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 |
"The UK economy has returned to recession, after shrinking by 0.2% in the first three months of 2012. "well to put it simply.... the govt cuts everything, and people fearful of losing jobs so no one spends, which then puts more jobs in jeopardy... how many things have you cut down on in the last year... its only because i now know my job is safe that i had decided to buy my car... its a vicious cycle at the moment.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are so skint..the government give away ten billion to the IMF..???" To be fair, it wasn't an extra £10bn, it was the remainder of the £40bn Labour had committed to the IMF, of which £30bn had already been handed over. This £10bn hasn't been transferred yet but it is there if needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are so skint..the government give away ten billion to the IMF..??? To be fair, it wasn't an extra £10bn, it was the remainder of the £40bn Labour had committed to the IMF, of which £30bn had already been handed over. This £10bn hasn't been transferred yet but it is there if needed." and also to wishy's point... there has never been an occasion where there has not been a profit money out of any money leant to the IMF.... | |||
| 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 |
"not in my household there isn't, or amongst the people I know family and friends etc... never been so busy at work, just had our best quarter ever... just called at supermarket...beer on offer (I'll have some of that)...petrols gone down 1p... personally to quote Harold McMillan amongst my family friends and neighbours "we've never had it so good" "Lemme guess ..... debt collector? Bailiff? Loan shark? Repo man?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"not in my household there isn't, or amongst the people I know family and friends etc... never been so busy at work, just had our best quarter ever... just called at supermarket...beer on offer (I'll have some of that)...petrols gone down 1p... personally to quote Harold McMillan amongst my family friends and neighbours "we've never had it so good" "You're easily pleased, petrol has gone up by 21p in the last 2 years but 1p off and you're happy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"not in my household there isn't, or amongst the people I know family and friends etc... never been so busy at work, just had our best quarter ever... just called at supermarket...beer on offer (I'll have some of that)...petrols gone down 1p... personally to quote Harold McMillan amongst my family friends and neighbours "we've never had it so good"
You're easily pleased, petrol has gone up by 21p in the last 2 years but 1p off and you're happy "seeing as stamps have gone up by more or less the same amount, I'm contemplating these days whether it'd be cheaper to hand deliver molotovs rather than send them letters 
Wolf | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i have a few employees,two of my girls have had there working tax credits cut because they dont work 24 hrs or more ,it used to be 16 hrs or more ,one girl stands to lose £230 pm ,thats a lot of monie, then i read that more social security is to be payed to ileagal imagrants coming into our country ,how is that right ,however i have gave this girl extra hours so she now qualifes for working tax ,but i realy cant aford too but hay there you go" Well done and all credit to you for helping the lady out. But this is what the country HAS to be doing. Not CHOOSING to do as people are saying. There is no choice between going further into debt and clearing up the debt mess. We have to get people out of welfare (however that is paid) and onto paid work in the private sector. And that is no easy task or very pleasant for some. If you feel it is all unfair and people should be paid more welfare and given phantom public sector jobs then tell me where is all that money coming from? Yep us the taxpayer or government borrowing. Oh sorry Labour already did that over 13 years didn't they? I work in container transport and we are taking on people and buying new trucks to support the export as well as import traffic so personally I don't think the odd 'nought point something' means diddley. Mind it makes for a busy 24 hours in Westminster. I avoided the illegal immigrant bit as the topic has already been removed by the Mods... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were warned that it was going to be painful to undo some of the damage Brown and his outragious spend spend spend policies created, but I'm convinced that the govt are following the right policies financially even if they do seem to be continually shooting themselves in the foot in other areas with u-turn after u-turn. I'd also go as far to concede that Osbourne seems a little out of touch with ordinary people and I hope he's learned a few things these past few weeks." Good points well made  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don't get out of recesion by cutting government spending. Cutting spending leads to depressions (see 1930's). There is money available at record low interest rates, you are foolish to borrow at high rates and pay back at low rates. The IMF and OECD are both pressing for expansionist policies, Spain is being supported by the EOCD for reducing the cuts. The recession is real for me because I CAN'T GET A JOB!" Poppycock you have to reduce movement spending because there is less income coming in. Spend spend spend is the footprint of foolish people. You have to balance your budget. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"not in my household there isn't, or amongst the people I know family and friends etc... never been so busy at work, just had our best quarter ever... just called at supermarket...beer on offer (I'll have some of that)...petrols gone down 1p... personally to quote Harold McMillan amongst my family friends and neighbours "we've never had it so good"
You're easily pleased, petrol has gone up by 21p in the last 2 years but 1p off and you're happy
seeing as stamps have gone up by more or less the same amount, I'm contemplating these days whether it'd be cheaper to hand deliver molotovs rather than send them letters
Wolf"Might be cheaper to post yourself than drive | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don't get out of recesion by cutting government spending. Cutting spending leads to depressions (see 1930's). There is money available at record low interest rates, you are foolish to borrow at high rates and pay back at low rates. The IMF and OECD are both pressing for expansionist policies, Spain is being supported by the EOCD for reducing the cuts. The recession is real for me because I CAN'T GET A JOB! Poppycock you have to reduce movement spending because there is less income coming in. Spend spend spend is the footprint of foolish people. You have to balance your budget. " Poppycock the government are borrowing more just to pay the welfare bill that they are creating- it's not being invested in creating jobs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Poppycock the government are borrowing more just to pay the welfare bill that they are creating- it's not being invested in creating jobs "There is a simple reality here. Governments can not 'create jobs'. Well they can create phantom jobs as Labour did all over the country to get grateful votes but I mean proper jobs in the private sector paid for by customers for goods and services and not out of tax revenue. It is a total left wing myth that you 'invest in jobs' and Labour (still practicing Selective Amnesia) continue to peddle the myth. We the taxpayer don't invest in jobs it is the private employers who do that. As was said when Labour evacuated the Treasury: 'There is no money left' Simples. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Poppycock the government are borrowing more just to pay the welfare bill that they are creating- it's not being invested in creating jobs
There is a simple reality here. Governments can not 'create jobs'.
Well they can create phantom jobs as Labour did all over the country to get grateful votes but I mean proper jobs in the private sector paid for by customers for goods and services and not out of tax revenue.
It is a total left wing myth that you 'invest in jobs' and Labour (still practicing Selective Amnesia) continue to peddle the myth. We the taxpayer don't invest in jobs it is the private employers who do that.
