Politics

[Renton 21967]

Which honestly seems to be the extent of your capabiliites in just about any discussion you've been involved with on here.

 

Good luck 'googling' enough information to counter Chez's acquired academic and practical knowledge over the last decade and more Mr Tree.

 

I think that's the best thing about a place like this. Some people might ignore subjects unless they feel versed in them to a professional standard, but if I find a topic interesting I'll always google it and try to get involved, even if i have no clue (more often than not) cos that's how you learn more about it.

 

I've learned shitloads from the sites I'd never otherwise visit unless it was to counter someone or other on here.

 

To be fair to him, CT is one of the few posters willing to admit he's not sure about something and I don't think the threads where he's a lone WUM ever spiral into the bunfights previous wum's have descended to.

 

To be fair you're so much better at it though HF. Sometimes you even come across as having half a clue.

 

Despite what CT has said above, I prefer not to Google and cut and paste where possible. If I do I tend to stick to authorative websites like government ones or the BBC. Each to their own, but I don't think you can learn anything meaningful if your source material is inherently biased.

[AgentAxeman 189]

Which honestly seems to be the extent of your capabiliites in just about any discussion you've been involved with on here.

 

Good luck 'googling' enough information to counter Chez's acquired academic and practical knowledge over the last decade and more Mr Tree.

 

I think that's the best thing about a place like this. Some people might ignore subjects unless they feel versed in them to a professional standard, but if I find a topic interesting I'll always google it and try to get involved, even if i have no clue (more often than not) cos that's how you learn more about it.

 

I've learned shitloads from the sites I'd never otherwise visit unless it was to counter someone or other on here.

 

To be fair to him, CT is one of the few posters willing to admit he's not sure about something and I don't think the threads where he's a lone WUM ever spiral into the bunfights previous wum's have descended to.

 

If I do I tend to stick to authorative websites like government ones or the BBC. Each to their own, but I don't think you can learn anything meaningful if your source material is inherently biased.

 

 

you dont think government websites are inherently biased towards themselves (ie. the government)?? And also didnt the bbc admit to being left wing biased not so long ago?

 

I think you'll get more objective answers if you search the net. as long as you dont end up at www.iamamarxist.com or www.bnp.co.uk

 

[Renton 21967]

Which honestly seems to be the extent of your capabiliites in just about any discussion you've been involved with on here.

 

Good luck 'googling' enough information to counter Chez's acquired academic and practical knowledge over the last decade and more Mr Tree.

 

I think that's the best thing about a place like this. Some people might ignore subjects unless they feel versed in them to a professional standard, but if I find a topic interesting I'll always google it and try to get involved, even if i have no clue (more often than not) cos that's how you learn more about it.

 

I've learned shitloads from the sites I'd never otherwise visit unless it was to counter someone or other on here.

 

To be fair to him, CT is one of the few posters willing to admit he's not sure about something and I don't think the threads where he's a lone WUM ever spiral into the bunfights previous wum's have descended to.

 

If I do I tend to stick to authorative websites like government ones or the BBC. Each to their own, but I don't think you can learn anything meaningful if your source material is inherently biased.

 

 

you dont think government websites are inherently biased towards themselves (ie. the government)?? And also didnt the bbc admit to being left wing biased not so long ago?

 

I think you'll get more objective answers if you search the net. as long as you dont end up at www.iamamarxist.com or www.bnp.co.uk

 

 

I don't think government sites are biased if you cite facts - like I did earlier in this thread in the form of a bar chart of our deficit. Do you think they could make up facts about our deficit and get away with it?

 

As for the BBC, I'd be interested to see where they have admitted they have a left wing bias, got a link for that? They probably are a bit left slanting, but still, I'd be hard pressed to think of a more independent and authorative source of information. Perhaps you can tell me about one?

 

But tell me, how do you effectively appraise the information (and disinformation) you get from a Google search? How is that being objective? What I suspect you're doing is trawling the net to find opinion that backs your prejudice. You're one of the worst offenders for this as it happens. Parky is even worse however.

[AgentAxeman 189]

What I suspect you're doing is trawling the net to find opinion that backs your prejudice. You're one of the worst offenders for this as it happens. Parky is even worse however.

