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 |
"Anybody got any other ideas we can pass on to David Cameron? " Mine's unprintable.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What you have to play snooker to get in now?" Its getting like an elite club apparently. If your name's not on the list your not getting in.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop the people walking out of jobs because of high absenteeism, unacceptable performance & conduct. "That sounds like most of our management, they only show up to take the credit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I had my supervision today I have been told that I am doing some impressive work... "You will be getting your staff survey next week then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop the people walking out of jobs because of high absenteeism, unacceptable performance & conduct.
That sounds like most of our management, they only show up to take the credit."huh you think that's bad, ours only show up to take the biscuits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I had my supervision today I have been told that I am doing some impressive work...
You will be getting your staff survey next week then. "had it already... | |||
| 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 |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Start an immediate social housing building programme around the country. Build at least 30,000 social housing units a year for the next decade, it will create countless jobs and help to kick start the economy. Offer the long term unemployed the chance to start their own small businesses with grants of £100 a week for Two years and Two years free banking, on the proviso these new self employed persons attend compulsory quarterly business workshops and have their books checked by an assessor every six months. That's a start..... " The new 5 year plan has been released by the Kremlin lol. Prefer the laissez-faire model of allowing market forces to prosper with minimum state. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So is your 'laissez-faire model' working?.....really? A massive surge in unemployment in the final three months of 2011, if that's what allowing market forces to prosper is then this government is really excelling don't you agree? So why so frightened of alternatives?, leaving things the way they are clearly isn't working, other nations (like the US) are pushing enterprise schemes, but lets not be bold enough to try it in Cameron's Dreamworld....." the methods you have highlighted are also tried and failed and the system I mentioned is 19th century Liberal, not tory as you think. nothing wrong with new thinking though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
As to ideas, tell him to stop immigration that would certainly help | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think Cameron is wonderful and I want him to come and impregnate my wife. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Social housing is unlikely to happen, policies seem to be on the way to make selling off the remaining council properties easier Also new properties reduces market value of existing, and possibly lowers rents for the landlords. Remember parties have to think about who pays their campaign costs." However selling of the said social housing is more difficult now as people cannot afford to buy them (though I am coming from a housing association point of _iew) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes get rid of the supermarkets and shopping centers Thus s putting communities and towns back together with those old fashioned things called SHOPS Thus reducing the need for cars and creating local jobs that people can actually WALK to (remember that?) Thus giving everyone more exercise etc And get some fooking manufacturing base in this country Its all service industries and food The country needs to MAKE money and why the hell the stupid gits cant see the wood fa the trees fook knows xx "Great idea Soapy but the problem being that its cheaper abroad than in England plus we follow health and safety rules to a T whereas other countries don't adding to the expense of manufacturing in this country. As to local shops, the problem there being that at 16 yrs old, my local newsagent pays them £3 ph and the kids don't want to work for that, therefore you can imagine what the pay is for adults can't you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Start an immediate social housing building programme around the country. Build at least 30,000 social housing units a year for the next decade, it will create countless jobs and help to kick start the economy. Offer the long term unemployed the chance to start their own small businesses with grants of £100 a week for Two years and Two years free banking, on the proviso these new self employed persons attend compulsory quarterly business workshops and have their books checked by an assessor every six months. That's a start..... The new 5 year plan has been released by the Kremlin lol. Prefer the laissez-faire model of allowing market forces to prosper with minimum state. " It's working really well isn't it? | |||
| 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 |
"Yes get rid of the supermarkets and shopping centers Thus s putting communities and towns back together with those old fashioned things called SHOPS Thus reducing the need for cars and creating local jobs that people can actually WALK to (remember that?) Thus giving everyone more exercise etc And get some fooking manufacturing base in this country Its all service industries and food The country needs to MAKE money and why the hell the stupid gits cant see the wood fa the trees fook knows xx
Great idea Soapy but the problem being that its cheaper abroad than in England plus we follow health and safety rules to a T whereas other countries don't adding to the expense of manufacturing in this country.
As to local shops, the problem there being that at 16 yrs old, my local newsagent pays them £3 ph and the kids don't want to work for that, therefore you can imagine what the pay is for adults can't you"I understand your concern on that but obviously there would need to be new laws and controls | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As I listened to the man in the booth next to me trying to convince the woman he needed an emergency payout because his mates were going out that night, and he couldn't afford to. "good lord | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes get rid of the supermarkets and shopping centers Thus s putting communities and towns back together with those old fashioned things called SHOPS Thus reducing the need for cars and creating local jobs that people can actually WALK to (remember that?) Thus giving everyone more exercise etc And get some fooking manufacturing base in this country Its all service industries and food The country needs to MAKE money and why the hell the stupid gits cant see the wood fa the trees fook knows xx "Where I now work down in Bucks, I live in an employer supplied house, just off the High Street in the village near to where I work. Approximately 90% of the shops are all locally owned or are long established local businesses, and boy, do they thrive! Yes, there is a Tesco's Express, but it is pricier than other "mini-markets" run by locals and the only nenefit is it stays open till 11pm. The company I work for has a policy in all of its properties to use local suppliers in their restaurants wherever possible. Our Hotel uses produce from local farmers, market gardens and such like, or businesses within 10-15 miles with hardly any UK wide conglomerate. Thus money stays within the local community. It's easy however to state, "get some manufacturing industry in". The world is changing all the time, and we can't live in the "it ain't like what it used to be" kind of era. But unlike some major businesses who revamp themselves every few years, eg, Coke, McDonalds, etc., this country doesn't seem to do likewise. I've always worked on the basis of charity begins at home. So let's stop wasting and sending £billions out to African countries, or to those countries who DON'T need the money, such as India, or Brazil, and re-use the money at home. Once we are wealthy and have all of our population in work, with a decent wage, with a decent roof above our heads, then maybe, and only then, do we consider giving a few pennies to those in need abroad. That doesn't include Europe; they got themselves into their mess, let them get themselves out of it. | |||
| 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 |
"foreign aid isn't about charity - it's about maintaining and or establishing new markets - if we didnt do it someone else will and reap the benefits - the Chinese for example are already in Africa " Absolutely and in the forms of "tied aid" can be mutually beneficial too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" i cannot tell you how many CV's i receive weekly from people in this position. there are too many courses that offer unreal expectation to the masses whilst providing an actual chance for 1 in a 100 or 1 in a 1000 " How do you rate a physics degree? Because I have no luck. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" i cannot tell you how many CV's i receive weekly from people in this position. there are too many courses that offer unreal expectation to the masses whilst providing an actual chance for 1 in a 100 or 1 in a 1000 How do you rate a physics degree? Because I have no luck." Even in times of plenty the post graduate careers were getting more and more competitive. Some were even doing second subjuect degrees. Hope that you find the career you want from it though. However, I think this country is too reliant on academia and not vocational training. If we want a manufacturing base we need those skills to make it work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" i cannot tell you how many CV's i receive weekly from people in this position. there are too many courses that offer unreal expectation to the masses whilst providing an actual chance for 1 in a 100 or 1 in a 1000 How do you rate a physics degree? Because I have no luck." with a physics degree, i would say that again you fall into a category where we are generating more graduates than career opportunities on the plus side, someone with a degree in such a subject is likely to have more chance of achieving a career within their chosen sector than someone with a degree in fashion or film production it is a specialist subject and so niche that it is not an area that is readily open to (or of interest to) the masses academically i would say keep your job search in full flow, don't lose faith in your abilities or your career potential. a few things i would try include : - registering with specialist employment agencies within the science sector - making direct approaches to businesses within your preferred field - look for positions outside your ideal job, but within businesses where progression is possible - if you have the ability to relocate, look at that as an option - contact to the the uni you graduated from to see if they need any research / voluntary work doing in a relevant department - take part time or short-term opportunities to demonstrate your wish to work it is generally easier to get a job when you are already in employment, though you need to be careful with showing too much on your CV gaps in career history are unattractive to employers, but what is more unattractive is someone who has had say 14 jobs in 3 years above all else remain focussed and positive in the face of adversity if you apply for a job or attend an inter_iew already deflated / defeated then 9 times out of 10 it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy good luck x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes get rid of the supermarkets and shopping centers Thus s putting communities and towns back together with those old fashioned things called SHOPS Thus reducing the need for cars and creating local jobs that people can actually WALK to (remember that?) Thus giving everyone more exercise etc And get some fooking manufacturing base in this country Its all service industries and food The country needs to MAKE money and why the hell the stupid gits cant see the wood fa the trees fook knows xx "our local supermarkets are our local shops
asda and tesco all within a 10 min walk.
