R IN FAIR N SQUARE N KICKED THE REAL DECENT OUT! SO THATS ALL UR FAULTS!! HERE HERE 4 GORDON BROWN I STILL LOVES YAS!!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And? They are doing nothing different to what the last lot did. They have some decent policies and I am quite willing to let them crack on for now. Before I get shot down too quickly (I served 24 years in the Army and now work for the Local Government) so am just as vulnerable to getting the bullet as anyone else." Funny how Labour gave responsibility for setting interest rates to an independent body when it gained power in 96 and not once in 13 years did anyone even accuse them of trying to interfere or influence the Bank of England Monetary committee. However within days of setting up the OBR as an independent body this lot have proved that it is nothing but a foil and smokescreen for their lies. As for the length of time you did in the mob, I must say you have my respect,(I had enough after 3 op banner tours and the Falklands), but I am surprised that you would be in favor of even more armed forces cuts which we have already been told are on their way. I just wonder why so many people in this country are so full of petty minded jelocy that they are willing to give power to the Tories who use that power to grind the working man/woman into the ground by continually cutting everything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder if any of our Tories would like to comment on yesterdays revelation that Mssrs Cameron and Osborne had their [i]new and independent [/i] OBR (Office for Budget Responsibility) cut 175.000 job losses off the figures given in their first budget (by means of not counting civil service job losses) and then use the falsified figure to mislead parliament! Seems to me that it hasn’t taken long for the Tories to drop right back into the same lying, sleazy habits that characterised their last period in office! " is that a bit like cash for questions ? when will people ever learn that the so called democracy in the UK is a big joke you chucked out the conservatives years ago and now voted them back in it is the most ridiculous merry go round voting back in people you got rid of in the past all those old tory politicians are now crawling out of the woodwork and appearing on tv as if they own the place and yet you got rid of them years ago because they were shoyt and corrupt give it 8 years and labour will be back in , voted in by those who voted tory this time round | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not wishing to get into a heated discussion but......... The country needs to be dragged into some sort of fiscal playing field. I would never wish to see our Armed Forces placed in any more danger than they already are but cuts can be made in many areas. Not wishing to offend but there are far too many people on benefits and claiming what they think they are entitled to. Sorry, but if you want (or need) to claim then you should be willing to give back to those who give those benefits. Nothing is free in this country including freedom." benefit cheats should be targetted,as you say.nobody deserves a free ride.in saying that,people who avoid paying tax.should also be targetted,tax evasion costs the country,16 times more than benefit cheats. some people seem to think,its ok to target the poorest people in our society,but not the richest.that cant be right.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not wishing to get into a heated discussion but......... The country needs to be dragged into some sort of fiscal playing field. I would never wish to see our Armed Forces placed in any more danger than they already are but cuts can be made in many areas. Not wishing to offend but there are far too many people on benefits and claiming what they think they are entitled to. Sorry, but if you want (or need) to claim then you should be willing to give back to those who give those benefits. Nothing is free in this country including freedom." Well I do seem to get involved in some heated political debates! LoL But I do try to stay polite and balanced in what I say. Now in answer to your comments about this lots good policies and the benefit Dependant culture. Firstly, when I was learning economic theory I was taught that the strongest economy was a siege economy, and that in a siege economy you use public works and infrastructure investment to reduce unemployment and stimulate the private manufacturing sector. You also use rearmament and increasing the size of the armed forces as a secondary method of stimulating the economy. This is what the USA did in the 30's, its what the Germans did in the 30's, in fact it is the only pr oven way of getting a country working! Against this the Tories cut in the 30's and nearly caused this country to be overrun in 1940, they cut again in the 80's and either sold off or destroyed our manufacturing base, now they have signaled their intent to do the same to the public sector. At what point will the British people wake up to the fact that the Tories are taking us back to Dickensian Briton and the workhouses? Have you all forgotten the homeless sleeping under railway arches while the Tories told us greed is good in the 80's? Now having said all of that, here are some questions: At what point does the government decide that it has cut all it can from the armed forces? At what point do we realize that every time the government buys from overseas because its cheaper, that its a false economy because we loose jobs and wealth? At what point do we all realize that the way forward is to improve and that can not be done by cutting! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not wishing to get into a heated discussion but......... The country needs to be dragged into some sort of fiscal playing field. I would never wish to see our Armed Forces placed in any more danger than they already are but cuts can be made in many areas. Not wishing to offend but there are far too many people on benefits and claiming what they think they are entitled to. Sorry, but if you want (or need) to claim then you should be willing to give back to those who give those benefits. Nothing is free in this country including freedom." I have nothing against targeting benefit cheats who are claiming money they are not entitled to however I do think the government should also target the companies and business men who cheat the system out of tax! I also think that freezing the pay of us Nurses and other such professionals is a bloody disgrace! Especially when any nurse will tell you they very often work for no money anyway ... and leave my fecking pension alone too  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I absolutely have no issues in anyone being targetted, whether it be benefit cheats or fat cats. I think that those who can afford to pay should pay. Why should those with incomes in excess of £100,000 be entitled to tax credits or child benefit (even though they are entitled to under current legislation). There are many people who really need that extra income but they should not expect the handouts in exhange for nothing. i am in a comfortable position but know friends who think that they are better off not working because of all the benefits they can claim. Surely this is wrong? If you can work, then please do so. The sitting government have to do what they can to reduce the deficit and a lot has to be blamed on the previous administration. Phew - don't think I have said so much since uni lol" I thought the amount was 50.000? now reduced to about 40,000? I agree if its as high as 100.000 then that should be reviewed  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"wishy post here "Still say---BLOOMING TORIES!!! til i die! lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"in the last month or so in the run up to the election the labour government went on a spending spree spending billions!,ed balls was signing cheques left right and centre for projects in the vain hope of pulling in votes from the gullible but knew well that if it did not work in keeping them in office the next government would have to deal with the broken economy. witness his pitifull little rants about schools projects being shelved,it was his empty promises in the first place that gave this false hope!." So does this mean that it is Labours fault that Cameron and Osbourn had the OBR (thats the INDEPENDENT body they set up to ensure that no figures were massaged or falsified LoL)doctor the figures so that they could mislead Parliament. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it has been reduced to £40k but still going to be entitled to all sorts of benefits which they really don't need. I was in that position where I received credits even though I knew I didn't need them. Even though I told the authorities they still insisted I was entitled. All wrong (I made charitable donations to make up for it)" Is it just me?.......I was under the distinct impression that you had to apply for Tax Credits?, I didn't think you were automatically given them? Am I wrong here? If I am not wrong, then why would you be given tax credits you never wanted? Can someone enlighten me on tax credits please..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hold on a second. You're having a go at a government who - amid the most potentially damaging period in our recent history and have been forced making sweeping cuts across the board because of the ineptitude of the last government - have predicted that LESS jobs will be lost in the public sector than previously thought? Isn't that good management? Less people out of work = more taxpayers in work. And you don't like that? Would the OP care to comment?" Call me picky but i thought this was a swingers site! not a political one????????????????? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it has been reduced to £40k but still going to be entitled to all sorts of benefits which they really don't need. I was in that position where I received credits even though I knew I didn't need them. Even though I told the authorities they still insisted I was entitled. All wrong (I made charitable donations to make up for it) Is it just me?.......I was under the distinct impression that you had to apply for Tax Credits?, I didn't think you were automatically given them? Am I wrong here? If I am not wrong, then why would you be given tax credits you never wanted? Can someone enlighten me on tax credits please..... " You are correct you do have to apply. Family allowance comes automatically. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it has been reduced to £40k but still going to be entitled to all sorts of benefits which they really don't need. I was in that position where I received credits even though I knew I didn't need them. Even though I told the authorities they still insisted I was entitled. All wrong (I made charitable donations to make up for it) Is it just me?.......I was under the distinct impression that you had to apply for Tax Credits?, I didn't think you were automatically given them? Am I wrong here? If I am not wrong, then why would you be given tax credits you never wanted? Can someone enlighten me on tax credits please..... You are correct you do have to apply. Family allowance comes automatically." Which begs the question.....why is someone on here claiming that they automatically received tax credits they couldn't give back?.....sounds a bit suspect to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hold on a second. You're having a go at a government who - amid the most potentially damaging period in our recent history and have been forced making sweeping cuts across the board because of the ineptitude of the last government - have predicted that LESS jobs will be lost in the public sector than previously thought? Isn't that good management? Less people out of work = more taxpayers in work. And you don't like that? Would the OP care to comment? Call me picky but i thought this was a swingers site! not a political one?????????????????" You don't have to read a thread which is so obviously about politics....it's not compulsory to read them all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hold on a second. You're having a go at a government who - amid the most potentially damaging period in our recent history and have been forced making sweeping cuts across the board because of the ineptitude of the last government - have predicted that LESS jobs will be lost in the public sector than previously thought? Isn't that good management? Less people out of work = more taxpayers in work. And you don't like that? Would the OP care to comment? Call me picky but i thought this was a swingers site! not a political one?????????????????" this forum is for general discussion if you are that obsessed with sex you will find the forums for you that swingers chat and swingers support and advice are probably more to your liking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Call me picky but i thought this was a swingers site! not a political one?????????????????" All legal subjects are allowed on the forums, just because we are all on here for horny fn doesn't mean we can't chat about anything else 
Yes Jane, you have to apply for Tax credit, if you don't want it, you don't apply. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hold on a second. You're having a go at a government who - amid the most potentially damaging period in our recent history and have been forced making sweeping cuts across the board because of the ineptitude of the last government - have predicted that LESS jobs will be lost in the public sector than previously thought? Isn't that good management? Less people out of work = more taxpayers in work. And you don't like that? Would the OP care to comment? Call me picky but i thought this was a swingers site! not a political one????????????????? this forum is for general discussion if you are that obsessed with sex you will find the forums for you that swingers chat and swingers support and advice are probably more to your liking." No not that obsessed, hence the above comment on this subject, just I know that people can get very heated when discussing politics...... nothing else implied.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hold on a second. You're having a go at a government who - amid the most potentially damaging period in our recent history and have been forced making sweeping cuts across the board because of the ineptitude of the last government - have predicted that LESS jobs will be lost in the public sector than previously thought? Isn't that good management? Less people out of work = more taxpayers in work. And you don't like that? Would the OP care to comment? Call me picky but i thought this was a swingers site! not a political one????????????????? this forum is for general discussion if you are that obsessed with sex you will find the forums for you that swingers chat and swingers support and advice are probably more to your liking. No not that obsessed, hence the above comment on this subject, just I know that people can get very heated when discussing politics...... nothing else implied.... "nooooooooooooooo we are all cool calm and collected | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hold on a second. You're having a go at a government who - amid the most potentially damaging period in our recent history and have been forced making sweeping cuts across the board because of the ineptitude of the last government - have predicted that LESS jobs will be lost in the public sector than previously thought? Isn't that good management? Less people out of work = more taxpayers in work. And you don't like that? Would the OP care to comment?" Wishy lets try and be objective and dispassionate about this. Firstly you come across (to me at least) as so pro Tory that if they were to order the execution of all unemployed you would be justifying it, against that I come across (to you) as some type of Trotskyite/Maoist. The simple fact is that where politics are concerned you are, foolishly in my view, a Tory supporter. I am not; in fact I am anti Tory not pro Labour or Liberal but ANTI TORY! Now having sorted that out, it is my contention that EVERY Tory government with the exception of the Heath government of 70 to 74 has been totally corrupt. Now remembering that at this moment in time the Tories could get away with blaming just about anything on Labour and therefore really have no need to LIE, please READ the following and explain to us all how it is good to “- have predicted that LESS jobs will be lost in the public sector than previously thought?” WHEN THAT STATEMENT IS A LIE! And exactly how is that “good management”. As for your asking me to comment, I have, on more occasions that I can remember. On each occasion you have either pointedly ignored what I have said, diverted the discussion by using the “but look at them” tactic or attacked me directly, either calling me a rabid socialist or envious of your self proclaimed riches and protection from the results of your precious Tory cuts. The really funny thing is all the time I have been telling you that: You are the one with the most to loose and that you are the one who having escaped a Luton slum (your description of where you came from) by your and your parents hard work. Have now helped place yourself directly in line for the Tory thieves to strip you of everything you have worked for (and before you deny that, they have already started with your pension)! In this case, the facts are: 1. 1. From the FT EmailSharePrint Back to Westminster Blog homepage The OBR’s magic pen trims forecast for job losses July 9, 2010 8:32am by Alex Barker | Share The Office of Budget Responsibility faces a big credibility test today. Chris Giles, the FT’s economics editor, has an agenda-setting story that raises doubts over its very purpose and independence. It is far more significant than any speculation over Sir Alan Budd’s departure. Through persistent questioning, Chris uncovered that the OBR tweaked its Budget forecasts at the last-minute to erase around 175,000 public sector job losses by 2014/15. The political result? David Cameron was able to claim in the Commons that his Budget would cost fewer job losses than if Labour had been in power. Cameron was comparing apples and pears. The OBR predicted that there would be only 30,000 extra public sector jobs lost over the next four years compared to if Labour was in power - 490,000 against 460,000 - despite the coalition’s much deeper spending cuts. This figure would have been vastly higher if the body hadn’t made these last-minute changes to its modelling. The reasons for the revisions are even more surprising than the end result. Without telling anyone about the changes, the OBR assumed that George Osborne would: 1) Cut state contributions for public sector pensions (an assumption that pre-empts the conclusions of John Hutton’s pension commission) 2) Put the brakes on promotions in the public sector (even though the chancellor has never announced such a policy) There are three possible explanations: the independent OBR is taking orders from the chancellor; practising economic telepathy; or inserting random policy into its forecasts. Meanwhile actual coalition policy announcements that would lower long term growth under the original OBR model — such a limiting net-migration to 1990s levels — were excluded. Hmm. What do you think the OBR is for? 2. The Tories set up the OBR to in their words: The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was formed in May 2010 to make an independent assessment of the public finances and the economy for each Budget and Pre-Budget Report. It is being chaired, on an interim basis, by respected fiscal and macroeconomic expert Sir Alan Budd. (Taken from HM Treasury) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hold on a second. You're having a go at a government who - amid the most potentially damaging period in our recent history and have been forced making sweeping cuts across the board because of the ineptitude of the last government - have predicted that LESS jobs will be lost in the public sector than previously thought? Isn't that good management? Less people out of work = more taxpayers in work. And you don't like that? Would the OP care to comment? Wishy lets try and be objective and dispassionate about this. Firstly you come across (to me at least) as so pro Tory that if they were to order the execution of all unemployed you would be justifying it, against that I come across (to you) as some type of Trotskyite/Maoist. The simple fact is that where politics are concerned you are, foolishly in my view, a Tory supporter. I am not; in fact I am anti Tory not pro Labour or Liberal but ANTI TORY! Now having sorted that out, it is my contention that EVERY Tory government with the exception of the Heath government of 70 to 74 has been totally corrupt. Now remembering that at this moment in time the Tories could get away with blaming just about anything on Labour and therefore really have no need to LIE, please READ the following and explain to us all how it is good to “- have predicted that LESS jobs will be lost in the public sector than previously thought?” WHEN THAT STATEMENT IS A LIE! And exactly how is that “good management”. As for your asking me to comment, I have, on more occasions that I can remember. On each occasion you have either pointedly ignored what I have said, diverted the discussion by using the “but look at them” tactic or attacked me directly, either calling me a rabid socialist or envious of your self proclaimed riches and protection from the results of your precious Tory cuts. The really funny thing is all the time I have been telling you that: You are the one with the most to loose and that you are the one who having escaped a Luton slum (your description of where you came from) by your and your parents hard work. Have now helped place yourself directly in line for the Tory thieves to strip you of everything you have worked for (and before you deny that, they have already started with your pension)! In this case, the facts are: 1. 