 

 

possibly, but maybe you are looking at the 'left leaning' sites as you call them because they are backing your predjudices?

 

totally agree with you about Parky tho

 

Anyway, from the Telegraph

 

"Coalition government: the Canadian cuts model that the Tories wish to emulate

In the early 1990s the Canadian government faced a serious financial crisis, with a $39 billion budget deficit - representing 9.1 per cent of GDP.

 

 

Canada's cost-cutting programme saw its science budget halved, while agricultural subsidies, overseas aid and transport were also badly hit

 

But a swift and effective cost-cutting programme turned this deficit into a surplus within five years, while pulling the country out of recession and into economic growth.

 

Between 1992 and 1996 central government departments saw their budgets cut by an average of 20 per cent.

 

Aware that efficiency savings and pay freezes alone would be insufficient, the prime minister Jean Chrétien ordered that all non-essential national government spending be cut.

 

A handful of sectors – such as benefits for the elderly – were spared or saw their budgets increased, but only at the expense of more painful reductions elsewhere.

 

The science budget was halved, while agricultural subsidies, overseas aid and transport were also badly hit.

 

Under a system called Program Review, a committee of senior civil servants demanded that all departments nominate spending programmes that a lean national government should not be funding.

 

They scrutinised these plans and recommended which schemes should be axed to a second committee of ministers, which in turn advised the prime minister.

 

This collegiate approach muffled dissent from ministers who resented cuts to their budgets, by putting them at the centre of the decision-making process.

 

The process was devised to alter the way the country thought about state spending, by exposing subsidies which were not essential.

 

Marcel Massé, the cabinet office minister in charge of the ministerial committee, said the Program Review identified “what needs to be done by government and what we can afford to do”.

 

By releasing details of the spending programmes and public sector salaries approved by Labour, and establishing a "star chamber" to advise on potentially controversial cuts, Mr Cameron is taking inspiration from the Canadian model.

 

As provincial governments saw their health grants slashed, thousands of nurses were sacked and hospital waiting times soared. The shortage of new buildings also led to overcrowding and higher infection rates on wards.

 

But Canadians credit the success of the programme to speed and depth of the cuts. The previous government of Brian Mulroney, a Conservative, had failed to reduce the deficit with a more cautious approach.

 

Jocelyne Bourgon, cabinet secretary for the Canadian civil service at the time, said: "It is preferable to move expeditiously. It creates hope at the end of the tunnel."

 

As the Canadian deficit fell the economy returned to growth, after shrinking by 2.1 per cent in 1991. Between 1992 and 1997 the tax burden increased only slightly, by 0.3 per cent."

 

Fairly drastic but if it works................................

[NJS 4410]

Yes but surely the aftermath of Canada's cuts coincided with worldwide growth.

 

It reminds me of blinkered Tories who think Thatcher's policies made Britain the only country to "boom" in the 80s when Germany and France did as well without the pain she inflicted.

 

Making savings with efficiency drives sounds good in theory but as the bit about waiting times and infection rates show, you need to be careful you don't go too far. Obviously the question is do we trust the Tories, even with Liberal shackles, to not be over harsh?

[AgentAxeman 189]

do we trust the Tories, even with Liberal shackles, to not be over harsh?

 

 

and therein lies the question.

 

 

I know a lot of people on here would rather slit their own wrists than trust them.

 

Its gonna happen tho.

 

bad times ahead methinks.

[NJS 4410]

I know a lot of people on here would rather slit their own wrists than trust them.

 

I don't trust them but that doesn't mean I would relish their failure. Of course I would measure their success by the effects rather than the bare numbers.

[Renton 21967]

Yes but surely the aftermath of Canada's cuts coincided with worldwide growth.

 

It reminds me of blinkered Tories who think Thatcher's policies made Britain the only country to "boom" in the 80s when Germany and France did as well without the pain she inflicted.

 

Making savings with efficiency drives sounds good in theory but as the bit about waiting times and infection rates show, you need to be careful you don't go too far. Obviously the question is do we trust the Tories, even with Liberal shackles, to not be over harsh?

 

It's hard to make any conclusions based on on anecdote, as you say Canada's return to economic health coincided with a global boom.

 

The dangers of too drastic cuts are obvious - mass unemployment in the public sector, a domino effect on the private sector, more money spent on social security, less revenue in taxes. As you say, the 1980s all over agin.