we dont have a local shop community. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh well, time to go send another round of CVs to restaurants and bars. Thanks again " see that suggests you have resigned yourself to such jobs as a career choice or a 'make do' that need not be the case please read what i and others have said above | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh well, time to go send another round of CVs to restaurants and bars. Thanks again see that suggests you have resigned yourself to such jobs as a career choice or a 'make do' that need not be the case please read what i and others have said above" I know, I know. Don't worry I have read, i'm just an eggs in all baskets kinda person. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh well, time to go send another round of CVs to restaurants and bars. Thanks again see that suggests you have resigned yourself to such jobs as a career choice or a 'make do' that need not be the case please read what i and others have said above I know, I know. Don't worry I have read, i'm just an eggs in all baskets kinda person." if they're mini eggs, put some in mine | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll tell you how long I wait in the queue tomorrow, got to prove I'm looking for work - got to take 3 steps a week, I've got 5 pages of things I've done but the barstewards still wont give me JSA "got to the Job Centre 20 mins early and was seen 15 minutes before my appointment, can't complain about that. Also the consultant thought there had been a mistake and I should get my JSA having paid in to the system for over 30 years! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes get rid of the supermarkets and shopping centers Thus s putting communities and towns back together with those old fashioned things called SHOPS Thus reducing the need for cars and creating local jobs that people can actually WALK to (remember that?) Thus giving everyone more exercise etc And get some fooking manufacturing base in this country Its all service industries and food The country needs to MAKE money and why the hell the stupid gits cant see the wood fa the trees fook knows xx
Where I now work down in Bucks, I live in an employer supplied house, just off the High Street in the village near to where I work. Approximately 90% of the shops are all locally owned or are long established local businesses, and boy, do they thrive!
Yes, there is a Tesco's Express, but it is pricier than other "mini-markets" run by locals and the only nenefit is it stays open till 11pm.
The company I work for has a policy in all of its properties to use local suppliers in their restaurants wherever possible. Our Hotel uses produce from local farmers, market gardens and such like, or businesses within 10-15 miles with hardly any UK wide conglomerate.
Thus money stays within the local community.
It's easy however to state, "get some manufacturing industry in". The world is changing all the time, and we can't live in the "it ain't like what it used to be" kind of era.
But unlike some major businesses who revamp themselves every few years, eg, Coke, McDonalds, etc., this country doesn't seem to do likewise.
I've always worked on the basis of charity begins at home. So let's stop wasting and sending £billions out to African countries, or to those countries who DON'T need the money, such as India, or Brazil, and re-use the money at home. Once we are wealthy and have all of our population in work, with a decent wage, with a decent roof above our heads, then maybe, and only then, do we consider giving a few pennies to those in need abroad.
That doesn't include Europe; they got themselves into their mess, let them get themselves out of it."As much as i dont like supermarkets, im afraid because of their size, they can get economies of scale, and buy in most goods way below cost any local shop could Local shops idea may work in small villages away from the reach of supermarkets or a town/village where the disposable income is much higher; in most towns people will still use supermarkets because they are cheaper. Im sure the village shops that you talk about in Bucks thrives because the shoppers have more money and dont have to worry about the cost of good as much as most people do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes get rid of the supermarkets and shopping centers Thus s putting communities and towns back together with those old fashioned things called SHOPS Thus reducing the need for cars and creating local jobs that people can actually WALK to (remember that?) Thus giving everyone more exercise etc And get some fooking manufacturing base in this country Its all service industries and food The country needs to MAKE money and why the hell the stupid gits cant see the wood fa the trees fook knows xx
Where I now work down in Bucks, I live in an employer supplied house, just off the High Street in the village near to where I work. Approximately 90% of the shops are all locally owned or are long established local businesses, and boy, do they thrive!
Yes, there is a Tesco's Express, but it is pricier than other "mini-markets" run by locals and the only nenefit is it stays open till 11pm.
The company I work for has a policy in all of its properties to use local suppliers in their restaurants wherever possible. Our Hotel uses produce from local farmers, market gardens and such like, or businesses within 10-15 miles with hardly any UK wide conglomerate.
Thus money stays within the local community.
It's easy however to state, "get some manufacturing industry in". The world is changing all the time, and we can't live in the "it ain't like what it used to be" kind of era.
But unlike some major businesses who revamp themselves every few years, eg, Coke, McDonalds, etc., this country doesn't seem to do likewise.
I've always worked on the basis of charity begins at home. So let's stop wasting and sending £billions out to African countries, or to those countries who DON'T need the money, such as India, or Brazil, and re-use the money at home. Once we are wealthy and have all of our population in work, with a decent wage, with a decent roof above our heads, then maybe, and only then, do we consider giving a few pennies to those in need abroad.
That doesn't include Europe; they got themselves into their mess, let them get themselves out of it.
As much as i dont like supermarkets, im afraid because of their size, they can get economies of scale, and buy in most goods way below cost any local shop could
Local shops idea may work in small villages away from the reach of supermarkets or a town/village where the disposable income is much higher; in most towns people will still use supermarkets because they are cheaper.
Im sure the village shops that you talk about in Bucks thrives because the shoppers have more money and dont have to worry about the cost of good as much as most people do. "That only works to a limited extent. Many of the wealthy people who live in villages either do so on a 2nd home basis (in the south west for example) or as commuters. Therefore few of them contribute much to the local economy. Also if you are not a commuter there are very few opportunities for 'quality' employment. I am usually a fan of the EU (it was largely thanks to the melt down in the internastional money markets caused byt the toxic trading or the 'Anglo Saxon' city trading in US/UK which brought the national debt problems to a head. Though there were structural problems in Grece, Italian, Spainish Portugese and Irish economies were largely sound until the credit crunch) the CAP is designed to support inefficient European aggricultural practices and does nothing to help British High input-high output farming methods. Rural populations tend to still be worse off that urban ones. We also mention that manufacturing is our way out of this crisis. Don't for a moment think that we will ever go back to large factories employing 10's of thousands of people, because that will never happen. If manufacturing picks up it will be in micro sites with small, highly educated workforces (get yourself into modern aprenticeships) butthings are going to get a lot worse before they get any better. This recesion was not worse than the 1930 - 1934 recesion in terms of the total contraction, but this recesion lasted longer and the recovery is slower and smaller. we also have not had the second down turn yet, and that is going to be very bad news when it comes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes get rid of the supermarkets and shopping centers Thus s putting communities and towns back together with those old fashioned things called SHOPS Thus reducing the need for cars and creating local jobs that people can actually WALK to (remember that?) Thus giving everyone more exercise etc And get some fooking manufacturing base in this country Its all service industries and food The country needs to MAKE money and why the hell the stupid gits cant see the wood fa the trees fook knows xx
Where I now work down in Bucks, I live in an employer supplied house, just off the High Street in the village near to where I work. Approximately 90% of the shops are all locally owned or are long established local businesses, and boy, do they thrive!