As was said when Labour evacuated the Treasury: 'There is no money left'
Simples."What rubbish, don't you know anything? The US government built their infrastructure with the expressed intent of producing employment (the Hoover damn in the 30's employed 1000's directly and provided water for, amongst other things, Las Vegas and the huge increases in irrigation resulting in massive rises of agricultural production in California. The 'Superhighways' project, to build a modern road network across the country directly employed 1000's and primed the ecconomy for another 10 years). Thatcher used the Motorway Network building projects to employ 1000's in the 80's and pumped the car manufacturing industry (such as was left of it) providing employemt for 1000's more. Every penny that the government spends is returned at least twice in tax and cycles round the economy at least 5 times before it gets back to the exchequer. In times of recession a national economy should run a deficit to moderate the lack of domestic sending. The economy should run a surplus in the good times as domestic spending can stand those cuts. Even the IMF and OECD think that the swinging cuts being implemented across Europe is not going to help with the deficit, you can't cut your way out of a recession. The US economy has had trillions $ pumped into it is direct stimulus and is growing at around 2% and unemployment is falling. The UK has had cuts and is shrinking and there are no jobs. Which way is the best way to get an economy out of trouble? | |||
| 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 |
 isn't the forum ment to be about fun ? Not this doom n gloom shite. Must be just me a guess.
* crEePs rOunD cRYpT * -l- | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many would be politicians and economists! Astounding! " They couldn't do any worse a job | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many would be politicians and economists! Astounding! They couldn't do any worse a job "Oh I think they could! Although I'm not a fan of the politicians and civil servants I think thinks would be far worse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"not in my household there isn't, or amongst the people I know family and friends etc... never been so busy at work, just had our best quarter ever... just called at supermarket...beer on offer (I'll have some of that)...petrols gone down 1p... personally to quote Harold McMillan amongst my family friends and neighbours "we've never had it so good"
You're easily pleased, petrol has gone up by 21p in the last 2 years but 1p off and you're happy "I am....happy bunny me mucker | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"not in my household there isn't, or amongst the people I know family and friends etc... never been so busy at work, just had our best quarter ever... just called at supermarket...beer on offer (I'll have some of that)...petrols gone down 1p... personally to quote Harold McMillan amongst my family friends and neighbours "we've never had it so good"
Lemme guess ..... debt collector? Bailiff? Loan shark? Repo man? "nope...nope...nope...nope... life is good at moment and like always...i enjoy it regardless of economic situation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were warned that it was going to be painful to undo some of the damage Brown and his outragious spend spend spend policies created, but I'm convinced that the govt are following the right policies financially even if they do seem to be continually shooting themselves in the foot in other areas with u-turn after u-turn. I'd also go as far to concede that Osbourne seems a little out of touch with ordinary people and I hope he's learned a few things these past few weeks. Good points well made "Unfortunately they are also laughably uninformed points and complete nonsense. But hey - it's wishy posting so I guess it's no surprise. The reason why we (and most of the rest of the world) are in economic shit street is because banks and financial institutions gambled huge sums of other peoples money in highly risky unregulated financial products - which were based on US boom in under-regulated high risk mortgage products that turned out not to be worth a shit, but just so happened to have their rating of how safe they were as investments determined by the same organisations that were selling them. As both of the major parties were and still are fixated with free-market economics it would not have mattered who was in power when the shit hit the fan as neither would have created the regulations to stop it (and DEFINITELY not the tories) - and heck - not even the so-called financial experts who were buying and re-selling these products understood what they were and what risk they represented. The upshot was that Brown was offered an impossible choice, do nothing, let the banks collapse - wipe out the economy, ordinary peoples savings and pensions - or bail out the banks at huge expense to the tax payer and try to keep our economy afloat. He might have been a dour scottish twat but made the right choice - deal with it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The UK economy has returned to recession, after shrinking by 0.2% in the first three months of 2012. "- well, you opened a right can of worms there!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh happy days isn't the forum ment to be about fun ? Not this doom n gloom shite. Must be just me a guess.
* crEePs rOunD cRYpT * -l- "Pass the thread by if you don't like it. The forums are meant to be whatever people choose to write as long as it is within rules....let people use them how they want to and you do the same. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally doubt if we were ever out of recession in the first place...." Agree. If it hung on that tight a thread and took the construction industry to have a bad three months then a double dip was inevitable (the first three months of the year are traditionally bad for construction anyway) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally doubt if we were ever out of recession in the first place.... Agree. If it hung on that tight a thread and took the construction industry to have a bad three months then a double dip was inevitable (the first three months of the year are traditionally bad for construction anyway)" Too true, 3 months sat on your arse calling agency's. What fun! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were warned that it was going to be painful to undo some of the damage Brown and his outragious spend spend spend policies created, but I'm convinced that the govt are following the right policies financially even if they do seem to be continually shooting themselves in the foot in other areas with u-turn after u-turn. I'd also go as far to concede that Osbourne seems a little out of touch with ordinary people and I hope he's learned a few things these past few weeks. Good points well made
Unfortunately they are also laughably uninformed points and complete nonsense.
But hey - it's wishy posting so I guess it's no surprise.
The reason why we (and most of the rest of the world) are in economic shit street is because banks and financial institutions gambled huge sums of other peoples money in highly risky unregulated financial products - which were based on US boom in under-regulated high risk mortgage products that turned out not to be worth a shit, but just so happened to have their rating of how safe they were as investments determined by the same organisations that were selling them.
As both of the major parties were and still are fixated with free-market economics it would not have mattered who was in power when the shit hit the fan as neither would have created the regulations to stop it (and DEFINITELY not the tories) - and heck - not even the so-called financial experts who were buying and re-selling these products understood what they were and what risk they represented.
The upshot was that Brown was offered an impossible choice, do nothing, let the banks collapse - wipe out the economy, ordinary peoples savings and pensions - or bail out the banks at huge expense to the tax payer and try to keep our economy afloat.