[Christmas Tree 4814]

Which honestly seems to be the extent of your capabiliites in just about any discussion you've been involved with on here.

 

Good luck 'googling' enough information to counter Chez's acquired academic and practical knowledge over the last decade and more Mr Tree.

 

I think that's the best thing about a place like this. Some people might ignore subjects unless they feel versed in them to a professional standard, but if I find a topic interesting I'll always google it and try to get involved, even if i have no clue (more often than not) cos that's how you learn more about it.

 

I've learned shitloads from the sites I'd never otherwise visit unless it was to counter someone or other on here.

 

To be fair to him, CT is one of the few posters willing to admit he's not sure about something and I don't think the threads where he's a lone WUM ever spiral into the bunfights previous wum's have descended to.

 

 

I agree

[Guest alex]

That's because he's not a very good wum.

[Renton 21967]

Which honestly seems to be the extent of your capabiliites in just about any discussion you've been involved with on here.

 

Good luck 'googling' enough information to counter Chez's acquired academic and practical knowledge over the last decade and more Mr Tree.

 

I think that's the best thing about a place like this. Some people might ignore subjects unless they feel versed in them to a professional standard, but if I find a topic interesting I'll always google it and try to get involved, even if i have no clue (more often than not) cos that's how you learn more about it.

 

I've learned shitloads from the sites I'd never otherwise visit unless it was to counter someone or other on here.

 

To be fair to him, CT is one of the few posters willing to admit he's not sure about something and I don't think the threads where he's a lone WUM ever spiral into the bunfights previous wum's have descended to.

 

 

I agree

 

You agree you're a wum?

[Christmas Tree 4814]

Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

[Renton 21967]

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

Once again, you ignore the fact things were going fine until the subprime crisis triggered the global meltdown and consequent deep recession. Do you want me to post more graphs? In fact Brown can even take some credit in the way he handled the acute stage of the crisis, heaven knows what would have happened had the incompetent Osbourne and 'lightweight' Cameron been at the helm.

 

Perhaps Brown can be blamed for over reliance on the financial markets and not regulating them enough. But CT, in all honesty, do you think the Conservatives, traditional champions of the free markets, would have acted differently in this regard?

[Happy Face 29]

Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500.

[Renton 21967]

Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500.

 

What if the 27k was spent on a life saving operation?

[Happy Face 29]

Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500.

 

What if the 27k was spent on a life saving operation?

 

That was supposed to counter CT, not support him. AFAIC borrowing £6k in a year on a £20k income isn't particularly unmanageable once you bounce out of recession....that's the ONLY way to recover.....the problem is deep cuts are going to prolong the recession and fuck us all over.

[Happy Face 29]

You've also got to remember that the Lib Dems and Labour both had higher tax increasses planned than the Tories. So however painful it's going to be, it's going to be more painful for the less well off than it is for the people that can afford it.

[Christmas Tree 4814]

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

Once again, you ignore the fact things were going fine until the subprime crisis triggered the global meltdown and consequent deep recession. Do you want me to post more graphs? In fact Brown can even take some credit in the way he handled the acute stage of the crisis, heaven knows what would have happened had the incompetent Osbourne and 'lightweight' Cameron been at the helm.

 

Perhaps Brown can be blamed for over reliance on the financial markets and not regulating them enough. But CT, in all honesty, do you think the Conservatives, traditional champions of the free markets, would have acted differently in this regard?

 

 

I'd like to see Blair and brown interviewed at length by paxman, fuck it then Jack Bauer if Paxman got nowhere.

[Renton 21967]

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

Once again, you ignore the fact things were going fine until the subprime crisis triggered the global meltdown and consequent deep recession. Do you want me to post more graphs? In fact Brown can even take some credit in the way he handled the acute stage of the crisis, heaven knows what would have happened had the incompetent Osbourne and 'lightweight' Cameron been at the helm.

 

Perhaps Brown can be blamed for over reliance on the financial markets and not regulating them enough. But CT, in all honesty, do you think the Conservatives, traditional champions of the free markets, would have acted differently in this regard?

 

 

I'd like to see Blair and brown interviewed at length by paxman, fuck it then Jack Bauer if Paxman got nowhere.