Yes, there is a Tesco's Express, but it is pricier than other "mini-markets" run by locals and the only nenefit is it stays open till 11pm.
The company I work for has a policy in all of its properties to use local suppliers in their restaurants wherever possible. Our Hotel uses produce from local farmers, market gardens and such like, or businesses within 10-15 miles with hardly any UK wide conglomerate.
Thus money stays within the local community.
It's easy however to state, "get some manufacturing industry in". The world is changing all the time, and we can't live in the "it ain't like what it used to be" kind of era.
But unlike some major businesses who revamp themselves every few years, eg, Coke, McDonalds, etc., this country doesn't seem to do likewise.
I've always worked on the basis of charity begins at home. So let's stop wasting and sending £billions out to African countries, or to those countries who DON'T need the money, such as India, or Brazil, and re-use the money at home. Once we are wealthy and have all of our population in work, with a decent wage, with a decent roof above our heads, then maybe, and only then, do we consider giving a few pennies to those in need abroad.
That doesn't include Europe; they got themselves into their mess, let them get themselves out of it.
As much as i dont like supermarkets, im afraid because of their size, they can get economies of scale, and buy in most goods way below cost any local shop could
Local shops idea may work in small villages away from the reach of supermarkets or a town/village where the disposable income is much higher; in most towns people will still use supermarkets because they are cheaper.
Im sure the village shops that you talk about in Bucks thrives because the shoppers have more money and dont have to worry about the cost of good as much as most people do.
That only works to a limited extent. Many of the wealthy people who live in villages either do so on a 2nd home basis (in the south west for example) or as commuters. Therefore few of them contribute much to the local economy. Also if you are not a commuter there are very few opportunities for 'quality' employment.
I am usually a fan of the EU (it was largely thanks to the melt down in the internastional money markets caused byt the toxic trading or the 'Anglo Saxon' city trading in US/UK which brought the national debt problems to a head. Though there were structural problems in Grece, Italian, Spainish Portugese and Irish economies were largely sound until the credit crunch) the CAP is designed to support inefficient European aggricultural practices and does nothing to help British High input-high output farming methods. Rural populations tend to still be worse off that urban ones.
We also mention that manufacturing is our way out of this crisis. Don't for a moment think that we will ever go back to large factories employing 10's of thousands of people, because that will never happen. If manufacturing picks up it will be in micro sites with small, highly educated workforces (get yourself into modern aprenticeships) butthings are going to get a lot worse before they get any better.
This recesion was not worse than the 1930 - 1934 recesion in terms of the total contraction, but this recesion lasted longer and the recovery is slower and smaller. we also have not had the second down turn yet, and that is going to be very bad news when it comes."Fuck some serious shit on a take the piss thread
Recession recession we are all in recession | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If Labour had remained in power we would probably never heard of most of their wreckless spending until the whole house of cards came tumbling down around OUR ears whilst Brown & Co sloped off into the night with their striped t-shirts, black masks and bags of swag over their shoulders. Brown was committed to spending the UK out of recession and would have sanctioned the BoE in printing billions of £. We'd be in much deeper shit than we are now and would most certainly have lost our AAA rating, the impact of which would have meant borrowing would have been charged at a higher rate leaving us further in debt. I still think Osbourne is doing a brilliant job but he could do without Cameron making so many u-turns, and things were always going to hurt before it started feeling better. When this recession is over we'll be much better streamlined in terms of public sector employment and those who lost their jobs will be able to move into the private sector. " Given the amount of quantitative easing that has gone on since the general election your second paragraph is particularly funny. WHat's happened in the last year is that £257 billion has been pumped into British banks via the BoE Asset Purchase Fund's purchase of gilts, but that money has not re-emerged, being used instead to shore up bank balance sheets and bankers bonuses. That financial constipation is at least in part attributable tot he collapse in demand caused by the government cutting public spending on investment and services too far too fast. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck some serious shit on a take the piss thread
Recession recession we are all in recession "Well it's a serious position that we are in....... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Given the amount of quantitative easing that has gone on since the general election your second paragraph is particularly funny. WHat's happened in the last year is that £257 billion has been pumped into British banks via the BoE Asset Purchase Fund's purchase of gilts, but that money has not re-emerged, being used instead to shore up bank balance sheets and bankers bonuses. That financial constipation is at least in part attributable tot he collapse in demand caused by the government cutting public spending on investment and services too far too fast." +1 Plus QE (or printing money) has bumped the headline rate of inflation up to 5% and the real rate probably closer to 8%. 1% cost of living payrise anyone? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It means 1 in every 11 of us is on benefits, in most cases too lazy to work...
"care to be more specific on what percentage are 'too lazy'? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It means 1 in every 11 of us is on benefits, in most cases too lazy to work...
care to be more specific on what percentage are 'too lazy'?"My thoughts precisely. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The numbers that were released. 371,000 immigrants on benefits of these 258,000 from outside Europe, most from Pakistan, Somalia and Bangladesh. 5.5 million on benefits in total In my opinion there shouldn't be any benefits for those fit to work, especially immigrants that haven't paid any taxes. The number, 0.37 million is shocking, but remaining 5.13 million, those who are British, at least hold passports, is even more shocking. It means 1 in every 11 of us is on benefits, in most cases too lazy to work...
"people in work recieve benefits to | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It means 1 in every 11 of us is on benefits, in most cases too lazy to work...
care to be more specific on what percentage are 'too lazy'?"That is the most secret of course. But taking into account facts that Labour shifted more than 3 million onto permanent "incapacity" almost within days, and now current government is looking into bringing back at least 2 million, and we have millions of immigrants working, it can be easily estimated that most on benefits are just lazy. Of course there are those, who are genuinely incapacitated, but there shouldn't be more than 1 million of them, based on statistics across developed countries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It means 1 in every 11 of us is on benefits, in most cases too lazy to work...
care to be more specific on what percentage are 'too lazy'?
That is the most secret of course. But taking into account facts that Labour shifted more than 3 million onto permanent "incapacity" almost within days, and now current government is looking into bringing back at least 2 million, and we have millions of immigrants working, it can be easily estimated that most on benefits are just lazy.
Of course there are those, who are genuinely incapacitated, but there shouldn't be more than 1 million of them, based on statistics across developed countries. "had to check you age - you wont have realised that "shifting people on to incapacity and the good old YTS schemes was a scam first practiced by the tory party to fiddle unemployment figures | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's absurd to suggest that the government purchase of 90% of RBS is the direct cause of inflation climbing to 5% (the 8% figure in an earlier post above probably came from the same place where Peter Pan lives). Inflation is determined by a number of factors that contribute to a rise or fall in the underlying bank rates, which affects the ability for the government to purchase assets through government bonds. It would be a fool's errand to buy something at it's highest price knowing it was on it's way down. Quantative Easing is not just about printing money, as that does nothing but increase inflation exponentially. The BoE seeks to inject money into the markets by stimulating asset growth whilst reducing yields by way of purchasing company assets using government bonds to do it. By utilising this method the BoE can keep a tighter grip on inflation because if it feels that inflation is getting out of control it can take money out of the markets by buying back government bonds. Another benefit of using the purchasing power of the BoE is that when asset pricec rise (ie. Share prices) yields from those assets fall, allowing private equity holders to sell their holdings and release that money back into the economy. That's the theory of QE, in practice it's not quite so simple the government must also balance it's books with immediate unanticipated lending it must commit to (like the EU crisis) that would lead to greater market instability if the govt refused to pump in extra cash." Not quite. When there is more money available to buy assets, ipso facto, prices for those assets rise...... In an ecconomy of, say, 1 tn printing 100 bn without intrinsicaly raising the value on that 1 tn will debase the worth of that 1tn (ie a tv sold at 100 before the printing will no longer be worth 100 but 110 after printing money because the money is suddenly worth less....) This is the argument used by Thatcher to promote the contraction of the money supply in order to beat the inflation of the 1970s (a plan which was supposed to reduce govt spending but in fact led to a larger take and a bigger defecit when she left than when she came in, 3 major recesions later and going into the 4th) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It means 1 in every 11 of us is on benefits, in most cases too lazy to work...
care to be more specific on what percentage are 'too lazy'?