He might have been a dour scottish twat but made the right choice - deal with it."Right on By the way, the idea that Britain's debt problem is unsermountable is not true..... The Gov't had to borrow a huge amount, but THEY BOUGHT ASSETS..... When (if) we return to growth those assets will accumulate in value and the exchequer will suddenly be in the black again. Another chunk of the debt is 'off reckoning', money which has been earmarked as needing to be borrowed to guarantee all the toxic assets if things when belly up with the financial institutions. The really big debt problem in this country is not caused by Gov't, but by us, the people. We are the ones who have mortgaged all the housing, then remortgaged and maxed all the credit cards and lived in the overdrafts so that (as a nation) we the people owe around 4 times out national income. Two other points..... Does anyone remember the DotCom bubble? You know, the one which caused a world recession which Gordon Brown managed to manage to the extend that UK Growth rates fell down to 2.3% per annum, when most other major developed economy dipped into a 3 1/4 recession......Hardly the sign of a poor economist. the 2nd is on a comparitor. Shortly after the DotCom bubble burst, the Japanese economy crashed under a large toxic asset debt bubble. They took exactly the same action to cut spending and reduce the debt burden (even though most of the net borrowings were against the domestic market). The result of this was stagnation and no significant growth for 10 years. 10 YEARS! The evidence is there but people don't want to see it.......Cutting through the recession will not work. Incidentally I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion to reduce employers NICs payments (even if for a year long holiday) to stimulate the labour market.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Incidentally I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion to reduce employers NICs payments (even if for a year long holiday) to stimulate the labour market...." OK, and during that year where there is no NI payments coming through, how do we fund the NHS that seems so precious to everyone? Divert some of the tax on fuel? ... and then try and make up the shortfall in tax receipts. Lower income tax itself? ... hmmm.. less funding all round if that happens. How about reducing social security payments to those who don't need it? ... need means testing to do that. Not popular with socialists. So how do we make up the shortfall if the govt suspend NIC for a year? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Incidentally I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion to reduce employers NICs payments (even if for a year long holiday) to stimulate the labour market.... OK, and during that year where there is no NI payments coming through, how do we fund the NHS that seems so precious to everyone? Divert some of the tax on fuel? ... and then try and make up the shortfall in tax receipts. Lower income tax itself? ... hmmm.. less funding all round if that happens. How about reducing social security payments to those who don't need it? ... need means testing to do that. Not popular with socialists. So how do we make up the shortfall if the govt suspend NIC for a year? " Wishy, we could probably offset the cost of the NICs holiday against the Increaced EE NIC's and Income Tax being paid by those people who get a job and also recoup the cost against the reduced JSA and Housing/Council Tax benefits that those new employees won't have to claim. We would also benefit from the VAT and other sales taxes that those new employees would be paying with the wages that they spend and perhaps the corporation tax from the businesses they spend those wages with.............. Besides, Interest rates are very low, an Ideal time to borrow money (at the 14 year maturity level that Brown left us, we don't have an iminent repayment crisis, like the Greeks and Italins had) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The key word you used there was 'probably'. Hardly a basis for a detailed and intrinsic fiscal policy that affects millions of people. The govt cannot afford to raise income tax or reduce NIC either. It can't afford to lower income tax nor raise NIC any further. It's a round hole with a square peg stuck in it that won't go any further. Osbourne knows this, hence the so called Granny, Pasty and Caravan taxes - the beauty of which he can repeal at any time, get Fleet St off his back, and gear himself up for Budget 2014, which will see the electorate being 'bought' with a huge tax giveaway - accompanied by some welcome news that the deficit has reduced significantly, the recession is over, the jobless figures are down by 10% and we're entering a period of boom. Trust me on this one. The Budget before a General Election is always designed to win votes." Obviously Wishy, that's Politics. In fact, in terms of post war politics, the fact that when the tories were in trouble they would seek reelection by priming a consumer lead boom (by relaxing financial regulation, for example) which was why the Labour which followed inherited a recession waiting to happen. (That's not happened in the last 15 years, so lets not argue about that). I disagree that the Government has no room to manouver. These cuts are ideological. The Tories came in with an agenda which was not on the manefesto (University charges as an example) and the crash is the excuse, not the reason to do it. BTW you and I both know that I used the word 'probably' in a joking fasion | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The UK economy has returned to recession, after shrinking by 0.2% in the first three months of 2012.
well to put it simply.... the govt cuts everything, and people fearful of losing jobs so no one spends, which then puts more jobs in jeopardy...
how many things have you cut down on in the last year... its only because i now know my job is safe that i had decided to buy my car...
its a vicious cycle at the moment....
"a bicycle more like!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many would be politicians and economists! Astounding! They couldn't do any worse a job " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Poppycock the government are borrowing more just to pay the welfare bill that they are creating- it's not being invested in creating jobs
There is a simple reality here. Governments can not 'create jobs'.
Well they can create phantom jobs as Labour did all over the country to get grateful votes but I mean proper jobs in the private sector paid for by customers for goods and services and not out of tax revenue.
It is a total left wing myth that you 'invest in jobs' and Labour (still practicing Selective Amnesia) continue to peddle the myth. We the taxpayer don't invest in jobs it is the private employers who do that.
As was said when Labour evacuated the Treasury: 'There is no money left'
Simples.
What rubbish, don't you know anything?
The US government built their infrastructure with the expressed intent of producing employment (the Hoover damn in the 30's employed 1000's directly and provided water for, amongst other things, Las Vegas and the huge increases in irrigation resulting in massive rises of agricultural production in California. The 'Superhighways' project, to build a modern road network across the country directly employed 1000's and primed the ecconomy for another 10 years).
Thatcher used the Motorway Network building projects to employ 1000's in the 80's and pumped the car manufacturing industry (such as was left of it) providing employemt for 1000's more.
Every penny that the government spends is returned at least twice in tax and cycles round the economy at least 5 times before it gets back to the exchequer.
In times of recession a national economy should run a deficit to moderate the lack of domestic sending.
The economy should run a surplus in the good times as domestic spending can stand those cuts.
Even the IMF and OECD think that the swinging cuts being implemented across Europe is not going to help with the deficit, you can't cut your way out of a recession.
The US economy has had trillions $ pumped into it is direct stimulus and is growing at around 2% and unemployment is falling.