 

He was interviewed by Paxman before the election. Good job you're not being interviewed by him as you never fail to dodge anything put to you.

[Renton 21967]

You've also got to remember that the Lib Dems and Labour both had higher tax increasses planned than the Tories. So however painful it's going to be, it's going to be more painful for the less well off than it is for the people that can afford it.

 

They said on the radio this morning that it will be 80% cuts and 20% tax rises iirc (was a bit sleepy). I think that's the wrong way round personally.

[Happy Face 29]

People often glaze over when hearing how many hundreds of billions are needed....

 

The IFS says this about the national debt.....

• The official debt on the balance sheet when divided by household is £30,000.
  
• PFI which isn't on the accounts yet will add £5,000 per household.
  
• Public sector pensions represent an additional unfunded liability of £30,000 per household.
  
• The next four years as budgeted is going to require another £25,000 of borrowing per household.
  

That's a total of £90,000 of national debt per household. How does that compare with your house?

Edited June 7, 2010 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

Why? Its the financial crisis and the subsequent recession that caused the deficit to rise to unmanageable levels, not e.g. NHS funding increases from 2000-2010.

 

BTW "all the corporation tax" is about 15% lower than it was 2 years ago.

 

Also, as me and Parky have been hinting recently, dont hold your wealth in money, get it in assets.

[Christmas Tree 4814]

Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500.

 

 

A hard one to debate on the bat phone in the car without figures, but I guess that's a comparison to the budget defecit and not the debt so in reality it's a loan to keep up on a loan.

 

Your family has already raked up thousansd worth of debt and now can't keep up with the payments or the food shopping so is going to billy the loan shark for an extra 7,000 a year to try and keep up.

 

All the while your familys breadwinner is Hoping his ship is going to come in and that big promotion is around the corner.

 

A few years down the line his ship hasn't docked, his debt has kept on growing horifically, he's now paying really sill interest rates and Billy the loan shark wants his money back.

 

No one else will lend him anything, he loses his teeth, his wife, his kids and ends up supping cider at mill dam......

 

If only he listened to his neighbour, Terrence the Tory and cut his spending habits back in the day!

[Christmas Tree 4814]

People often glaze over when hearing how many hundreds of billions are needed....

 

The IFS says this about the national debt.....

• The official debt on the balance sheet when divided by household is £30,000.
  
• PFI which isn't on the accounts yet will add £5,000 per household.
  
• Public sector pensions represent an additional unfunded liability of £30,000 per household.
  
• The next four years as budgeted is going to require another £25,000 of borrowing per household.
  

That's a total of £90,000 of national debt per household. How does that compare with your house?

 

 

Per household?????

 

All households?

 

 

So if we take all the benefit households and pensioner households who can't pay and give their share to the workers in the middle, how much does that increase too?

[Renton 21967]

Have just listened to the full Cameron speech and regardless of which way you swing, we are basically fucked.

 

Brown, Darling and Blair should be fucking ashamed of themselves as their actions over the last 10 years are going to lead to cuts that will Thatchers 80's look like nothing in comparison.

 

I think anyone in the public sector had better hope their job is extremely front line and relevant.

 

When you hear lines like "all the corporation tax, that's taxes from every company in the Uk won't even cover half the interest on our debt", you know it's bad.

 

This is without doubt going to effect us all. Time to save every penny you can. Fuck the materialism thread, fuck the summer holiday thread, were doooooomed. :-(

 

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500.

 

 

A hard one to debate on the bat phone in the car without figures, but I guess that's a comparison to the budget defecit and not the debt so in reality it's a loan to keep up on a loan.

 

Your family has already raked up thousansd worth of debt and now can't keep up with the payments or the food shopping so is going to billy the loan shark for an extra 7,000 a year to try and keep up.

 

All the while your familys breadwinner is Hoping his ship is going to come in and that big promotion is around the corner.

 

A few years down the line his ship hasn't docked, his debt has kept on growing horifically, he's now paying really sill interest rates and Billy the loan shark wants his money back.

 

No one else will lend him anything, he loses his teeth, his wife, his kids and ends up supping cider at mill dam......

 

If only he listened to his neighbour, Terrence the Tory and cut his spending habits back in the day!

 

Fucking Hell.