That is the most secret of course. But taking into account facts that Labour shifted more than 3 million onto permanent "incapacity" almost within days, and now current government is looking into bringing back at least 2 million, and we have millions of immigrants working, it can be easily estimated that most on benefits are just lazy.
Of course there are those, who are genuinely incapacitated, but there shouldn't be more than 1 million of them, based on statistics across developed countries. "You are as light on memory as reason. So anyone fit to work but not in work and on benefits is "lazy"???? You may not remember it but it was the Conservative govt of the 90s that shifted loads from unemployment benefits onto the sick. I hate to defend Labour but the push to get people off started with them. Google the likes of ATOS Healthcare if you don't believe me. Fair enough if you want to get rid of benefits. I'll play your game if you will also get rid of all forms of tax. Make it every man for himself. It's nice to see the way this society looks after the vulnerable. Or not as you would have it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's nice to see the way this society looks after the vulnerable." You must be joking. Those, who are actually in need, get nothing. Take housing benefit - more brats you have, more you get (bigger, nicer house). Truly handicapped people, not those with "bad back", rarely have any partners, let alone kids, so they have to live in shit holes. And now there is not enough money for care workers. Because each teenage mother is entitled to one looking after her kid, while she has fun. And for who did what with unemployed, check data in Eurostat and OECD, instead of believing what some politicians or BBC is claiming. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's absurd to suggest that the government purchase of 90% of RBS is the direct cause of inflation climbing to 5% (the 8% figure in an earlier post above probably came from the same place where Peter Pan lives). Inflation is determined by a number of factors that contribute to a rise or fall in the underlying bank rates, which affects the ability for the government to purchase assets through government bonds. It would be a fool's errand to buy something at it's highest price knowing it was on it's way down. Quantative Easing is not just about printing money, as that does nothing but increase inflation exponentially. The BoE seeks to inject money into the markets by stimulating asset growth whilst reducing yields by way of purchasing company assets using government bonds to do it. By utilising this method the BoE can keep a tighter grip on inflation because if it feels that inflation is getting out of control it can take money out of the markets by buying back government bonds. Another benefit of using the purchasing power of the BoE is that when asset pricec rise (ie. Share prices) yields from those assets fall, allowing private equity holders to sell their holdings and release that money back into the economy. That's the theory of QE, in practice it's not quite so simple the government must also balance it's books with immediate unanticipated lending it must commit to (like the EU crisis) that would lead to greater market instability if the govt refused to pump in extra cash." So when the government printed £257 billion to buy gilts that didn't cause inflation, but printing money does cause inflation? you seem to have got yourself confused here. You | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's nice to see the way this society looks after the vulnerable. You must be joking. Those, who are actually in need, get nothing. Take housing benefit - more brats you have, more you get (bigger, nicer house). Truly handicapped people, not those with "bad back", rarely have any partners, let alone kids, so they have to live in shit holes. And now there is not enough money for care workers. Because each teenage mother is entitled to one looking after her kid, while she has fun. And for who did what with unemployed, check data in Eurostat and OECD, instead of believing what some politicians or BBC is claiming. " mind defining truly handicapped? Bollocks like this is why hate crimes against the disabled are increasing every year. As for teenage mums getting care workers... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's absurd to suggest that the government purchase of 90% of RBS is the direct cause of inflation climbing to 5% (the 8% figure in an earlier post above probably came from the same place where Peter Pan lives)." The 8% quoted (by me) relates to inflation in goods which are not quoted in either CPI (Consumer Price Index, the prefered figure, prefered as it foes not include Mortgage costs and so is the lowest figure available) or RPI (Retail Price Index which does include Mortgages and other things). Cost of Petrol, insurance, train fairs are not included in either of the two main Inflation Indexes and so the true cost of inflation is almost always 2% over RPI and 3.5-4% over CPI (which is usualy at least 2% lower that RPI as well). You suggest people ought read around. I suggest you do the same, try some history, politics and ecconomics as well as the daily mail and daily express. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not quite. When there is more money available to buy assets, ipso facto, prices for those assets rise... In an ecconomy of, say, 1 tn printing 100 bn without intrinsicaly raising the value on that 1 tn will debase the worth of that 1tn (ie a tv sold at 100 before the printing will no longer be worth 100 but 110 after printing money because the money is suddenly worth less....) " The inflation of printing surplus cash to ease a political policy, you mean? The item in question is still a TV worth £100 but printing extra money devalues the currency. I promise to pay the bearer the sum of...? " This is the argument used by Thatcher to promote the contraction of the money supply in order to beat the inflation of the 1970s (a plan which was supposed to reduce govt spending but in fact led to a larger take and a bigger defecit when she left than when she came in, 3 major recesions later and going into the 4th) " Labour inherited a very robust economy from Major, who only served for three years as PM, so it can be argued that the legacy Thatcher left in her wake was a country that had grown strong on good policies. The inflation of the 1970s that you mention was incurred under the previous Labour administration and Thatcher took steps to combat it when she took the Tories to victory in 1979 - and it is such a shame she never took power much earlier, in my opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You suggest people ought read around. I suggest you do the same, try some history, politics and ecconomics as well as the daily mail and daily express." That old chestnut is always trotted out as some sort of insult but all it does is make the person saying it look like an arrogant fool. How's Brother Hatton these days? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So when the government printed £257 billion to buy gilts that didn't cause inflation, but printing money does cause inflation? you seem to have got yourself confused here. You" Gilts can be controlled. The govt didn't print £257bn worth of tenners and twenties, which is what you are kind of implying here. Gilts are NOT cash, but fret not, I'll tell you what they are in case ChuckleVision doesn't cover it in the next programme on CBBC: Gilts are, very simply, units of debt issued by the government. When buying them, you are effectively lending money to the government, which promises to pay back the amount in full (known as the principal) at a set date, along with interest (known as the coupon). Gilts are issued at par (100p), but are then traded on the open market. This means you can sell the gilt before its redemption date, in which case you might not recoup your initial investment. But it also means that you can buy gilts below par and hold them till redemption to make a profit, or, of course, buy them above par and actually make a capital loss. Sainsburys and Tesco et al do not accept Gilts as payment or part payment for goods unfortunately. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not quite. When there is more money available to buy assets, ipso facto, prices for those assets rise... In an ecconomy of, say, 1 tn printing 100 bn without intrinsicaly raising the value on that 1 tn will debase the worth of that 1tn (ie a tv sold at 100 before the printing will no longer be worth 100 but 110 after printing money because the money is suddenly worth less....) The inflation of printing surplus cash to ease a political policy, you mean? The item in question is still a TV worth £100 but printing extra money devalues the currency. I promise to pay the bearer the sum of...? This is the argument used by Thatcher to promote the contraction of the money supply in order to beat the inflation of the 1970s (a plan which was supposed to reduce govt spending but in fact led to a larger take and a bigger defecit when she left than when she came in, 3 major recesions later and going into the 4th) Labour inherited a very robust economy from Major, who only served for three years as PM, so it can be argued that the legacy Thatcher left in her wake was a country that had grown strong on good policies. The inflation of the 1970s that you mention was incurred under the previous Labour administration and Thatcher took steps to combat it when she took the Tories to victory in 1979 - and it is such a shame she never took power much earlier, in my opinion." Quite right Wishy, the economic cycle. The early Blair years were still benefitting from the Major years. Problem is this though, you can never tell the left that, they shout the loudest therefore must be right. Everytime Labour wins office there's always a mess to clean up after. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Here's my thoughts. Efficiency is driving up the "non-working population". Outsourcing jobs, whether manufacturing or call-centers. Replacing other jobs by robots, ATMs, Internet banking, general automation. All of this is efficiency gains, where does the money go? To the TOP. Does it get taxed and pumped back into the economy? No.