The UK has had cuts and is shrinking and there are no jobs. Which way is the best way to get an economy out of trouble?"Well yes I do probably know more than you give me credit for but never mind. OK first point: The US had loads of cash to spend in the 30s on infrastructure and used it to build things and employ THE PRIVATE SECTOR to do it. They are now borrowing against huge gold reserves to do what you say. Second point: Thatcher also had spare cash (and a clever Chancellor now Justice Scretary) and she did the same. What don't you understand about 'THERE IS NO CASH'? To do all these wonderful things you suggest (and the Coalition are still doing some pretty big infrastructure peojects despite the shortage) when you have no money you have TO BORROW it. And Gordon Brown already borrowed us into virtual bankruptcy. Oh and he sold most of our gold reserves and spent that... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were warned that it was going to be painful to undo some of the damage Brown and his outragious spend spend spend policies created, but I'm convinced that the govt are following the right policies financially even if they do seem to be continually shooting themselves in the foot in other areas with u-turn after u-turn. I'd also go as far to concede that Osbourne seems a little out of touch with ordinary people and I hope he's learned a few things these past few weeks. Good points well made
Unfortunately they are also laughably uninformed points and complete nonsense.
But hey - it's wishy posting so I guess it's no surprise.
The reason why we (and most of the rest of the world) are in economic shit street is because banks and financial institutions gambled huge sums of other peoples money in highly risky unregulated financial products - which were based on US boom in under-regulated high risk mortgage products that turned out not to be worth a shit, but just so happened to have their rating of how safe they were as investments determined by the same organisations that were selling them.
As both of the major parties were and still are fixated with free-market economics it would not have mattered who was in power when the shit hit the fan as neither would have created the regulations to stop it (and DEFINITELY not the tories) - and heck - not even the so-called financial experts who were buying and re-selling these products understood what they were and what risk they represented.
The upshot was that Brown was offered an impossible choice, do nothing, let the banks collapse - wipe out the economy, ordinary peoples savings and pensions - or bail out the banks at huge expense to the tax payer and try to keep our economy afloat.
He might have been a dour scottish twat but made the right choice - deal with it."Hmmmm very uncharacteristically quiet in northumberland on this one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmmm very uncharacteristically quiet in northumberland on this one "I'm on me holibobs! Besides, anything said on this thread has been said on other threads endless times. I'm a Tory and agree with most of what the Coalition has done so far, and many on here are Labour and don't agree with me. I doubt that will change anytime soon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don't get out of recesion by cutting government spending. Cutting spending leads to depressions (see 1930's). There is money available at record low interest rates, you are foolish to borrow at high rates and pay back at low rates. The IMF and OECD are both pressing for expansionist policies, Spain is being supported by the EOCD for reducing the cuts. The recession is real for me because I CAN'T GET A JOB! Poppycock you have to reduce movement spending because there is less income coming in. Spend spend spend is the footprint of foolish people. You have to balance your budget. " Point well made,but people cannot see what is infront of their face if it doesn't suit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"not in my household there isn't, or amongst the people I know family and friends etc... never been so busy at work, just had our best quarter ever... just called at supermarket...beer on offer (I'll have some of that)...petrols gone down 1p... personally to quote Harold McMillan amongst my family friends and neighbours "we've never had it so good"
You're easily pleased, petrol has gone up by 21p in the last 2 years but 1p off and you're happy "Politicians dream | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh happy days isn't the forum ment to be about fun ? Not this doom n gloom shite. Must be just me a guess.
* crEePs rOunD cRYpT * -l-
Pass the thread by if you don't like it.
The forums are meant to be whatever people choose to write as long as it is within rules....let people use them how they want to and you do the same."They just did,didnt they ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Incidentally I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion to reduce employers NICs payments (even if for a year long holiday) to stimulate the labour market.... OK, and during that year where there is no NI payments coming through, how do we fund the NHS that seems so precious to everyone? Divert some of the tax on fuel? ... and then try and make up the shortfall in tax receipts. Lower income tax itself? ... hmmm.. less funding all round if that happens. How about reducing social security payments to those who don't need it? ... need means testing to do that. Not popular with socialists. So how do we make up the shortfall if the govt suspend NIC for a year? Wishy, we could probably offset the cost of the NICs holiday against the Increaced EE NIC's and Income Tax being paid by those people who get a job and also recoup the cost against the reduced JSA and Housing/Council Tax benefits that those new employees won't have to claim. We would also benefit from the VAT and other sales taxes that those new employees would be paying with the wages that they spend and perhaps the corporation tax from the businesses they spend those wages with.............. Besides, Interest rates are very low, an Ideal time to borrow money (at the 14 year maturity level that Brown left us, we don't have an iminent repayment crisis, like the Greeks and Italins had)" NI accounts for just over 20% of the money collected by HMRC. For a government to apply an NI holiday for a year and lose that 20% would leave a massive shortfall. This would need either other taxes to go up, or more cuts to be made. However, many companies have said that a reduction in corporation tax would enable them to take on more staff. In the UK it is 21% and more, in Ireland it is 12.5%, which is why you find companies like Amazon in Ireland. The Inland Revenue did demand tax from companies that relocated to Ireland, but they were eventually taken to court and the Inland Revenue lost. If CT gets reduced, and more staff employed, then the government's loss of CT revenue could be matched by an increase in personal tax revenue. And of course, payments of benefits go down. It does of course recquire a balancing act as to how many new jobs are created versus each percentage point drop in CT. And the CT reduction wouldn't work if companies merely use the increased post-tax profit to pay shareholder dividends. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmmm very uncharacteristically quiet in northumberland on this one
I'm on me holibobs!
Besides, anything said on this thread has been said on other threads endless times. I'm a Tory and agree with most of what the Coalition has done so far, and many on here are Labour and don't agree with me.
I doubt that will change anytime soon."If your beleif was really that unshakeable then you wouldn't feel the need to fabricate fairy stories as the causes of the deficit and recession now would you. a classic case of cognitive dissonance. or perhaps it's more a case that you genuinely had no idea of the woolly-minded claptrap you were spouting but are so naive and easily led that you'll beleive whatever you are told - just so long as the "right" person tells it to you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh happy days isn't the forum ment to be about fun ? Not this doom n gloom shite. Must be just me a guess.
* crEePs rOunD cRYpT * -l-
Pass the thread by if you don't like it.
The forums are meant to be whatever people choose to write as long as it is within rules....let people use them how they want to and you do the same.