1. From the FT EmailSharePrint Back to Westminster Blog homepage The OBR’s magic pen trims forecast for job losses July 9, 2010 8:32am by Alex Barker | Share The Office of Budget Responsibility faces a big credibility test today. Chris Giles, the FT’s economics editor, has an agenda-setting story that raises doubts over its very purpose and independence. It is far more significant than any speculation over Sir Alan Budd’s departure. Through persistent questioning, Chris uncovered that the OBR tweaked its Budget forecasts at the last-minute to erase around 175,000 public sector job losses by 2014/15. The political result? David Cameron was able to claim in the Commons that his Budget would cost fewer job losses than if Labour had been in power. Cameron was comparing apples and pears. The OBR predicted that there would be only 30,000 extra public sector jobs lost over the next four years compared to if Labour was in power - 490,000 against 460,000 - despite the coalition’s much deeper spending cuts. This figure would have been vastly higher if the body hadn’t made these last-minute changes to its modelling. The reasons for the revisions are even more surprising than the end result. Without telling anyone about the changes, the OBR assumed that George Osborne would: 1) Cut state contributions for public sector pensions (an assumption that pre-empts the conclusions of John Hutton’s pension commission) 2) Put the brakes on promotions in the public sector (even though the chancellor has never announced such a policy) There are three possible explanations: the independent OBR is taking orders from the chancellor; practising economic telepathy; or inserting random policy into its forecasts. Meanwhile actual coalition policy announcements that would lower long term growth under the original OBR model — such a limiting net-migration to 1990s levels — were excluded. Hmm. What do you think the OBR is for? 2. The Tories set up the OBR to in their words: The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was formed in May 2010 to make an independent assessment of the public finances and the economy for each Budget and Pre-Budget Report. It is being chaired, on an interim basis, by respected fiscal and macroeconomic expert Sir Alan Budd. (Taken from HM Treasury) " I LOOK AT IT LIKE THIS: THE PUBLIC SECTOR IS GOING TO MAKE MASSIVE N I MEAN MASSIVE CUTBACKS IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS/WEEKS,,,WITH MORE YES MORE!! PEOPLE LOOSING THEIR FABULOUS JOBS!! ALL THANKS TO THE BLOODY CONSERVATIVES!! thanks dave. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But I do try to stay polite and balanced in what I say. " The statement you posted above is not reflected in ANY of your posts that either address me directly or answer any post I've made. You have called me 'foolish' countless number of times and have quite pointedly ignored points I've raised that prove Labour to have got things seriously wrong over the last 3 to 4 years they were in power. OBR is an independant body - who took it upon themselves to adjust the predictions for public sector job losses - and all Cameron has done is use those readjusted figures to paint his policies in a good light. Any politician would have done the same thing - and you can bet your bottom dollar that if the OBR had adjusted the figures up and not down Labour would have had a lot more to say about it other than "Oh look, here's the tories at it again!" If 175,000 jobs will not be lost because the OBR has found a way to save them then where is there fault to be found in saving someone's livelihood? You are so boviously anti-Tory that even WHEN they turn this country around and we're all prospering again you'll still claim it was as a result of previous Labour policy. You harp on about corrupt Tory governments from decades ago and I'd agree with you - they were, which is why we got rid of them. We got rid of Labour this time around - but it was because they were so arrogantly fucking inept. Read Mandelson's book - it's a very good insight into how much they were jostling for position rather than concentrating on giving us the best deal possible... plus they were all busy writing said books so they could cash in when the sanctimonious wankers were unceremoniously kicked out of office. Would I switch allegiance at some point in the future? Possibly. But Labour scare the fucking shit out of me and I'd only ever vote Tory or Liberal. Never Labour. I'd rather scrape my nuts over a cheesegrater then soak them in vinegar before voting that shower of shit back into power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But I do try to stay polite and balanced in what I say. The statement you posted above is not reflected in ANY of your posts that either address me directly or answer any post I've made. You have called me 'foolish' countless number of times and have quite pointedly ignored points I've raised that prove Labour to have got things seriously wrong over the last 3 to 4 years they were in power. OBR is an independant body - who took it upon themselves to adjust the predictions for public sector job losses - and all Cameron has done is use those readjusted figures to paint his policies in a good light. Any politician would have done the same thing - and you can bet your bottom dollar that if the OBR had adjusted the figures up and not down Labour would have had a lot more to say about it other than "Oh look, here's the tories at it again!" If 175,000 jobs will not be lost because the OBR has found a way to save them then where is there fault to be found in saving someone's livelihood? You are so boviously anti-Tory that even WHEN they turn this country around and we're all prospering again you'll still claim it was as a result of previous Labour policy. You harp on about corrupt Tory governments from decades ago and I'd agree with you - they were, which is why we got rid of them. We got rid of Labour this time around - but it was because they were so arrogantly fucking inept. Read Mandelson's book - it's a very good insight into how much they were jostling for position rather than concentrating on giving us the best deal possible... plus they were all busy writing said books so they could cash in when the sanctimonious wankers were unceremoniously kicked out of office. Would I switch allegiance at some point in the future? Possibly. But Labour scare the fucking shit out of me and I'd only ever vote Tory or Liberal. Never Labour. I'd rather scrape my nuts over a cheesegrater then soak them in vinegar before voting that shower of shit back into power." FINE!!! FINE I HEAR YA POINT!! ENOUGH SAID. I VOTE RAVING LOONY | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I LOOK AT IT LIKE THIS: THE PUBLIC SECTOR IS GOING TO MAKE MASSIVE N I MEAN MASSIVE CUTBACKS IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS/WEEKS,,,WITH MORE YES MORE!! PEOPLE LOOSING THEIR FABULOUS JOBS!! ALL THANKS TO THE BLOODY CONSERVATIVES!! thanks dave. "The point is though the public sector needs to make massive cuts in order for the country to survive. How many non-jobs are there in the public sector???????? I refuse to believe anybody that thinks Labour would not have to make heavy cuts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I LOOK AT IT LIKE THIS: THE PUBLIC SECTOR IS GOING TO MAKE MASSIVE N I MEAN MASSIVE CUTBACKS IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS/WEEKS,,,WITH MORE YES MORE!! PEOPLE LOOSING THEIR FABULOUS JOBS!! ALL THANKS TO THE BLOODY CONSERVATIVES!! thanks dave.
The point is though the public sector needs to make massive cuts in order for the country to survive.
How many non-jobs are there in the public sector????????
I refuse to believe anybody that thinks Labour would not have to make heavy cuts."Yeah here here,,well said! good 1.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I LOOK AT IT LIKE THIS: THE PUBLIC SECTOR IS GOING TO MAKE MASSIVE N I MEAN MASSIVE CUTBACKS IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS/WEEKS,,,WITH MORE YES MORE!! PEOPLE LOOSING THEIR FABULOUS JOBS!! ALL THANKS TO THE BLOODY CONSERVATIVES!! thanks dave.
The point is though the public sector needs to make massive cuts in order for the country to survive.
How many non-jobs are there in the public sector????????
I refuse to believe anybody that thinks Labour would not have to make heavy cuts.
Yeah here here,,well said! good 1.
"Are the doctors understanding?????? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I LOOK AT IT LIKE THIS: THE PUBLIC SECTOR IS GOING TO MAKE MASSIVE N I MEAN MASSIVE CUTBACKS IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS/WEEKS,,,WITH MORE YES MORE!! PEOPLE LOOSING THEIR FABULOUS JOBS!! ALL THANKS TO THE BLOODY CONSERVATIVES!! thanks dave.
The point is though the public sector needs to make massive cuts in order for the country to survive.
How many non-jobs are there in the public sector????????
I refuse to believe anybody that thinks Labour would not have to make heavy cuts.
Yeah here here,,well said! good 1.