The actual percentage of people "not working" is far higher. I don't have the figures at hand, but it's closer to half the population i.e. 30 million people-years per year. That is, when you take away those who are retired, those who are under 16 or in further education. Count those who work part-time as fractionally employed instead of "not unemployed" (likewise with people on various probational/apprenticeship/retraining courses).
The unemployment figure is a bullshit figure. The government is always altering this number, by taking people off the dole for a few years, and onto some higher education course, then onto another and another, because they can't get a job. This is the government's challenge.
Eventually 99% of the jobs today will be automated (in the interim, some will be outsourced - Example: US companies like Apple use Foxconn to get Chinese workers to help assemble iPhones and other gadgets. Although in the next few years Foxconn will lay off hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers, and replace them by machines, that do the job quicker, don't complain, and don't commit suicide). So everything is headed one way.
We can, and should only expect the number of people not working to go up, and up, and up until only a handful of us work (Bosses and CEOS/Politicians). This will happen in all nations, including China!
However, nationally we can try to keep our unemployment down. By increasing taxes on the big companies which make these efficiency gains, pumping even more money in industries that depend on humans (education, care). Starting lots of infrastructure projects (Housing, Transportation, Energy). Run more incentives for people to start up their own businesses and innovation. Perhaps we could start to lower the number of hours people work per week, their pay would be lowered proportionally, however it'd open up demand for more workers.
Also, would it not make sense for many of those on benefits to do a few hours a day or week, cleaning up their local area in order to be eligible. Not a great job, but it gets them out and about, gives them more of a social outlet (as I'd imagine lots of unemployed full into depression). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not quite. When there is more money available to buy assets, ipso facto, prices for those assets rise... In an ecconomy of, say, 1 tn printing 100 bn without intrinsicaly raising the value on that 1 tn will debase the worth of that 1tn (ie a tv sold at 100 before the printing will no longer be worth 100 but 110 after printing money because the money is suddenly worth less....) The inflation of printing surplus cash to ease a political policy, you mean? The item in question is still a TV worth £100 but printing extra money devalues the currency. I promise to pay the bearer the sum of...? This is the argument used by Thatcher to promote the contraction of the money supply in order to beat the inflation of the 1970s (a plan which was supposed to reduce govt spending but in fact led to a larger take and a bigger defecit when she left than when she came in, 3 major recesions later and going into the 4th) Labour inherited a very robust economy from Major, who only served for three years as PM, so it can be argued that the legacy Thatcher left in her wake was a country that had grown strong on good policies. The inflation of the 1970s that you mention was incurred under the previous Labour administration and Thatcher took steps to combat it when she took the Tories to victory in 1979 - and it is such a shame she never took power much earlier, in my opinion. Quite right Wishy, the economic cycle. The early Blair years were still benefitting from the Major years. Problem is this though, you can never tell the left that, they shout the loudest therefore must be right. Everytime Labour wins office there's always a mess to clean up after. " And whenever the Tories are in power private sector house rental costs escalate, company executive bonuses escalate, Unemployment increases, Public Services suffer....and then Labour has to clean up the Tory mess. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not quite. When there is more money available to buy assets, ipso facto, prices for those assets rise... In an ecconomy of, say, 1 tn printing 100 bn without intrinsicaly raising the value on that 1 tn will debase the worth of that 1tn (ie a tv sold at 100 before the printing will no longer be worth 100 but 110 after printing money because the money is suddenly worth less....) The inflation of printing surplus cash to ease a political policy, you mean? The item in question is still a TV worth £100 but printing extra money devalues the currency. I promise to pay the bearer the sum of...? This is the argument used by Thatcher to promote the contraction of the money supply in order to beat the inflation of the 1970s (a plan which was supposed to reduce govt spending but in fact led to a larger take and a bigger defecit when she left than when she came in, 3 major recesions later and going into the 4th) Labour inherited a very robust economy from Major, who only served for three years as PM, so it can be argued that the legacy Thatcher left in her wake was a country that had grown strong on good policies. The inflation of the 1970s that you mention was incurred under the previous Labour administration and Thatcher took steps to combat it when she took the Tories to victory in 1979 - and it is such a shame she never took power much earlier, in my opinion. Quite right Wishy, the economic cycle. The early Blair years were still benefitting from the Major years. Problem is this though, you can never tell the left that, they shout the loudest therefore must be right. Everytime Labour wins office there's always a mess to clean up after. " never fails to amaze me how people try to rewrite history | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not quite. When there is more money available to buy assets, ipso facto, prices for those assets rise... In an ecconomy of, say, 1 tn printing 100 bn without intrinsicaly raising the value on that 1 tn will debase the worth of that 1tn (ie a tv sold at 100 before the printing will no longer be worth 100 but 110 after printing money because the money is suddenly worth less....) The inflation of printing surplus cash to ease a political policy, you mean? The item in question is still a TV worth £100 but printing extra money devalues the currency. I promise to pay the bearer the sum of...? This is the argument used by Thatcher to promote the contraction of the money supply in order to beat the inflation of the 1970s (a plan which was supposed to reduce govt spending but in fact led to a larger take and a bigger defecit when she left than when she came in, 3 major recesions later and going into the 4th) Labour inherited a very robust economy from Major, who only served for three years as PM, so it can be argued that the legacy Thatcher left in her wake was a country that had grown strong on good policies. The inflation of the 1970s that you mention was incurred under the previous Labour administration and Thatcher took steps to combat it when she took the Tories to victory in 1979 - and it is such a shame she never took power much earlier, in my opinion. Quite right Wishy, the economic cycle. The early Blair years were still benefitting from the Major years. Problem is this though, you can never tell the left that, they shout the loudest therefore must be right. Everytime Labour wins office there's always a mess to clean up after. And whenever the Tories are in power private sector house rental costs escalate, company executive bonuses escalate, Unemployment increases, Public Services suffer....and then Labour has to clean up the Tory mess. " My word, didn't all that happen under the previous Labour governement. Erm....yes maybe it did, one point to me hey | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And whenever the Tories are in power private sector house rental costs escalate, company executive bonuses escalate, Unemployment increases, Public Services suffer....and then Labour has to clean up the Tory mess. " But that's the problem isn't it, Labour doesn't clean up any mess - it inherits a thriving economy and then sets about destroying it with social policies that reward the inept and the weak, and then leaves an even greater mess for the Tories to clear up when they regain power. The Tories downfall in 97 had nothing to do with policy, and more to do with duck a la orange and dodgy private lives of some MPs. People felt the time was right for a change and that's what let Blair and his New Labour in. Those voters who were swayed by Blair will never let themselves be swayed by Labour again, and those youngsters who were blatantly lied to by Clegg this time round will never vote LibDem again. Labour's traditional support will remain but I foresee a decade of unbroken Conservative govt and a return to good policies that reward those who work and penalise those who feel it's acceptable to live off the state and do nothing to improve their lot. I know one thing is certain: I will always vote Conservative as I deeply believe in Tory core policy even if I don't like certain Tory MPs. I am most definately NOT a socialist, nor am I a LibDem tree-hugging europhile. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And whenever the Tories are in power private sector house rental costs escalate, company executive bonuses escalate, Unemployment increases, Public Services suffer....and then Labour has to clean up the Tory mess. But that's the problem isn't it, Labour doesn't clean up any mess - it inherits a thriving economy and then sets about destroying it with social policies that reward the inept and the weak, and then leaves an even greater mess for the Tories to clear up when they regain power. The Tories downfall in 97 had nothing to do with policy, and more to do with duck a la orange and dodgy private lives of some MPs. People felt the time was right for a change and that's what let Blair and his New Labour in. Those voters who were swayed by Blair will never let themselves be swayed by Labour again, and those youngsters who were blatantly lied to by Clegg this time round will never vote LibDem again. Labour's traditional support will remain but I foresee a decade of unbroken Conservative govt and a return to good policies that reward those who work and penalise those who feel it's acceptable to live off the state and do nothing to improve their lot. I know one thing is certain: I will always vote Conservative as I deeply believe in Tory core policy even if I don't like certain Tory MPs. I am most definately NOT a socialist, nor am I a LibDem tree-hugging europhile." When did it inherit a thriving economy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It means 1 in every 11 of us is on benefits, in most cases too lazy to work...
care to be more specific on what percentage are 'too lazy'?