They just did,didnt they ? "Disrupting the forums with the intention to spoil it for others is against forum rules. best to just avoid the threads that don't interest you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"tory swingers blame labour and vice versa ...i dont think its of any relevance there both as useless and incompetent as each other and both whore themselves to the bankers which leads us to this economical mess were in ...the two parties are virtually the same as they both use the same philosophy of media spin rather than actually competently running a country rather than attempting to bring about a recovery the two parties seem to spend most there time blaming each other fr the mess were in ..says it all doesnt it when people in employment are having to rely on charity food handouts to feed there families ...applied for me papers today for a move out of this shit hole to warmer climes i worry about my son i dont see any future or prospects for him in this country ..went to the dogs long ago " Where are you off to - not many places where you can escape to that arn't as bad or worse than the UK | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"tory swingers blame labour and vice versa ...i dont think its of any relevance there both as useless and incompetent as each other and both whore themselves to the bankers which leads us to this economical mess were in ...the two parties are virtually the same as they both use the same philosophy of media spin rather than actually competently running a country rather than attempting to bring about a recovery the two parties seem to spend most there time blaming each other fr the mess were in ..says it all doesnt it when people in employment are having to rely on charity food handouts to feed there families ...applied for me papers today for a move out of this shit hole to warmer climes i worry about my son i dont see any future or prospects for him in this country ..went to the dogs long ago Where are you off to - not many places where you can escape to that arn't as bad or worse than the UK" Hopefully Australia or new zealand ..what you say may be true still least the sun shines | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Poppycock you have to reduce movement spending because there is less income coming in. Spend spend spend is the footprint of foolish people. You have to balance your budget. Point well made,but people cannot see what is infront of their face if it doesn't suit. " Cutting too far too fast is well know to create economic downturns, now this is what Alistair Darling said two years ago, before the Tories first budget - if the Tories carried out their cuts. Now you tell me where he was wrong??? (Quotes from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8685989.stm - dated 17th May 2010)He said there should be a plan to get borrowing down "over a sensible period" and if it was done too quickly "there is a risk you tip the country back into recession". TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: "With the economy so fragile and thousands still losing jobs, the government needs to avoid rushing into a round of cuts. "If the economy suffers as a result of decisions taken ahead of the emergency Budget, tax revenues will fall and the deficit will only get worse. This is not a time to wield the axe without very careful consideration of the wider consequences." END QUOTE Now this is not poloticians using hindsight as they often do, this was a warning against something and then being proven exactly right, people need to realise all the cuts are doing is hurting peoples standards of living, its not sorting our economy out at all. If it is show me the figures?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"tory swingers blame labour and vice versa ...i dont think its of any relevance there both as useless and incompetent as each other and both whore themselves to the bankers which leads us to this economical mess were in ...the two parties are virtually the same as they both use the same philosophy of media spin rather than actually competently running a country rather than attempting to bring about a recovery the two parties seem to spend most there time blaming each other fr the mess were in ..says it all doesnt it when people in employment are having to rely on charity food handouts to feed there families ...applied for me papers today for a move out of this shit hole to warmer climes i worry about my son i dont see any future or prospects for him in this country ..went to the dogs long ago " I have just one thing to say to people who criticise MY country before fooking off to somewhere else where they think the grass is greener - BYE.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmmm very uncharacteristically quiet in northumberland on this one
I'm on me holibobs!
Besides, anything said on this thread has been said on other threads endless times. I'm a Tory and agree with most of what the Coalition has done so far, and many on here are Labour and don't agree with me.
I doubt that will change anytime soon.
If your beleif was really that unshakeable then you wouldn't feel the need to fabricate fairy stories as the causes of the deficit and recession now would you.
a classic case of cognitive dissonance.
or perhaps it's more a case that you genuinely had no idea of the woolly-minded claptrap you were spouting but are so naive and easily led that you'll beleive whatever you are told - just so long as the "right" person tells it to you?"Would you care to re-read this thread and see if you can spot the places where I've said Osbourne needs to learn a few lessons from the past few weeks. Go on, have a go, see if you can find it. I don't blindly follow the Conservatives and support everything they say and do, but I do recognise that of all the main parties the one I identify with the most is the Conservative Party. I abhor socialism for the simple fact that those at the top of the socialist tree swig champagne, eat caviar and send their children to private schools whilst telling everyone else how to be a good socialist. Capitalism, on the other hand, makes no bones about rewarding the smartest but also ensuring that those who don't have the mustard to make a success of themselves can at least survive. It's not my job to feed the world, nor clothe other people's children, but I'll pay whatever taxes are due and let the govt take care of the rest. My job is to provide a comfortable life for my family and so long as I accomplish that it'll do for me. I'm true to my beliefs, and I'd love to see the so-called Labour Party faithful give all their possessions to someone who needs it more than they do - in the spirit of True Socialism of course. I bet I'll never see it though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmmmm very uncharacteristically quiet in northumberland on this one
I'm on me holibobs!
Besides, anything said on this thread has been said on other threads endless times. I'm a Tory and agree with most of what the Coalition has done so far, and many on here are Labour and don't agree with me.
I doubt that will change anytime soon.
If your beleif was really that unshakeable then you wouldn't feel the need to fabricate fairy stories as the causes of the deficit and recession now would you.
a classic case of cognitive dissonance.
or perhaps it's more a case that you genuinely had no idea of the woolly-minded claptrap you were spouting but are so naive and easily led that you'll beleive whatever you are told - just so long as the "right" person tells it to you?
Would you care to re-read this thread and see if you can spot the places where I've said Osbourne needs to learn a few lessons from the past few weeks. Go on, have a go, see if you can find it.
I don't blindly follow the Conservatives and support everything they say and do, but I do recognise that of all the main parties the one I identify with the most is the Conservative Party. I abhor socialism for the simple fact that those at the top of the socialist tree swig champagne, eat caviar and send their children to private schools whilst telling everyone else how to be a good socialist. Capitalism, on the other hand, makes no bones about rewarding the smartest but also ensuring that those who don't have the mustard to make a success of themselves can at least survive. It's not my job to feed the world, nor clothe other people's children, but I'll pay whatever taxes are due and let the govt take care of the rest. My job is to provide a comfortable life for my family and so long as I accomplish that it'll do for me.
I'm true to my beliefs, and I'd love to see the so-called Labour Party faithful give all their possessions to someone who needs it more than they do - in the spirit of True Socialism of course.