Are the doctors understanding??????"Yeah sure are loud n clear!!! LOUD N CLEAR!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They must be to keep removing all the splinters from your arse. Now I dont mind having a good debate with anybody but when they don't have an opinion of their own and keep jumping on the passing bandwagon it does get very hard to do."
erm im stuck 4 answer,,lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"far too much money has been wasted by labour government in the public sector with all gilt edged pensions and al the trimmings which the man in the street,ie you the tax-payer have to sunsidise out of youtr taxes!,now is the time to trim all this back and do the cost reducuing exxercises,nobody likes it but it is neccessary. i am in construction and would never ever vote for a labour government as it always means the same waste of money!,when tories get into power straight after it is always the same with a cost cutting to make manageable again!,always been the same since i was a lad of 15 and just starting work. and it is just a fallacy that labour are for the workers,might have had a little substance in 1930s but that idea has long since been turned on it's head." Yeah another good point there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"far too much money has been wasted by labour government in the public sector with all gilt edged pensions and al the trimmings which the man in the street,ie you the tax-payer have to sunsidise out of youtr taxes!,now is the time to trim all this back and do the cost reducuing exxercises,nobody likes it but it is neccessary. i am in construction and would never ever vote for a labour government as it always means the same waste of money!,when tories get into power straight after it is always the same with a cost cutting to make manageable again!,always been the same since i was a lad of 15 and just starting work. and it is just a fallacy that labour are for the workers,might have had a little substance in 1930s but that idea has long since been turned on it's head. Yeah another good point there. "FFS make your mind up a few posts ago you were blaming everybody for not voting Labour, now you are agreeing with people who slag Labour off. I think you will find that people will probably think more of you for sticking on the one side and arguing your point constructively than agreeing with anybody and everybody. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"far too much money has been wasted by labour government in the public sector with all gilt edged pensions and al the trimmings which the man in the street,ie you the tax-payer have to sunsidise out of youtr taxes!,now is the time to trim all this back and do the cost reducuing exxercises,nobody likes it but it is neccessary. i am in construction and would never ever vote for a labour government as it always means the same waste of money!,when tories get into power straight after it is always the same with a cost cutting to make manageable again!,always been the same since i was a lad of 15 and just starting work. and it is just a fallacy that labour are for the workers,might have had a little substance in 1930s but that idea has long since been turned on it's head. Yeah another good point there.
FFS make your mind up a few posts ago you were blaming everybody for not voting Labour, now you are agreeing with people who slag Labour off.
I think you will find that people will probably think more of you for sticking on the one side and arguing your point constructively than agreeing with anybody and everybody. "Ok here goes----i tell u now---if i say this i say it was u that told me to do this-lol: Im a labour party supporter through n through n that will never change!! are u happy now ? lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"far too much money has been wasted by labour government in the public sector with all gilt edged pensions and al the trimmings which the man in the street,ie you the tax-payer have to sunsidise out of youtr taxes!,now is the time to trim all this back and do the cost reducuing exxercises,nobody likes it but it is neccessary. i am in construction and would never ever vote for a labour government as it always means the same waste of money!,when tories get into power straight after it is always the same with a cost cutting to make manageable again!,always been the same since i was a lad of 15 and just starting work. and it is just a fallacy that labour are for the workers,might have had a little substance in 1930s but that idea has long since been turned on it's head." Considering the Tories have just announced a block on all new school construction, just about all new road construction, almost all new housing construction that includes public grants, all hospital construction,....how do you square being a construction worker and always voting Tory? The Federation of Master Builders State of Trade Survey recently predicted a third of building firms will be making sweeping job cuts amongst their workforce by the end of the year. The FMB estimation is 200,000 construction jobs to go by the end of 2010.....but as a construction worker you only vote Tory? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"far too much money has been wasted by labour government in the public sector with all gilt edged pensions and al the trimmings which the man in the street,ie you the tax-payer have to sunsidise out of youtr taxes!,now is the time to trim all this back and do the cost reducuing exxercises,nobody likes it but it is neccessary. i am in construction and would never ever vote for a labour government as it always means the same waste of money!,when tories get into power straight after it is always the same with a cost cutting to make manageable again!,always been the same since i was a lad of 15 and just starting work. and it is just a fallacy that labour are for the workers,might have had a little substance in 1930s but that idea has long since been turned on it's head. Yeah another good point there.
FFS make your mind up a few posts ago you were blaming everybody for not voting Labour, now you are agreeing with people who slag Labour off.
I think you will find that people will probably think more of you for sticking on the one side and arguing your point constructively than agreeing with anybody and everybody.
Ok here goes----i tell u now---if i say this i say it was u that told me to do this-lol:
Im a labour party supporter through n through n that will never change!!
are u happy now ? lol "What political party you support doesn't matter. Some will agree with your choice others won't. Stick to the one side instead of jumping on everybodys bandwagon. Thats all people ask, then hopefully this well debated thread can continue in the well argued manner that it has so far. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"far too much money has been wasted by labour government in the public sector with all gilt edged pensions and al the trimmings which the man in the street,ie you the tax-payer have to sunsidise out of youtr taxes!,now is the time to trim all this back and do the cost reducuing exxercises,nobody likes it but it is neccessary. i am in construction and would never ever vote for a labour government as it always means the same waste of money!,when tories get into power straight after it is always the same with a cost cutting to make manageable again!,always been the same since i was a lad of 15 and just starting work. and it is just a fallacy that labour are for the workers,might have had a little substance in 1930s but that idea has long since been turned on it's head. Yeah another good point there.
FFS make your mind up a few posts ago you were blaming everybody for not voting Labour, now you are agreeing with people who slag Labour off.
I think you will find that people will probably think more of you for sticking on the one side and arguing your point constructively than agreeing with anybody and everybody.
Ok here goes----i tell u now---if i say this i say it was u that told me to do this-lol:
Im a labour party supporter through n through n that will never change!!
are u happy now ? lol
What political party you support doesn't matter. Some will agree with your choice others won't.
Stick to the one side instead of jumping on everybodys bandwagon. Thats all people ask, then hopefully this well debated thread can continue in the well argued manner that it has so far."Ok cool ,,,nice1 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"far too much money has been wasted by labour government in the public sector with all gilt edged pensions and al the trimmings which the man in the street,ie you the tax-payer have to sunsidise out of youtr taxes!,now is the time to trim all this back and do the cost reducuing exxercises,nobody likes it but it is neccessary. i am in construction and would never ever vote for a labour government as it always means the same waste of money!,when tories get into power straight after it is always the same with a cost cutting to make manageable again!,always been the same since i was a lad of 15 and just starting work. and it is just a fallacy that labour are for the workers,might have had a little substance in 1930s but that idea has long since been turned on it's head. Yeah another good point there.
FFS make your mind up a few posts ago you were blaming everybody for not voting Labour, now you are agreeing with people who slag Labour off.
I think you will find that people will probably think more of you for sticking on the one side and arguing your point constructively than agreeing with anybody and everybody. "Why are you bothering?!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's pointless, we have a goldfish problem here.....he will forget that within three or four minutes and resume." as long as that, its improving, ok, wheres my frying pan | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
As a trade unionist Ive witnessed the job cuts under Labour government, around 140,000 civil service jobs alone over the past few years, and they intended to cut many more. As many as the Tories?!! Who could say, but drastic cuts need to be made to get us out of the current deficit, or so the arguement goes.
Is making more people unemployed, adding to the increase in all types of benefits etc the best way forward? I don't think so.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It always amuses me when people talk about the "gilt edge pensions" paid for by the tax payer: I didn't realise public sector workers didn't pay tax!!!
As a trade unionist Ive witnessed the job cuts under Labour government, around 140,000 civil service jobs alone over the past few years, and they intended to cut many more. As many as the Tories?!! Who could say, but drastic cuts need to be made to get us out of the current deficit, or so the arguement goes.
Is making more people unemployed, adding to the increase in all types of benefits etc the best way forward? I don't think so.