That is the most secret of course. But taking into account facts that Labour shifted more than 3 million onto permanent "incapacity" almost within days, and now current government is looking into bringing back at least 2 million, and we have millions of immigrants working, it can be easily estimated that most on benefits are just lazy.
Of course there are those, who are genuinely incapacitated, but there shouldn't be more than 1 million of them, based on statistics across developed countries. "pretty much what i expected really.. pile of old tosh with no basis of fact.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did it inherit a thriving economy " Friday, 2nd May 1997 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did it inherit a thriving economy Friday, 2nd May 1997" Cant remember a thriving economy then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did it inherit a thriving economy Friday, 2nd May 1997 Cant remember a thriving economy then " The UK in the four years prior to the 97 Gen Election had enjoyed a strong economic recovery and substantial fall in unemployment under a Conservative govt. It was disputes within the Conservative government over European Union issues, and a variety of "sleaze" allegations that had severely affected the government's popularity and allowed the Labour Party to inflict the Tories worst defeat at a General Election since 1906. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did it inherit a thriving economy Friday, 2nd May 1997 Cant remember a thriving economy then The UK in the four years prior to the 97 Gen Election had enjoyed a strong economic recovery and substantial fall in unemployment under a Conservative govt. It was disputes within the Conservative government over European Union issues, and a variety of "sleaze" allegations that had severely affected the government's popularity and allowed the Labour Party to inflict the Tories worst defeat at a General Election since 1906." Slight correction Wishy. Allowed the Nu-Labour party to win the 97 election. In due course fucked Labour up as much as it did the Tories. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When did it inherit a thriving economy Friday, 2nd May 1997 Cant remember a thriving economy then The UK in the four years prior to the 97 Gen Election had enjoyed a strong economic recovery and substantial fall in unemployment under a Conservative govt. It was disputes within the Conservative government over European Union issues, and a variety of "sleaze" allegations that had severely affected the government's popularity and allowed the Labour Party to inflict the Tories worst defeat at a General Election since 1906." public debt was the same as labour had just prior to the banks ballsing things up - mass unemployment massaged by huge numbers on incapacity- all the public silver and oil reserves wasted for short term gains and the countries infrastructure, social stucture and steel coal industries amonst others wrecked for political dogma | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wishy John Major was Prime Minister of Great Britain between 28th November 1990 and 2nd May 1997. That's not 3 years." What?......a big Tory fan like Wishy not knowing something so basic about the former leader of his chosen political party?..... That's the thing about floating voters (aka 'I'm alright Jacks') they don't follow party politics, they follow winning trends......like glory hunting football supporters in a way. They are the kids that always want to play for the winning team in playground games. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wishy John Major was Prime Minister of Great Britain between 28th November 1990 and 2nd May 1997. That's not 3 years. What?......a big Tory fan like Wishy not knowing something so basic about the former leader of his chosen political party?..... That's the thing about floating voters (aka 'I'm alright Jacks') they don't follow party politics, they follow winning trends......like glory hunting football supporters in a way. They are the kids that always want to play for the winning team in playground games." Not seen anywhere in this thread where wishy used to support another party, it's weird how you have made such a basic error as that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So when the government printed £257 billion to buy gilts that didn't cause inflation, but printing money does cause inflation? you seem to have got yourself confused here. You Gilts can be controlled. The govt didn't print £257bn worth of tenners and twenties, which is what you are kind of implying here. Gilts are NOT cash, but fret not, I'll tell you what they are in case ChuckleVision doesn't cover it in the next programme on CBBC: Gilts are, very simply, units of debt issued by the government. When buying them, you are effectively lending money to the government, which promises to pay back the amount in full (known as the principal) at a set date, along with interest (known as the coupon). Gilts are issued at par (100p), but are then traded on the open market. This means you can sell the gilt before its redemption date, in which case you might not recoup your initial investment. But it also means that you can buy gilts below par and hold them till redemption to make a profit, or, of course, buy them above par and actually make a capital loss. Sainsburys and Tesco et al do not accept Gilts as payment or part payment for goods unfortunately. "Thanks for the patronizing and stupid response. it's well up to your normal standard. New gilts were not issued by the BoE or the government. The BoE created new money (quantitative easing, as it's called) to buy existing gilts off British banks. You can find the details on the Bank of England website. This increased the money supply. According to the classic Chicago model that you subscribe that should have caused inflation. It didn't because the version of the Chicago model you describe doesn't take account of the velocity of circulation of money. Even simple textbooks like Samuelson describe this. CBBC doesn't. As I tried to explain, this money has had no real impact in the economy because it has been used to bolster bank balance sheets - the total sum of money grew, (that's why it's called quantitative easing, because the quanitity of money increases) but it didn't go anywhere, so it didn't cause inflation. Have a nice night | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wishy John Major was Prime Minister of Great Britain between 28th November 1990 and 2nd May 1997. That's not 3 years. What?......a big Tory fan like Wishy not knowing something so basic about the former leader of his chosen political party?..... That's the thing about floating voters (aka 'I'm alright Jacks') they don't follow party politics, they follow winning trends......like glory hunting football supporters in a way. They are the kids that always want to play for the winning team in playground games. Not seen anywhere in this thread where wishy used to support another party, it's weird how you have made such a basic error as that "That's because you don't know Wishy's party voting history....I do, he's a confessed floating voter.....so your error I am afraid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wishy John Major was Prime Minister of Great Britain between 28th November 1990 and 2nd May 1997. That's not 3 years. What?......a big Tory fan like Wishy not knowing something so basic about the former leader of his chosen political party?..... That's the thing about floating voters (aka 'I'm alright Jacks') they don't follow party politics, they follow winning trends......like glory hunting football supporters in a way. They are the kids that always want to play for the winning team in playground games." Snide isn't really your colour Jane. I forgot Major won the 92 election, easy mistake to make in a run of four consecutive Tory election victories though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wishy John Major was Prime Minister of Great Britain between 28th November 1990 and 2nd May 1997. That's not 3 years. What?......a big Tory fan like Wishy not knowing something so basic about the former leader of his chosen political party?..... That's the thing about floating voters (aka 'I'm alright Jacks') they don't follow party politics, they follow winning trends......like glory hunting football supporters in a way. They are the kids that always want to play for the winning team in playground games. Not seen anywhere in this thread where wishy used to support another party, it's weird how you have made such a basic error as that "Shame you wasted that Smiley.....you see Wishy has admitted to being a floating voter on many occasions on previous threads....sometimes it pays not to assume too much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wishy John Major was Prime Minister of Great Britain between 28th November 1990 and 2nd May 1997. That's not 3 years. What?......a big Tory fan like Wishy not knowing something so basic about the former leader of his chosen political party?..... That's the thing about floating voters (aka 'I'm alright Jacks') they don't follow party politics, they follow winning trends......like glory hunting football supporters in a way. They are the kids that always want to play for the winning team in playground games. Not seen anywhere in this thread where wishy used to support another party, it's weird how you have made such a basic error as that
Shame you wasted that Smiley.....you see Wishy has admitted to being a floating voter on many occasions on previous threads....sometimes it pays not to assume too much.