I bet I'll never see it though. "Care to explain how capitalism cares for those who "dont cut the mustard"? Last i checked it was the decidedly socialist welfare system (and healthcare) that looked after people when they were down, not some rich guy in a boardroom. Socialism isn't about giving all your stuff away, its not even about forcing people to be "equal" its about making sure people who work are paid a fair wage and those who get rich off of the labour and industry of workers pay a sensible share. Its about local democracy in society and the work place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Care to explain how capitalism cares for those who "dont cut the mustard"? Last i checked it was the decidedly socialist welfare system (and healthcare) that looked after people when they were down, not some rich guy in a boardroom. Socialism isn't about giving all your stuff away, its not even about forcing people to be "equal" its about making sure people who work are paid a fair wage and those who get rich off of the labour and industry of workers pay a sensible share. Its about local democracy in society and the work place. " {Chuckles} of course it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Care to explain how capitalism cares for those who "dont cut the mustard"? Last i checked it was the decidedly socialist welfare system (and healthcare) that looked after people when they were down, not some rich guy in a boardroom. Socialism isn't about giving all your stuff away, its not even about forcing people to be "equal" its about making sure people who work are paid a fair wage and those who get rich off of the labour and industry of workers pay a sensible share. Its about local democracy in society and the work place. {Chuckles} of course it is. "Laugh all you want that is what it is, any one that thinks the last labour lot were socialists is deluded they were free market capitalists with a tiny bit of a conscience. Nor is it communism which people also get it mixed up with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Care to explain how capitalism cares for those who "dont cut the mustard"? Last i checked it was the decidedly socialist welfare system (and healthcare) that looked after people when they were down, not some rich guy in a boardroom. Socialism isn't about giving all your stuff away, its not even about forcing people to be "equal" its about making sure people who work are paid a fair wage and those who get rich off of the labour and industry of workers pay a sensible share. Its about local democracy in society and the work place. {Chuckles} of course it is.
Laugh all you want that is what it is, any one that thinks the last labour lot were socialists is deluded they were free market capitalists with a tiny bit of a conscience. Nor is it communism which people also get it mixed up with. ""The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect." Who wrote that and what does it represent? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Care to explain how capitalism cares for those who "dont cut the mustard"? Last i checked it was the decidedly socialist welfare system (and healthcare) that looked after people when they were down, not some rich guy in a boardroom. Socialism isn't about giving all your stuff away, its not even about forcing people to be "equal" its about making sure people who work are paid a fair wage and those who get rich off of the labour and industry of workers pay a sensible share. Its about local democracy in society and the work place. {Chuckles} of course it is.
Laugh all you want that is what it is, any one that thinks the last labour lot were socialists is deluded they were free market capitalists with a tiny bit of a conscience. Nor is it communism which people also get it mixed up with.
"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."
Who wrote that and what does it represent?"That is the replacement for clause IV, which was removed by the Labour party shortly after Blair was elected to lead the Labour party. Its meaningless drivel when compared to what they actually did which was carry on the privatisations of the previous 18 years. Throwing the word socialist in there does make there actions socialist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
It represents the Labour Party putting up taxes and spending to create a client class of public sector workers living off the truly exploited - the private sector workers!
Simple really. It has to be reversed. Ordinary workers are paying far more than they should do. Ordinary workers who have saved are having their savings ruined. Where is the Labour Party? Recommending more printing of money and the further ruination of private sector workers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who wrote that and what does it represent?
It represents the Labour Party putting up taxes and spending to create a client class of public sector workers living off the truly exploited - the private sector workers!
Simple really. It has to be reversed. Ordinary workers are paying far more than they should do. Ordinary workers who have saved are having their savings ruined. Where is the Labour Party? Recommending more printing of money and the further ruination of private sector workers."Thats daily mail/sun inspired drivel. Public sector workers pay taxes too, there earnings are affected by inflation the same as everyone else's. Yes the private sector is so hard done by, its why record bonuses are being paid in parts of it, directors salary's are rising at record rates and profits for the largest companies and dividends to shareholders are increasing. Thats where "private" sector workers money is going. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Care to explain how capitalism cares for those who "dont cut the mustard"? Last i checked it was the decidedly socialist welfare system (and healthcare) that looked after people when they were down, not some rich guy in a boardroom. Socialism isn't about giving all your stuff away, its not even about forcing people to be "equal" its about making sure people who work are paid a fair wage and those who get rich off of the labour and industry of workers pay a sensible share. Its about local democracy in society and the work place. {Chuckles} of course it is.
Laugh all you want that is what it is, any one that thinks the last labour lot were socialists is deluded they were free market capitalists with a tiny bit of a conscience. Nor is it communism which people also get it mixed up with.
"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."
Who wrote that and what does it represent?
That is the replacement for clause IV, which was removed by the Labour party shortly after Blair was elected to lead the Labour party. Its meaningless drivel when compared to what they actually did which was carry on the privatisations of the previous 18 years. Throwing the word socialist in there does make there actions socialist."Blair wrote it to replace the original Clause IV, but what is more significant about it is that for the first time in the history of the Labout Party it is officially described as a 'socialist' party, although Blair prefers to call himself a social democrat. So regardless of what *you* think the Labour Party is, the Labour Party defines itself as 'socialists'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You should talk to my friend who is a joiner. He hasn't had a payrise in 5 years. Yet taxes have gone up. He's delighted to be paying to support public workers who already earn more than him. No public worker pays more in taxes than he receives in wages." As i said public sector workers wages are also hit by tax increases. Most of the public sector havent seen a pay rise for years and again its not the public sectors fault his boss hasnt given him a pay rise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Care to explain how capitalism cares for those who "dont cut the mustard"? Last i checked it was the decidedly socialist welfare system (and healthcare) that looked after people when they were down, not some rich guy in a boardroom. Socialism isn't about giving all your stuff away, its not even about forcing people to be "equal" its about making sure people who work are paid a fair wage and those who get rich off of the labour and industry of workers pay a sensible share. Its about local democracy in society and the work place. {Chuckles} of course it is.
Laugh all you want that is what it is, any one that thinks the last labour lot were socialists is deluded they were free market capitalists with a tiny bit of a conscience. Nor is it communism which people also get it mixed up with.
"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."
Who wrote that and what does it represent?