"To a point I agree making people unemployed is not the right way forward, but nor are all the jobs in the public sector. Now I'm sure remember seeing a couple of years ago a report that said for every nurse in a hospital there were 2 or 3 managers who basically weren't needed, lets be honest thats not the right way forward either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It always amuses me when people talk about the "gilt edge pensions" paid for by the tax payer: I didn't realise public sector workers didn't pay tax!!!
As a trade unionist Ive witnessed the job cuts under Labour government, around 140,000 civil service jobs alone over the past few years, and they intended to cut many more. As many as the Tories?!! Who could say, but drastic cuts need to be made to get us out of the current deficit, or so the arguement goes.
Is making more people unemployed, adding to the increase in all types of benefits etc the best way forward? I don't think so.
To a point I agree making people unemployed is not the right way forward, but nor are all the jobs in the public sector.
Now I'm sure remember seeing a couple of years ago a report that said for every nurse in a hospital there were 2 or 3 managers who basically weren't needed, lets be honest thats not the right way forward either."That (Tory) claim was proved by the Royal College of Nursing to be totally false.....It was just tabloid trash | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's pointless, we have a goldfish problem here.....he will forget that within three or four minutes and resume. as long as that, its improving, ok, wheres my frying pan "Next to ya Seashells!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It always amuses me when people talk about the "gilt edge pensions" paid for by the tax payer: I didn't realise public sector workers didn't pay tax!!!
As a trade unionist Ive witnessed the job cuts under Labour government, around 140,000 civil service jobs alone over the past few years, and they intended to cut many more. As many as the Tories?!! Who could say, but drastic cuts need to be made to get us out of the current deficit, or so the arguement goes.
Is making more people unemployed, adding to the increase in all types of benefits etc the best way forward? I don't think so.
To a point I agree making people unemployed is not the right way forward, but nor are all the jobs in the public sector.
Now I'm sure remember seeing a couple of years ago a report that said for every nurse in a hospital there were 2 or 3 managers who basically weren't needed, lets be honest thats not the right way forward either.
That (Tory) claim was proved by the Royal College of Nursing to be totally false.....It was just tabloid trash"OK didn't realise that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It always amuses me when people talk about the "gilt edge pensions" paid for by the tax payer: I didn't realise public sector workers didn't pay tax!!!
As a trade unionist Ive witnessed the job cuts under Labour government, around 140,000 civil service jobs alone over the past few years, and they intended to cut many more. As many as the Tories?!! Who could say, but drastic cuts need to be made to get us out of the current deficit, or so the arguement goes.
Is making more people unemployed, adding to the increase in all types of benefits etc the best way forward? I don't think so.
To a point I agree making people unemployed is not the right way forward, but nor are all the jobs in the public sector.
Now I'm sure remember seeing a couple of years ago a report that said for every nurse in a hospital there were 2 or 3 managers who basically weren't needed, lets be honest thats not the right way forward either.
That (Tory) claim was proved by the Royal College of Nursing to be totally false.....It was just tabloid trash
OK didn't realise that."Me neither! lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparantly the figure that the Shadow Minister for Health at the time was quoting included all non nursing staff.... this included Doctors, Surgeons, Auxilery nursing staff, Pharmacy Staff, and Theatre Staff. Clerical Staff and Managers within hospitals in England and Wales account for around 32% of all hospital Staff according to the RCN. The opposition party of the time was also counting Primary Health Care administration staff, Doctors Surgery administration staff, and Regional Health Authority administration staff in their sums.... The thing is the NHS just won't cope without having Administration departments working within it, I am sure there are many management positions that will face the axe....but the Tories are more likely to privatise these positions rather than axe them. So less managers paid for out of the NHS budget....but more quangos receiving public funds." Possibly but if privatisation kicked in would that possibly mean less money been spent than now??????? Not sure how they work tbh. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Notts, don't come into the thread to deliberatley annoy people. " Ok i wont,,,just putting my fair n square views out...sorry again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparantly the figure that the Shadow Minister for Health at the time was quoting included all non nursing staff.... this included Doctors, Surgeons, Auxilery nursing staff, Pharmacy Staff, and Theatre Staff. Clerical Staff and Managers within hospitals in England and Wales account for around 32% of all hospital Staff according to the RCN. The opposition party of the time was also counting Primary Health Care administration staff, Doctors Surgery administration staff, and Regional Health Authority administration staff in their sums.... The thing is the NHS just won't cope without having Administration departments working within it, I am sure there are many management positions that will face the axe....but the Tories are more likely to privatise these positions rather than axe them. So less managers paid for out of the NHS budget....but more quangos receiving public funds. Possibly but if privatisation kicked in would that possibly mean less money been spent than now??????? Not sure how they work tbh." Well the PFI's that Labour entered into for the building of NHS hospitals, then leased back to the NHS just hasn't worked out. They also tried the same Private Finance to build 'Lease Back' flagship schools and that too has proved troublesome as the headmasters rarely get the building they wanted. Short term having private investment in the building of hospitals is good financial sense, but after the first decade the real cost kicks in and the future costs of leasing these hospitals looks like a really bad deal for the NHS. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparantly the figure that the Shadow Minister for Health at the time was quoting included all non nursing staff.... this included Doctors, Surgeons, Auxilery nursing staff, Pharmacy Staff, and Theatre Staff. Clerical Staff and Managers within hospitals in England and Wales account for around 32% of all hospital Staff according to the RCN. The opposition party of the time was also counting Primary Health Care administration staff, Doctors Surgery administration staff, and Regional Health Authority administration staff in their sums.... The thing is the NHS just won't cope without having Administration departments working within it, I am sure there are many management positions that will face the axe....but the Tories are more likely to privatise these positions rather than axe them. So less managers paid for out of the NHS budget....but more quangos receiving public funds. Possibly but if privatisation kicked in would that possibly mean less money been spent than now??????? Not sure how they work tbh. Well the PFI's that Labour entered into for the building of NHS hospitals, then leased back to the NHS just hasn't worked out. They also tried the same Private Finance to build 'Lease Back' flagship schools and that too has proved troublesome as the headmasters rarely get the building they wanted. Short term having private investment in the building of hospitals is good financial sense, but after the first decade the real cost kicks in and the future costs of leasing these hospitals looks like a really bad deal for the NHS." It sure does NHS are bloody good in wot they do! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Again I am sure that Wishy will say that there is no proof that this will happen.
4/ The comment about New Labour not being for the worker is in my view true, however compared to the ultra right wing anti all but the super rich Tories it is Utopian in its outlook. The real shame is that the majority of the British people seem to be blind to exactly how fascist our country has become. Fact is we have come by degrees to live in a police state, and shortly we will either have starving homeless on all our streets or slave Labour camps (although they will not be called that) for those made destitute by this present lot of Tory thieves. Not sure how Wishy will deny what I have said here, maybe he will just deny it.
Finally Wishy said "If 175,000 jobs will not be lost because the OBR has found a way to save them then where is there fault to be found in saving someone's livelihood?"
One question for Wishy, how does reducing the civil service input figures till you get the result you want save jobs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just a few points I would like to clear up. 1/ spending money on public works (hospitals, schools, roads and the like) stimulates the private sector and creates private sector jobs. that is of course provided contracts are given to UK companies. Conversely cutting investment in the public sector has the opposite effect on the private sector. this same rule applies to the armed forces too. that is why a Siege economy is so strong. If you want a perfect example of a modern siege economy look at china. Of course we will not use this method to sort out our economic problems because it leads to a surfeit of jobs and then workers can demand better pay and conditions which cuts the profits of the super rich (they are the ones who own the Tory politicians). 2/ The ridiculous increase in management and admin in the NHS is another legacy of the last Tory government. By making trusts and having them compete in an internal market with private companies also being able to bid for work, they added layers of management and ensured that where one regional department had been able to manage each medical specialty we now have a system where each trust has to have its own set of bean counters. Of course Wishy will say thats not true and even if it was its in the past and its all down to my fixation on Thatcher! 3/ The first thing the Tories did on gaining power is to effectively introduce the same system to our education system. I just wonder how that will develop over the years, Oh I know, just like the NHS
Again I am sure that Wishy will say that there is no proof that this will happen.