"In that case I do humbly apologise to you, although I did say in this thread. Why should a smiley be wasted, they're free. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So when the government printed £257 billion to buy gilts that didn't cause inflation, but printing money does cause inflation? you seem to have got yourself confused here. You Gilts can be controlled. The govt didn't print £257bn worth of tenners and twenties, which is what you are kind of implying here. Gilts are NOT cash, but fret not, I'll tell you what they are in case ChuckleVision doesn't cover it in the next programme on CBBC: Gilts are, very simply, units of debt issued by the government. When buying them, you are effectively lending money to the government, which promises to pay back the amount in full (known as the principal) at a set date, along with interest (known as the coupon). Gilts are issued at par (100p), but are then traded on the open market. This means you can sell the gilt before its redemption date, in which case you might not recoup your initial investment. But it also means that you can buy gilts below par and hold them till redemption to make a profit, or, of course, buy them above par and actually make a capital loss. Sainsburys and Tesco et al do not accept Gilts as payment or part payment for goods unfortunately. "no, but if i remember correctly they fall under m2 and are therefore classes as money...since this was being explained to me during a game of strip monopoly where i was loosing rather badly i may be wrong
*never play monopoly with students from the worlds leading economics institution
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Shame you wasted that Smiley.....you see Wishy has admitted to being a floating voter on many occasions on previous threads....sometimes it pays not to assume too much. " Excuse me please but whwre does it say anywhere in any understanding of the word 'democracy' that it is somehow despicable to vote for different parties in several elections? I was to young to vote when Thatcher won her first election, to inexperienced to think for myself when she won her second, to pissed to care when she won her third, and couldn't give a fuck when Major took the fourth Tory victory and assisted the LibDems (fookin joke that was as local party politics are more corrupt than national party politics). I voted for Blair as he seemed like he meant what he said, he lied. Seeing what Brown & Blair have done to this country has made me absolutely certain I'll never vote Labour again. They got my vote once, and once only - more fool me if they get it twice, which they won't as I'd vote a Tory cat in over a Labour human. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wishy John Major was Prime Minister of Great Britain between 28th November 1990 and 2nd May 1997. That's not 3 years. What?......a big Tory fan like Wishy not knowing something so basic about the former leader of his chosen political party?..... That's the thing about floating voters (aka 'I'm alright Jacks') they don't follow party politics, they follow winning trends......like glory hunting football supporters in a way. They are the kids that always want to play for the winning team in playground games. Not seen anywhere in this thread where wishy used to support another party, it's weird how you have made such a basic error as that
Shame you wasted that Smiley.....you see Wishy has admitted to being a floating voter on many occasions on previous threads....sometimes it pays not to assume too much.
In that case I do humbly apologise to you, although I did say in this thread. Why should a smiley be wasted, they're free. "oops even I knew she wouldnt have said that if it wasn't true | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Shame you wasted that Smiley.....you see Wishy has admitted to being a floating voter on many occasions on previous threads....sometimes it pays not to assume too much. Excuse me please but whwre does it say anywhere in any understanding of the word 'democracy' that it is somehow despicable to vote for different parties in several elections? I was to young to vote when Thatcher won her first election, to inexperienced to think for myself when she won her second, to pissed to care when she won her third, and couldn't give a fuck when Major took the fourth Tory victory and assisted the LibDems (fookin joke that was as local party politics are more corrupt than national party politics). I voted for Blair as he seemed like he meant what he said, he lied. Seeing what Brown & Blair have done to this country has made me absolutely certain I'll never vote Labour again. They got my vote once, and once only - more fool me if they get it twice, which they won't as I'd vote a Tory cat in over a Labour human." Next time a potential landslide happens along you will hop on the 'opportunist bandwagon'....you are correct though, it's within your rights as a free voter in our political system, and I wouldn't want to deny you those rights....but I struggle to take your politics seriously in the same way that I struggle to take the alligience of many football supporters seriously.... "Sing when you're winning......" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wishy John Major was Prime Minister of Great Britain between 28th November 1990 and 2nd May 1997. That's not 3 years. What?......a big Tory fan like Wishy not knowing something so basic about the former leader of his chosen political party?..... That's the thing about floating voters (aka 'I'm alright Jacks') they don't follow party politics, they follow winning trends......like glory hunting football supporters in a way. They are the kids that always want to play for the winning team in playground games. Not seen anywhere in this thread where wishy used to support another party, it's weird how you have made such a basic error as that
Shame you wasted that Smiley.....you see Wishy has admitted to being a floating voter on many occasions on previous threads....sometimes it pays not to assume too much.
In that case I do humbly apologise to you, although I did say in this thread. Why should a smiley be wasted, they're free.
oops even I knew she wouldnt have said that if it wasn't true "I have apologised though lol. She is a very knowledgable lady and fights her corner very well. I went to uni with a Labour politician, whom I am good friends with. It's good that people stand their ground like Jane etc and battle their corner on issues that mean a lot to them. Probably needs this in real life politics to get the people to re-engage with politics, rather than the apathy we have now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wishy John Major was Prime Minister of Great Britain between 28th November 1990 and 2nd May 1997. That's not 3 years. What?......a big Tory fan like Wishy not knowing something so basic about the former leader of his chosen political party?..... That's the thing about floating voters (aka 'I'm alright Jacks') they don't follow party politics, they follow winning trends......like glory hunting football supporters in a way. They are the kids that always want to play for the winning team in playground games. Not seen anywhere in this thread where wishy used to support another party, it's weird how you have made such a basic error as that
Shame you wasted that Smiley.....you see Wishy has admitted to being a floating voter on many occasions on previous threads....sometimes it pays not to assume too much.
In that case I do humbly apologise to you, although I did say in this thread. Why should a smiley be wasted, they're free.
oops even I knew she wouldnt have said that if it wasn't true
I have apologised though lol. She is a very knowledgable lady and fights her corner very well.
I went to uni with a Labour politician, whom I am good friends with. It's good that people stand their ground like Jane etc and battle their corner on issues that mean a lot to them.
Probably needs this in real life politics to get the people to re-engage with politics, rather than the apathy we have now.
"Thanks for that, and I equally respect your political alligience.....it would be a boring life if we were all the same. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Next time a potential landslide happens along you will hop on the 'opportunist bandwagon'....you are correct though, it's within your rights as a free voter in our political system, and I wouldn't want to deny you those rights....but I struggle to take your politics seriously in the same way that I struggle to take the alligience of many football supporters seriously.... "Sing when you're winning......"" If it's a Tory landslide I won't have 'hopped' on it will I as I have just stated that I'll always vote Tory. What kind of a voter would I be if I'd picked a party when I was young and clueless and followed them blindly? I looked at all three main parties but didn't really understand what was being said when I was 18 years old (not that I really cared at that time). Four years later I was a little older and still didn't know where my politics lay, but practically everyone around me hated the Tories (on a sink estate where any authority was despised) and I wasn't going to come out and go against that (as a 22y/o with a social life). But hey, like a true floating supporter I've managed to support the same football team all my life. Fancy that eh? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wishy John Major was Prime Minister of Great Britain between 28th November 1990 and 2nd May 1997. That's not 3 years. What?......a big Tory fan like Wishy not knowing something so basic about the former leader of his chosen political party?..... That's the thing about floating voters (aka 'I'm alright Jacks') they don't follow party politics, they follow winning trends......like glory hunting football supporters in a way. They are the kids that always want to play for the winning team in playground games. Not seen anywhere in this thread where wishy used to support another party, it's weird how you have made such a basic error as that
Shame you wasted that Smiley.....you see Wishy has admitted to being a floating voter on many occasions on previous threads....sometimes it pays not to assume too much.