That is the replacement for clause IV, which was removed by the Labour party shortly after Blair was elected to lead the Labour party. Its meaningless drivel when compared to what they actually did which was carry on the privatisations of the previous 18 years. Throwing the word socialist in there does make there actions socialist.
Blair wrote it to replace the original Clause IV, but what is more significant about it is that for the first time in the history of the Labout Party it is officially described as a 'socialist' party, although Blair prefers to call himself a social democrat.
So regardless of what *you* think the Labour Party is, the Labour Party defines itself as 'socialists'."Well done you've found Wikipedia. Actions speak louder than words, he stuck the word "socialist" in to keep the left of the party happy and then proceeded to carry out a decidedly un-socialist set of government policies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service." " That's the original Clause IV, Part 4. and what I find obscene about that statement (and also the reason why Blair ripped it up) is that it dictates that a man can start a business, take all the risks in doing so, provide all the start up capital to get it running, and then the workers take an equal share of the profits. Blair knew that Clause IV was outdated and it kept dragging the Labour Party back to the early 20th Century. He knew he needed to modernise the Labour Party to make it electable but he also realised that he couldn't afford to alienate Labour grass roots support. Hence the New Labour Party statement he drafted which is essentially the old Clause IV with the inclusion of a new definition of the Labour Party as socialists to appease the relics of a bygone era. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Care to explain how capitalism cares for those who "dont cut the mustard"? Last i checked it was the decidedly socialist welfare system (and healthcare) that looked after people when they were down, not some rich guy in a boardroom. Socialism isn't about giving all your stuff away, its not even about forcing people to be "equal" its about making sure people who work are paid a fair wage and those who get rich off of the labour and industry of workers pay a sensible share. Its about local democracy in society and the work place. {Chuckles} of course it is.
Laugh all you want that is what it is, any one that thinks the last labour lot were socialists is deluded they were free market capitalists with a tiny bit of a conscience. Nor is it communism which people also get it mixed up with.
"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."
Who wrote that and what does it represent?"Bear in mind, Wishy, that Clause IV was removed by Blair before the last government.....No one can argue that Blair was a socialist (or atleast, no one with more than 3 brain cells working). I wouldn't argue that Brown was a socialist either, but he was a Keynseyan and it is Keyneyan ecconomics which will get us out of this mess, not Friedmanist monetary policies. Monetarism will just lead to a depression, which is what I am realy scared is what we and the rest of Europe will get for the foreseable future. The Labour Party, much like the Conservative Party is a consensus of different camps. The Labour right wing (Blair and his ilk) are Centerists, much like the left wing of the Tory Party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well done you've found Wikipedia. " Debate over. Big boys debate, children use throw away quips.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is the replacement for clause IV, which was removed by the Labour party shortly after Blair was elected to lead the Labour party. Its meaningless drivel when compared to what they actually did which was carry on the privatisations of the previous 18 years. Throwing the word socialist in there does make there actions socialist. Blair wrote it to replace the original Clause IV, but what is more significant about it is that for the first time in the history of the Labout Party it is officially described as a 'socialist' party, although Blair prefers to call himself a social democrat. So regardless of what *you* think the Labour Party is, the Labour Party defines itself as 'socialists'." Wishy, that's nonsense, and you well know it. Blair was not a socialist. No way, no how. Clause 4 was rewritten but only to keep the left on side (see my previous comment). It had to be rewritten in the same way that Cameron has to keep his right wing on side, being on the Tory left........That's politics. FFS, you ought to know this stuff, or if you do then why are you writing as if you don't? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We were warned that it was going to be painful to undo some of the damage Brown and his outragious spend spend spend policies created, but I'm convinced that the govt are following the right policies financially even if they do seem to be continually shooting themselves in the foot in other areas with u-turn after u-turn. I'd also go as far to concede that Osbourne seems a little out of touch with ordinary people and I hope he's learned a few things these past few weeks. Good points well made
Unfortunately they are also laughably uninformed points and complete nonsense.
But hey - it's wishy posting so I guess it's no surprise.
The reason why we (and most of the rest of the world) are in economic shit street is because banks and financial institutions gambled huge sums of other peoples money in highly risky unregulated financial products - which were based on US boom in under-regulated high risk mortgage products that turned out not to be worth a shit, but just so happened to have their rating of how safe they were as investments determined by the same organisations that were selling them.
You hit the nail on the head unregulated global financial institutions caused this mess,greedy bankers and their crony politician freinds who lobbied various governments to keep out and keep. The banking system unregulated ,and why? Because they all stood to nake billions
As both of the major parties were and still are fixated with free-market economics it would not have mattered who was in power when the shit hit the fan as neither would have created the regulations to stop it (and DEFINITELY not the tories) - and heck - not even the so-called financial experts who were buying and re-selling these products understood what they were and what risk they represented.
The upshot was that Brown was offered an impossible choice, do nothing, let the banks collapse - wipe out the economy, ordinary peoples savings and pensions - or bail out the banks at huge expense to the tax payer and try to keep our economy afloat.
He might have been a dour scottish twat but made the right choice - deal with it." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well done you've found Wikipedia. Debate over. Big boys debate, children use throw away quips.