4/ The comment about New Labour not being for the worker is in my view true, however compared to the ultra right wing anti all but the super rich Tories it is Utopian in its outlook. The real shame is that the majority of the British people seem to be blind to exactly how fascist our country has become. Fact is we have come by degrees to live in a police state, and shortly we will either have starving homeless on all our streets or slave Labour camps (although they will not be called that) for those made destitute by this present lot of Tory thieves. Not sure how Wishy will deny what I have said here, maybe he will just deny it.
Finally Wishy said "If 175,000 jobs will not be lost because the OBR has found a way to save them then where is there fault to be found in saving someone's livelihood?"
One question for Wishy, how does reducing the civil service input figures till you get the result you want save jobs?"Blimey my computer nearly died reading all that,,but hey ho,,i dont know,,just dont know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you keep spending money you don't have you are asking for trouble, that is what the tories now have to do get us out of the trouble labour put us in" Otherway round u mean!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well the PFI's that Labour entered into for the building of NHS hospitals, then leased back to the NHS just hasn't worked out. They also tried the same Private Finance to build 'Lease Back' flagship schools and that too has proved troublesome as the headmasters rarely get the building they wanted. Short term having private investment in the building of hospitals is good financial sense, but after the first decade the real cost kicks in and the future costs of leasing these hospitals looks like a really bad deal for the NHS." PFI's were introduced by the Tories in the early 90's and by the time they were kicked out we were stuck with them. in the same way as we were stuck with hospital trusts and will be stuck with school trusts this time round. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparantly the figure that the Shadow Minister for Health at the time was quoting included all non nursing staff.... this included Doctors, Surgeons, Auxilery nursing staff, Pharmacy Staff, and Theatre Staff. Clerical Staff and Managers within hospitals in England and Wales account for around 32% of all hospital Staff according to the RCN. The opposition party of the time was also counting Primary Health Care administration staff, Doctors Surgery administration staff, and Regional Health Authority administration staff in their sums.... The thing is the NHS just won't cope without having Administration departments working within it, I am sure there are many management positions that will face the axe....but the Tories are more likely to privatise these positions rather than axe them. So less managers paid for out of the NHS budget....but more quangos receiving public funds. Possibly but if privatisation kicked in would that possibly mean less money been spent than now??????? Not sure how they work tbh. Well the PFI's that Labour entered into for the building of NHS hospitals, then leased back to the NHS just hasn't worked out. They also tried the same Private Finance to build 'Lease Back' flagship schools and that too has proved troublesome as the headmasters rarely get the building they wanted. Short term having private investment in the building of hospitals is good financial sense, but after the first decade the real cost kicks in and the future costs of leasing these hospitals looks like a really bad deal for the NHS. It sure does NHS are bloody good in wot they do! "I know this will come as a shock but you are correct the NHS are bloody good, at least the frontline staff are, the problem is it is run so inefficient that it starts to become as good as an ashtray on a motorbike. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparantly the figure that the Shadow Minister for Health at the time was quoting included all non nursing staff.... this included Doctors, Surgeons, Auxilery nursing staff, Pharmacy Staff, and Theatre Staff. Clerical Staff and Managers within hospitals in England and Wales account for around 32% of all hospital Staff according to the RCN. The opposition party of the time was also counting Primary Health Care administration staff, Doctors Surgery administration staff, and Regional Health Authority administration staff in their sums.... The thing is the NHS just won't cope without having Administration departments working within it, I am sure there are many management positions that will face the axe....but the Tories are more likely to privatise these positions rather than axe them. So less managers paid for out of the NHS budget....but more quangos receiving public funds. Possibly but if privatisation kicked in would that possibly mean less money been spent than now??????? Not sure how they work tbh. Well the PFI's that Labour entered into for the building of NHS hospitals, then leased back to the NHS just hasn't worked out. They also tried the same Private Finance to build 'Lease Back' flagship schools and that too has proved troublesome as the headmasters rarely get the building they wanted. Short term having private investment in the building of hospitals is good financial sense, but after the first decade the real cost kicks in and the future costs of leasing these hospitals looks like a really bad deal for the NHS. It sure does NHS are bloody good in wot they do!
I know this will come as a shock but you are correct the NHS are bloody good, at least the frontline staff are, the problem is it is run so inefficient that it starts to become as good as an ashtray on a motorbike."Very good point my good lad!!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well the PFI's that Labour entered into for the building of NHS hospitals, then leased back to the NHS just hasn't worked out. They also tried the same Private Finance to build 'Lease Back' flagship schools and that too has proved troublesome as the headmasters rarely get the building they wanted. Short term having private investment in the building of hospitals is good financial sense, but after the first decade the real cost kicks in and the future costs of leasing these hospitals looks like a really bad deal for the NHS. PFI's were introduced by the Tories in the early 90's and by the time they were kicked out we were stuck with them. in the same way as we were stuck with hospital trusts and will be stuck with school trusts this time round." Sorry but you are wrong, the first NHS hospital to be built in England under a Private Finance Initiative scheme was the Cumberland Infirmary in Carlisle, this was commisioned in 1998 and completed in June 2000. Since then there have been 118 PFI hospital/clinic projects opened in England and Wales. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" PFI's were introduced by the Tories in the early 90's and by the time they were kicked out we were stuck with them. in the same way as we were stuck with hospital trusts and will be stuck with school trusts this time round. Sorry but you are wrong, the first NHS hospital to be built in England under a Private Finance Initiative scheme was the Cumberland Infirmary in Carlisle, this was commisioned in 1998 and completed in June 2000. Since then there have been 118 PFI hospital/clinic projects opened in England and Wales." I am sure you are correct about the dates, but I think you will find if you dig a little deeper that the original PPP/PFI tendering process started a lot earlier and that by the time of the 97 election that the costs of canceling the PFI projects that were in the pipeline were so high that it was decided that the country could not afford to pull out of them. Now we find ourselves in a position that the rent on the private buildings used for public services is so high we cannot afford to build our own so PFI is in my view with us until someone grows some real balls and deals with the profiteers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you keep spending money you don't have you are asking for trouble, that is what the tories now have to do get us out of the trouble labour put us in Otherway round u mean!! "it's always been the same with labour when they get in power,trying to curry favour with the voters by big promises and big cheques!,but when these cheques are presented for paymemt and the pot is empty,who pays?,we do of course by losing jobs in the inevitable cutbacks which is exactly what is happening now. ed (loader)balls promised billions of pounds for these school projects that he just did not have!,the pot was empty from 13 years of blair/brown mismanagement and a worldwide reccession!,now he tries to stir it up in parliament as his opposite number has to clear his mess up!,blair/brown & balls are like little doggies,someone has to follow on behind them to clean up the crap. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Notts, don't come into the thread to deliberatley annoy people. " I repeat. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"just a few points I would like to clear up. 1/ spending money on public works (hospitals, schools, roads and the like) stimulates the private sector and creates private sector jobs. that is of course provided contracts are given to UK companies. Conversely cutting investment in the public sector has the opposite effect on the private sector. this same rule applies to the armed forces too. that is why a Siege economy is so strong. If you want a perfect example of a modern siege economy look at china. Of course we will not use this method to sort out our economic problems because it leads to a surfeit of jobs and then workers can demand better pay and conditions which cuts the profits of the super rich (they are the ones who own the Tory politicians)." A siege economy is all well and good in principal but China has a population of 1.3bn and if it didn't pursue such a drastic plan of action it would soon find itself entrenched in another revolution. We don't have anywhere near that number of people and unemployment in this country is still only 2.5m - a mere 4% of our total population. There are enough people wroking and paying tax to sustain our fragile economy as long as the currect peasures are taken now - and a siege economy should be our last resort. Cutting unneccessary expenditure should be the first measure to take and cutting out waste should go hand in hand with that. If it is then discovered that further measures are needed then there are other areas to look at before blanket austerity measures are required. Simply creating jobs that aren't there is a false economy because sooner or later these 'ghost' employees will be made redundant which means redundancy payments, increased unemployment figures and additional burden on the state for support. Plus, not all of these 'ghost' workers will be in low paid jobs, some wiull be in higher management with nice fat public pensions that Joe Public has to foot the bill for. " 2/ The ridiculous increase in management and admin in the NHS is another legacy of the last Tory government. By making trusts and having them compete in an internal market with private companies also being able to bid for work, they added layers of management and ensured that where one regional department had been able to manage each medical specialty we now have a system where each trust has to have its own set of bean counters. Of course Wishy will say thats not true and even if it was its in the past and its all down to my fixation on Thatcher! " I would very much appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth, I am quite capable of speaking my own mind. Your arguments are always weighted and never impartial - nor abject, as you stated earlier on this thread. " 3/ The first thing the Tories did on gaining power is to effectively introduce the same system to our education system. I just wonder how that will develop over the years, Oh I know, just like the NHS