In that case I do humbly apologise to you, although I did say in this thread. Why should a smiley be wasted, they're free.
oops even I knew she wouldnt have said that if it wasn't true
I have apologised though lol. She is a very knowledgable lady and fights her corner very well.
I went to uni with a Labour politician, whom I am good friends with. It's good that people stand their ground like Jane etc and battle their corner on issues that mean a lot to them.
Probably needs this in real life politics to get the people to re-engage with politics, rather than the apathy we have now.
Thanks for that, and I equally respect your political alligience.....it would be a boring life if we were all the same.
"After reading the above comments, looking at it from a neutral point of _iew and after doing some research on the subject and all involved I have only one thing to say..... Jane, you have a cracking arse!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Next time a potential landslide happens along you will hop on the 'opportunist bandwagon'....you are correct though, it's within your rights as a free voter in our political system, and I wouldn't want to deny you those rights....but I struggle to take your politics seriously in the same way that I struggle to take the alligience of many football supporters seriously.... "Sing when you're winning......" If it's a Tory landslide I won't have 'hopped' on it will I as I have just stated that I'll always vote Tory. What kind of a voter would I be if I'd picked a party when I was young and clueless and followed them blindly? I looked at all three main parties but didn't really understand what was being said when I was 18 years old (not that I really cared at that time). Four years later I was a little older and still didn't know where my politics lay, but practically everyone around me hated the Tories (on a sink estate where any authority was despised) and I wasn't going to come out and go against that (as a 22y/o with a social life). But hey, like a true floating supporter I've managed to support the same football team all my life. Fancy that eh? "Wouldn't by any chance be from Manchester and play in red? Tell me it's not....or I'll wet myself (it's my age) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So when the government printed £257 billion to buy gilts that didn't cause inflation, but printing money does cause inflation? you seem to have got yourself confused here. You Gilts can be controlled. The govt didn't print £257bn worth of tenners and twenties, which is what you are kind of implying here. Gilts are NOT cash, but fret not, I'll tell you what they are in case ChuckleVision doesn't cover it in the next programme on CBBC: Gilts are, very simply, units of debt issued by the government. When buying them, you are effectively lending money to the government, which promises to pay back the amount in full (known as the principal) at a set date, along with interest (known as the coupon). Gilts are issued at par (100p), but are then traded on the open market. This means you can sell the gilt before its redemption date, in which case you might not recoup your initial investment. But it also means that you can buy gilts below par and hold them till redemption to make a profit, or, of course, buy them above par and actually make a capital loss. Sainsburys and Tesco et al do not accept Gilts as payment or part payment for goods unfortunately.
no, but if i remember correctly they fall under m2 and are therefore classes as money...since this was being explained to me during a game of strip monopoly where i was loosing rather badly i may be wrong
*never play monopoly with students from the worlds leading economics institution
"Economists versus philosophers at strip monopoly - there is so much wrong about that, not least that they didn't realise they could just tell you to get your kit off | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And whenever the Tories are in power private sector house rental costs escalate, company executive bonuses escalate, Unemployment increases, Public Services suffer....and then Labour has to clean up the Tory mess. But that's the problem isn't it, Labour doesn't clean up any mess - it inherits a thriving economy and then sets about destroying it with social policies that reward the inept and the weak, and then leaves an even greater mess for the Tories to clear up when they regain power. The Tories downfall in 97 had nothing to do with policy, and more to do with duck a la orange and dodgy private lives of some MPs. People felt the time was right for a change and that's what let Blair and his New Labour in. Those voters who were swayed by Blair will never let themselves be swayed by Labour again, and those youngsters who were blatantly lied to by Clegg this time round will never vote LibDem again. Labour's traditional support will remain but I foresee a decade of unbroken Conservative govt and a return to good policies that reward those who work and penalise those who feel it's acceptable to live off the state and do nothing to improve their lot. I know one thing is certain: I will always vote Conservative as I deeply believe in Tory core policy even if I don't like certain Tory MPs. I am most definately NOT a socialist, nor am I a LibDem tree-hugging europhile." That's not the case AT ALL. Invariably Labour governments which beat tory ones inherit a consumer driven boom, encouraged by interest and tax rate drops. I bet the Tories wish they never won the 1992 election, because the boom that they promoted in 91-92 (after the recesion of '89) was almost as bad as the recesions of '79-'81 and '82-'83. I wonder why Britain did not fall into recesion in the early 00's when the dot com bubble droped the rest of the west into recesion? I think it might have had something to do with Gordon Brown's ecconomic policies? And tell me, was it Gordon Brown who joined the EURO and caused a melt down of the pound and huge interest rates? Or was that Norman Lamont who joined the ERM with sterling at a rate which nearly bankrupted the country (but let Major Crow about how great Britain was, whilst out sourcing all the jobs). You mentioned the 70's again, did you forget that Heath was in for 4 years too? That's the problem with the right, they expect everyone to have as short a memory as they do and complain when we argue with their ignorant point of _iew (1 in 11 people are lazy.....Fuck Off!) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wouldn't by any chance be from Manchester and play in red? Tell me it's not....or I'll wet myself (it's my age) "Oh fucking hell. Sod this thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So when the government printed £257 billion to buy gilts that didn't cause inflation, but printing money does cause inflation? you seem to have got yourself confused here. You Gilts can be controlled. The govt didn't print £257bn worth of tenners and twenties, which is what you are kind of implying here. Gilts are NOT cash, but fret not, I'll tell you what they are in case ChuckleVision doesn't cover it in the next programme on CBBC: Gilts are, very simply, units of debt issued by the government. When buying them, you are effectively lending money to the government, which promises to pay back the amount in full (known as the principal) at a set date, along with interest (known as the coupon). Gilts are issued at par (100p), but are then traded on the open market. This means you can sell the gilt before its redemption date, in which case you might not recoup your initial investment. But it also means that you can buy gilts below par and hold them till redemption to make a profit, or, of course, buy them above par and actually make a capital loss. Sainsburys and Tesco et al do not accept Gilts as payment or part payment for goods unfortunately.
no, but if i remember correctly they fall under m2 and are therefore classes as money...since this was being explained to me during a game of strip monopoly where i was loosing rather badly i may be wrong
*never play monopoly with students from the worlds leading economics institution
Economists versus philosophers at strip monopoly - there is so much wrong about that, not least that they didn't realise they could just tell you to get your kit off "come on they claimed economics was a science...insight wasnt their strong point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All these would be politicians! The country is missing out by the looks of it. Get you oranges and belts ready there is a chair behind the door. "Not a politician, I'm a historian. Having an understanding of the past gives me a much better grasp on what's happening now and what might happen in the future..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All these would be politicians! The country is missing out by the looks of it. Get you oranges and belts ready there is a chair behind the door.
Not a politician, I'm a historian. Having an understanding of the past gives me a much better grasp on what's happening now and what might happen in the future....."World War III it is then. Couldn't tip me the wink when it's due could you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All these would be politicians! The country is missing out by the looks of it. Get you oranges and belts ready there is a chair behind the door.
Not a politician, I'm a historian. Having an understanding of the past gives me a much better grasp on what's happening now and what might happen in the future.....
World War III it is then.
Couldn't tip me the wink when it's due could you?"By some of the posts in here, tomorrow....... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