"Yes your right, when someone has to resort to claiming victory and calling people children in an internet debate they have lost. Yes clause IV could be interpreted that way but its pretty open for interpretation and unlikely to be. If someone had put in all the effort then l arge paycheck would be the fruits of there labour as long as they had paid there employees a decent wage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is the replacement for clause IV, which was removed by the Labour party shortly after Blair was elected to lead the Labour party. Its meaningless drivel when compared to what they actually did which was carry on the privatisations of the previous 18 years. Throwing the word socialist in there does make there actions socialist. Blair wrote it to replace the original Clause IV, but what is more significant about it is that for the first time in the history of the Labout Party it is officially described as a 'socialist' party, although Blair prefers to call himself a social democrat. So regardless of what *you* think the Labour Party is, the Labour Party defines itself as 'socialists'. Wishy, that's nonsense, and you well know it. Blair was not a socialist. No way, no how. Clause 4 was rewritten but only to keep the left on side (see my previous comment). It had to be rewritten in the same way that Cameron has to keep his right wing on side, being on the Tory left........That's politics. FFS, you ought to know this stuff, or if you do then why are you writing as if you don't?" History records Blair as a socialist, and your interpretation of what he is and what the Labour Party is means diddly-squat as it's just an opinion, as opposed to party political fact. Blair is/was a socialist/social democrat....although his true capitalist roots have shown themselves above ground now and he's turning a very tidy profit with his middle east connections. | |||
| 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 is the replacement for clause IV, which was removed by the Labour party shortly after Blair was elected to lead the Labour party. Its meaningless drivel when compared to what they actually did which was carry on the privatisations of the previous 18 years. Throwing the word socialist in there does make there actions socialist. Blair wrote it to replace the original Clause IV, but what is more significant about it is that for the first time in the history of the Labout Party it is officially described as a 'socialist' party, although Blair prefers to call himself a social democrat. So regardless of what *you* think the Labour Party is, the Labour Party defines itself as 'socialists'. Wishy, that's nonsense, and you well know it. Blair was not a socialist. No way, no how. Clause 4 was rewritten but only to keep the left on side (see my previous comment). It had to be rewritten in the same way that Cameron has to keep his right wing on side, being on the Tory left........That's politics. FFS, you ought to know this stuff, or if you do then why are you writing as if you don't? History records Blair as a socialist, and your interpretation of what he is and what the Labour Party is means diddly-squat as it's just an opinion, as opposed to party political fact. Blair is/was a socialist/social democrat....although his true capitalist roots have shown themselves above ground now and he's turning a very tidy profit with his middle east connections." You describe Blair as a Socialist/Social Democrat when the two are different political philosophies (as demonstrated by the spiting off of 'The Gang of Four' in the early 80's from the Labour Party to form the Sodial Democrats, before merging with the Liberals to form the Liberal Democrats) Socialists and Social Democrats are at opposite ends of the Left Wing (socialists being on the left, Social Democrats being on the right wing of the part, placing them in the center of Left of Center ground of British politics. History does not record Blair as a socialist, Wishy, and you are going down in my estimation with each post..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You describe Blair as a Socialist/Social Democrat when the two are different political philosophies (as demonstrated by the spiting off of 'The Gang of Four' in the early 80's from the Labour Party to form the Sodial Democrats, before merging with the Liberals to form the Liberal Democrats) Socialists and Social Democrats are at opposite ends of the Left Wing (socialists being on the left, Social Democrats being on the right wing of the part, placing them in the center of Left of Center ground of British politics. History does not record Blair as a socialist, Wishy, and you are going down in my estimation with each post..... " I don't describe Blair as a socialist at all. Better people than I have written endless biographies of the man and to a man he's been described as a socialist, but more importantly Tony Blair describes HIMSELF as a social democrat. If that blurs your understanding of what a socialist is and what a social democrat is then that's not down to any post I make and who describes Blair as what. I don't think he is either a socialist or a democrat given that he implented his policies whilst in No.10, off loaded it to Brown when he saw what was coming, lined up a cushy position as Middle East Peace Envoy, and then set up a highly secretive company that is paid millions for his services to Middle East companies who want to do business with British companies - and he pays himself a very tidy not so little salary from it. Sounds very much like a capitalist to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You describe Blair as a Socialist/Social Democrat when the two are different political philosophies (as demonstrated by the spiting off of 'The Gang of Four' in the early 80's from the Labour Party to form the Sodial Democrats, before merging with the Liberals to form the Liberal Democrats) is capatalist slang for tax dodger and war criminal Socialists and Social Democrats are at opposite ends of the Left Wing (socialists being on the left, Social Democrats being on the right wing of the part, placing them in the center of Left of Center ground of British politics. History does not record Blair as a socialist, Wishy, and you are going down in my estimation with each post..... I don't describe Blair as a socialist at all. Better people than I have written endless biographies of the man and to a man he's been described as a socialist, but more importantly Tony Blair describes HIMSELF as a social democrat. If that blurs your understanding of what a socialist is and what a social democrat is then that's not down to any post I make and who describes Blair as what. I don't think he is either a socialist or a democrat given that he implented his policies whilst in No.10, off loaded it to Brown when he saw what was coming, lined up a cushy position as Middle East Peace Envoy, and then set up a highly secretive company that is paid millions for his services to Middle East companies who want to do business with British companies - and he pays himself a very tidy not so little salary from it. Sounds very much like a capitalist to me." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is the replacement for clause IV, which was removed by the Labour party shortly after Blair was elected to lead the Labour party. Its meaningless drivel when compared to what they actually did which was carry on the privatisations of the previous 18 years. Throwing the word socialist in there does make there actions socialist. Blair wrote it to replace the original Clause IV, but what is more significant about it is that for the first time in the history of the Labout Party it is officially described as a 'socialist' party, although Blair prefers to call himself a social democrat. So regardless of what *you* think the Labour Party is, the Labour Party defines itself as 'socialists'. Wishy, that's nonsense, and you well know it. Blair was not a socialist. No way, no how. Clause 4 was rewritten but only to keep the left on side (see my previous comment). It had to be rewritten in the same way that Cameron has to keep his right wing on side, being on the Tory left........That's politics. FFS, you ought to know this stuff, or if you do then why are you writing as if you don't? History records Blair as a socialist, and your interpretation of what he is and what the Labour Party is means diddly-squat as it's just an opinion, as opposed to party political fact. Blair is/was a socialist/social democrat....although his true capitalist roots have shown themselves above ground now and he's turning a very tidy profit with his middle east connections. You describe Blair as a Socialist/Social Democrat when the two are different political philosophies (as demonstrated by the spiting off of 'The Gang of Four' in the early 80's from the Labour Party to form the Sodial Democrats, before merging with the Liberals to form the Liberal Democrats) Socialists and Social Democrats are at opposite ends of the Left Wing (socialists being on the left, Social Democrats being on the right wing of the part, placing them in the center of Left of Center ground of British politics. History does not record Blair as a socialist, Wishy, and you are going down in my estimation with each post..... " I wish history would put its records straight and record him as a right slimy smug twat | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"it'd be interesting to see on here those who are either opposing or supporting this gov't and the cuts whether they work in the public sector and who works in the private sector.... or ...who are not in paid employment "i support this government, and i havet had a full time permanent job for over 2 years, but keep myself busy on agencies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Haha, double dip "if it comes with chocolate chip does that really mean in lamens terms were really in the shit loads being spouted on ere ime voting ukip ..what you know its contagious | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