Again I am sure that Wishy will say that there is no proof that this will happen."Ditto to my above comment. " 4/ The comment about New Labour not being for the worker is in my view true, however compared to the ultra right wing anti all but the super rich Tories it is Utopian in its outlook." Millions of British voters would disagree with you there. And we're not all super-rich. The coalition has already begun demonstrating to the general public, who placed their trust in them, that their trust was not misplaced. The rich are being hit just as hard as the poor, although I concede that the poor feel it more keenly. " The real shame is that the majority of the British people seem to be blind to exactly how fascist our country has become. Fact is we have come by degrees to live in a police state, and shortly we will either have starving homeless on all our streets or slave Labour camps (although they will not be called that) for those made destitute by this present lot of Tory thieves. Not sure how Wishy will deny what I have said here, maybe he will just deny it." You really have lost the plot if you seriously believe the things you've stated above. If you had any credence as a political commentator before then I'm afraid you've just lost it and are up there on the same platform as David Icke! " Finally Wishy said "If 175,000 jobs will not be lost because the OBR has found a way to save them then where is there fault to be found in saving someone's livelihood?" One question for Wishy, how does reducing the civil service input figures till you get the result you want save jobs?" I'll tell you what. Why don't you post a link to the OBR detailed research into how they came up with the reduced forecast? Let's see what kind of spin you are putting on this issue or if you are simply clutching at straws for any argument that proves your idealogy that the Tories are sitting in Whitehall doing nothing else but plotting how they can come round your house and strip you of everything you own. How about it eh? Let's have some quantifiable FACTS. ...And again, please don't put words into my mouth. A non-partisan argument would be much more preferable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will said just a few points I would like to clear up. 1/ spending money on public works (hospitals, schools, roads and the like) stimulates the private sector and creates private sector jobs. that is of course provided contracts are given to UK companies. Conversely cutting investment in the public sector has the opposite effect on the private sector. this same rule applies to the armed forces too. that is why a Siege economy is so strong. If you want a perfect example of a modern siege economy look at china. Of course we will not use this method to sort out our economic problems because it leads to a surfeit of jobs and then workers can demand better pay and conditions which cuts the profits of the super rich (they are the ones who own the Tory politicians)." Wishy said A siege economy is all well and good in principal but China has a population of 1.3bn and if it didn't pursue such a drastic plan of action it would soon find itself entrenched in another revolution. We don't have anywhere near that number of people and unemployment in this country is still only 2.5m - a mere 4% of our total population. There are enough people working and paying tax to sustain our fragile economy as long as the currect peasures are taken now - and a siege economy should be our last resort. Cutting unneccessary expenditure should be the first measure to take and cutting out waste should go hand in hand with that. If it is then discovered that further measures are needed then there are other areas to look at before blanket austerity measures are required. Simply creating jobs that aren't there is a false economy because sooner or later these 'ghost' employees will be made redundant which means redundancy payments, increased unemployment figures and additional burden on the state for support. Plus, not all of these 'ghost' workers will be in low paid jobs, some wiull be in higher management with nice fat public pensions that Joe Public has to foot the bill for." Well I am glad that you at least accept that a siege economy is good in principle, however the fact that they have a 1.3 bl population as against ours of something round 62m has nothing to do with the economic model. However that you would go on to claim that using a siege economy to get this country working again would be creating jobs that just are not there beggars belief. Our infrastructure is falling apart as can be seen in the state of our roads, railways, schools and hospitals. Most of our drainage sewerage and water systems are still based on Victorian public works and are in need of modernisation. We have a chronic shortage of social housing and you just like any good little Tory would rather cut government spending and jobs rather than investing in the countries future. Then you claim that ONLY 4% of the population is unemployed, while according to the Office of national statistics between Feb and Apr (last published figures) 8% of the working age population was unemployed, but only 72% of the working age population was working! So I guess that the 20% gap is taken up with hidden unemployed. Not quite so rosy now is it Wishy? "Will said 2/ The ridiculous increase in management and admin in the NHS is another legacy of the last Tory government. By making trusts and having them compete in an internal market with private companies also being able to bid for work, they added layers of management and ensured that where one regional department had been able to manage each medical specialty we now have a system where each trust has to have its own set of bean counters. Of course Wishy will say thats not true and even if it was its in the past and its all down to my fixation on Thatcher! Wishy said I would very much appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth, I am quite capable of speaking my own mind. Your arguments are always weighted and never impartial - nor abject, as you stated earlier on this thread." Ah so now you object to me stripping you of your normal mantra when I place the blame for our current woes with the Tories who planned them, instead of that you accuse me of not being impartial or I think you meant objective, while at the same time ignoring my point that the Tory inspired system is by its nature the cause of most of the extra and unnecessary admin and management that they now complain about. "Will said 3/ The first thing the Tories did on gaining power is to effectively introduce the same system to our education system. I just wonder how that will develop over the years, Oh I know, just like the NHS Again I am sure that Wishy will say that there is no proof that this will happen." Wisht said Ditto to my above comment." Your failure to even address my point speaks volumes. "Will said 4/ The comment about New Labour not being for the worker is in my view true, however compared to the ultra right wing anti all but the super rich Tories it is Utopian in its outlook." Wishy said Millions of British voters would disagree with you there. And we're not all super-rich. The coalition has already begun demonstrating to the general public, who placed their trust in them, that their trust was not misplaced. The rich are being hit just as hard as the poor, although I concede that the poor feel it more keenly." In my opinion you are just one of those gullible people who have swallowed the propaganda of the super rich and their mouthpieces. I know you are not one of the super rich Wishy, but I will say again I believe that you are in one of the most unlucky groups in society because when the Tories strip you of what you have, you will have further to fall than most. "Will said The real shame is that the majority of the British people seem to be blind to exactly how fascist our country has become. Fact is we have come by degrees to live in a police state, and shortly we will either have starving homeless on all our streets or slave Labour camps (although they will not be called that) for those made destitute by this present lot of Tory thieves. Not sure how Wishy will deny what I have said here, maybe he will just deny it." Wishy said You really have lost the plot if you seriously believe the things you've stated above. If you had any credence as a political commentator before then I'm afraid you've just lost it and are up there on the same platform as David Icke! " I truly hope your correct here Wishy, however I don’t think I am and I do believe that by the time we all wake up to what has been done to us it will be too late to do anything about it. "Will said Finally Wishy said "If 175,000 jobs will not be lost because the OBR has found a way to save them then where is there fault to be found in saving someone's livelihood?" One question for Wishy, how does reducing the civil service input figures till you get the result you want save jobs?" Wishy said I'll tell you what. Why don't you post a link to the OBR detailed research into how they came up with the reduced forecast? Let's see what kind of spin you are putting on this issue or if you are simply clutching at straws for any argument that proves your idealogy that the Tories are sitting in Whitehall doing nothing else but plotting how they can come round your house and strip you of everything you own. How about it eh? Let's have some quantifiable FACTS. ...And again, please don't put words into my mouth. A non-partisan argument would be much more preferable" I have already posted the FT article including the date it was published and the journalists’ name, if you wanted to check what I have said you could. Instead of that you dismiss what I say by claiming that you need facts. Maybe you need to open your eyes and see what is being done already! Also remember that as I have said before there was no need to have the OBR falsify the figures or for Cameron to mislead parliament, BUT THEY AND HE DID! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have already posted the FT article including the date it was published and the journalists’ name, if you wanted to check what I have said you could. Instead of that you dismiss what I say by claiming that you need facts. Maybe you need to open your eyes and see what is being done already! Also remember that as I have said before there was no need to have the OBR falsify the figures or for Cameron to mislead parliament, BUT THEY AND HE DID! " Ah, so I'm gullible as well as a fool now huh? And this is your impartial opinion, is it? " There are three possible explanations: the independent OBR is taking orders from the chancellor; practising economic telepathy; or inserting random policy into its forecasts. " Do you have concrete evidence that the OBR is taking order from Osbourne, or is this yet another example of you seeing something and offering your uninformed stance on it? You can't argue along the lines of 'well its obvious' as that also is an assumption. But... as you either cannot, or will not, refrain from insulting me instead of debating like a reasonable adult I shall no longer be posting anything in response to you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That's an interesting look at the problem PD and it makes me wonder just how much worse off than us are some of the other European countries that have called for austerity measures already. I totally get the analogy of mowing a new lawn etc and I agree with it but as with all lawns, if they aren't mowed sooner rather than later then s settle in very quickly and before you know it you've got a mess again. Part of banking is about taking risks, its what speculators do in the hope of making huge gains for their clients (usually pension funds that you and I rely on for a nice comfortable future) and I have no problems with the best financial whizzkids being paid a fortune if they get things right and maximise my profits so that I too can have a comfortable retirement. I do take grievance against those who take huge risks and fail though. The govt need to enforce very strict regulations for the financial sector but still allow those who perform the best to receive generous bonuses. Heading off another banking-led crisis whilst cutting back on waste/red tape, unneccessary mid-level management in the public sector AND raising taxes seems to be a positive step in the right direction to me. If we can get through this recession using those measures and come out of it with a much reduced national debt then it figures that at around the same time (ie 5 years from now) the banks will be ready to take control of themselves once again and pay back that 200bn to the public coffers. I don't think Osbourne and Cameron are getting it wrong - sure they're inexperienced at top level government - but they're not stupid people either and quite capable of adapting from Opposition to Government without making too many mistakes along the way. Although, as demonstrated by the previous government, that cannot be guaranteed." To me wishy its not whether we pay back part of our debt to bring it back to normal levels (about 4% of gdp they reckon). For me its the timing and length of time to claw back the debt the tory -lib coallition have every right to cut where they want as the Govt of the day ,but why not spread it over 20 years ringfence a identifiable tax designed to clear it,instead of all these smoke and mirror figures that seem to be bandied about by anyone with a title. The truth of it is the uk has been spending beyond its means since the 80's ...The banks have thrown none existant money at us, in some utopian land of milk and honey. No govt has had the bottle to tackle the pension debacle as its seen as electoral suicide ,and meanwhile we still have this archaic hands off approach to income tax ,i mean compared to stealth taxes and vat the old income tax is the fairest scheme you earn more you pay more . I think the massive quantitive easing by push button injection of cash into the banks,hoping for a trickle down effect, was exactly the trickle down wealth policy of the 80s ,except it did not work instead we got trickle up poverty. Why didnt they help the poor with it,the cash would certainly have hit society as poor people do not save, they have no choice but to spend . Personally I think there will be major civil unrest in society when these cuts kick in and unemployment returns to 3.5 million. So the question for the Dave and Nick show , why not spread it over 20 years and give the people and small business at least a fighting chance of financial survival. And Trident tell em to stuff it and save the money ,I mean its not as if anyone sees em is it ,cant we pretend we have them and do a bluff like we did with the Hydrogen bomb ..pmsl | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Don't quite understand this post, unless your a member of the Labour party trying to make them look better. ALL politicians are liars, cheats, thieves and not to be trusted, every government massages figures, cheats on expenses, introduces laws that benefit themselves. We are British it is our natural born right to be ripped off by politicians it is a right passed down to us for centuries. Houses of parliament 7 licensed bars all of which allow smoking because that building is exempt the law Television licence, MPs are exempt Road Tax MPs are exempt" Plus under the stricter expenses regime the poor darlings are only able to claim £30K per year, plus £86 per day for meals Now forgive me here, have they not heard of Greggs, at a time when your cutting benefits does this really show your in touch with reality | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No govt has had the bottle to tackle the pension debacle as its seen as electoral suicide" The basic problem with pensions is that dear Gordon taxed pension funds in his first budget, removing your hard earned cash year by year. The we changed the rules to invest a higher percentage in gov guilts, thereby preventing funds being able to harness the recovery in the markets. Add it all together and the perfect strom to ruin your future, unless of course your an MP
The speed of the cuts is rediculous and only aimed at the ultimate gamble to get a second term, hence the importance of a five year period. So who do we vote for next time? Anyone want to start a swinging independace party | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"sleazy politicians as per, leapards dont change their spots,english goverments and the rich hav been robbing this country since time began and asual make the poor pay for there expenses and blame the poor for costs and debt well lets start with the banks why didnt the goverment set up a grant for people and business,s in bebt to help them pay it of, if not all but most of it, it could of been set up so the money went straight to the banks lenders etc etc so we got help finacially the banks got there debts back helping them finacially so giving the econamy a boost and spending, thus the goverment would collect the money of us at a rate that benifits us and they dont lose so they wouldnt of to hav borrowed as much and freed money up to invest make jobs business,s build schools hospitals roads, like america did oh so many yrs ago do these people not learn from history pffffttttt " The rich blah blah blah... rob... blah blah blah ... poor blah blah blah ... sheesh, how many more times do we have to listen to this inane nonsense? Here's a novel idea. Try reading up on the history of British politics and see if you can determine where we transferred from a fuedal-type system where Lords ruled for the benefit of the Lords, to a democratic system led by the people, for the people. Interspersed in there somewhere are a fair few individuals who have benefited from whoever has been in power at the time. These are commonly known as "clever fuckers" and yes, conversely, there are people who couldn't succeed any more than a budgie born with no beak, these are commonly known as "stupid twats" and couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. Probably 1/3 of us are sitting with a foot in both camps up there in middle management land, we're not rich, but we're not on the poverty line either - and that's all down to getting a decent education which leads to a decent job and good standard of living. We all had that chance at school, some took it, some didn't, and who's fault is that? It's not mine and it's not the government's, the fault lies with themselves and their parents. Period. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"btw, the Tories introduced VAT and the Labour party promised to scrap it, now the coalition wants to raise it, but then it was introduced as a LUXURY tax for items considered to be a luxury and it still is that, because for some of us, hot food, clothing and sanitary towels are a luxury these days." You will have to point out to me where the Labour government, any Labour government, promised to scrap VAT...... VAT was introduced at a time that the UK was going through a massive re-investment in the nation. Much of the revenue from the first few years of VAT was ploughed into the NHS at a time that investment was badly needed. France led the way in 1954 with the introduction of VAT, the revenue it earnt allowed the French to build much of their road and rail network without the need for private investment. Britain saw this and followed suit, VAT is the singular most practical way to raise revenue fast.....the recent increase was done just for that reason, to speedily fill the coffers of the treasury. It is what the government of the day does with this added revenue that counts, if it is to relieve pressure of national debt then it may be forgiven....however if at a later date that VAT rise is used to give tax breaks to the wealthy...then it may well backfire, we will have to see. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
they never have my vote!!
not now not ever n never have voted tory!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"not now not ever n never have voted " Was making a cross too tricky? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"not now not ever n never have voted Was making a cross too tricky? "Yes very tricky! indeed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
