Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Nigel Farage named Briton of the year by the Times
Topic Started: Dec 27 2014, 03:42 PM (2,926 Views)
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
The 50-year-old was described as "game-changing" politician and was honoured for "bulldozing" his party into the political mainstream during 2014.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/548896/Nigel-Farage-Ukip-UK-Independence-Party-Briton-of-the-Year-2014-The-Times
Edited by AndyK, Dec 27 2014, 03:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Dec 28 2014, 05:56 PM
Steve K
Dec 28 2014, 12:29 PM
krugerman
Dec 28 2014, 12:23 PM
This post is missleading

To quote Steve K "£150B of non state and state borrowing every year"

Well firstly, Gordon Brown did not borrow £150B every year, . . .
Please read it again properly before you go throwing insults around

It was ~£50B of state + ~£100B of private borrowing each year = ~£150B

Gordon's false boom was debt fuelled

Well firstly I did not insult anyone, what I did do is accuse your statement of been missleading, which it is.

The very word "regulation" is something that Conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic have always detested, the Conservative way has always been less regulation and leave market forces to find their own level, which they did, and it led the financial mess and to a near depression.

From 2004 until 2007 government borrowing was on a gentle slide, and at no time did the last government ever borrow more than £50B in any given year until the onsett of the crisis, To say that the long years of growth under Blair and Brown were fuelled by debt is a falsehood.

Of the three times the UK budget has been in the black ( in surplus ) in the last 50 year, two of those times were under a Labour government, and throughout the 18 long years of Thatcher / Major rule, the government borrowed money and ran up a deficit for 16.

The idea that Labour spends on borrowed money, and that the Tories always live within our means is a fairy tale.



That's not true, in fact Margaret Thatcher introduced a whole raft of financial sector regulation. Insider trading was made illegal in 1980. The life insurance industry, which had been almost free of regulation for over 100 years from 1870, was re-regulated from 1980 to 1982. Bank deposit insurance was introduced in 1979. The sale of investment and insurance products came under statutory regulation from 1986. Further, the first ever regulation of UK bank capital took place under Basel I, all under Thachers reign.

The biggest problem for conservatives has always been, having to clear up someone else's mess, but they always seem to run out of ideas once that is done and usually end up doing something stupid, like poll tax or bedroom tax.
Edited by AndyK, Dec 28 2014, 11:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK
Dec 28 2014, 10:59 PM
krugerman
Dec 28 2014, 05:56 PM
Steve K
Dec 28 2014, 12:29 PM
krugerman
Dec 28 2014, 12:23 PM
This post is missleading

To quote Steve K "£150B of non state and state borrowing every year"

Well firstly, Gordon Brown did not borrow £150B every year, . . .
Please read it again properly before you go throwing insults around

It was ~£50B of state + ~£100B of private borrowing each year = ~£150B

Gordon's false boom was debt fuelled

Well firstly I did not insult anyone, what I did do is accuse your statement of been missleading, which it is.

The very word "regulation" is something that Conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic have always detested, the Conservative way has always been less regulation and leave market forces to find their own level, which they did, and it led the financial mess and to a near depression.

From 2004 until 2007 government borrowing was on a gentle slide, and at no time did the last government ever borrow more than £50B in any given year until the onsett of the crisis, To say that the long years of growth under Blair and Brown were fuelled by debt is a falsehood.

Of the three times the UK budget has been in the black ( in surplus ) in the last 50 year, two of those times were under a Labour government, and throughout the 18 long years of Thatcher / Major rule, the government borrowed money and ran up a deficit for 16.

The idea that Labour spends on borrowed money, and that the Tories always live within our means is a fairy tale.



That's not true, in fact Margaret Thatcher introduced a whole raft of financial sector regulation. Insider trading was made illegal in 1980. The life insurance industry, which had been almost free of regulation for over 100 years from 1870, was re-regulated from 1980 to 1982. Bank deposit insurance was introduced in 1979. The sale of investment and insurance products came under statutory regulation from 1986. Further, the first ever regulation of UK bank capital took place under Basel I, all under Thachers reign.

The biggest problem for conservatives has always been, having to clear up someone else's mess, but they always seem to run out of ideas once that is done and usually end up doing something stupid, like poll tax or bedroom tax.
But the Tory incompetents are the architects of the 'mess'. They caused it and are continuing the shambles.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Dec 28 2014, 08:24 PM
Rich
Dec 28 2014, 08:06 PM
C-too
Dec 28 2014, 10:52 AM
jaguar
Dec 27 2014, 06:12 PM
Farage has become the fly in the ointment, with the possibility of the SNP taking Labour seats in Scotland, and many disillusioned labour supporters up North voting UKIP.....................

One thing that modern British electoral history conclusively shows is that we never elect Labour weirdos e.g.Foot, or lightweights e.g. Kinnock, Labour now have Miliband.

Whatever the outcome (and my bet is on another Tory-led coalition of some kind), my prediction is that this is the most open election in years and nobody has the faintest idea what the result will be.


I would agree that M.Foot was not PM material, nor IMO was Brown.

But the Tories do do elect weirdos. Cameron is an example but in particular Thatcher. She totally misled the electorate. Her policies finished up doing more social and economic damage to this country than any Labour PM or for that matter, than any action taken by unions.


And would you care to recall what irreversible social damage and long term economic damage has been inflicted on this country between 1997 upto 2010, I do not blame anyone for having a go at the present administration, but one must be evenhanded when apportioning blame, one will only have to ask the next generation that will be paying for this to see the truth.
There has been no irresversible damage caused between 1997 and 2010, especially compared to that after that date, caused by the incompetents. Of course the right wingers will insinuate otherwise but that is mainly Tory propaganda.


So the fact that several Labour grandees have admitted that NL got it badly wrong on the immigration issue is not true then?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 28 2014, 08:06 PM
C-too
Dec 28 2014, 10:52 AM
jaguar
Dec 27 2014, 06:12 PM
Farage has become the fly in the ointment, with the possibility of the SNP taking Labour seats in Scotland, and many disillusioned labour supporters up North voting UKIP.....................

One thing that modern British electoral history conclusively shows is that we never elect Labour weirdos e.g.Foot, or lightweights e.g. Kinnock, Labour now have Miliband.

Whatever the outcome (and my bet is on another Tory-led coalition of some kind), my prediction is that this is the most open election in years and nobody has the faintest idea what the result will be.


I would agree that M.Foot was not PM material, nor IMO was Brown.

But the Tories do do elect weirdos. Cameron is an example but in particular Thatcher. She totally misled the electorate. Her policies finished up doing more social and economic damage to this country than any Labour PM or for that matter, than any action taken by unions.


And would you care to recall what irreversible social damage and long term economic damage has been inflicted on this country between 1997 upto 2010, I do not blame anyone for having a go at the present administration, but one must be evenhanded when apportioning blame, one will only have to ask the next generation that will be paying for this to see the truth.
Social and economic damage inflicted 1997 - 2010? Even handedness means looking at the facts.

Can you tell me who caused the international financial tsunami? And who introduced the new way of earning a living by introducing deregulation, financial services and the free market economy? (an approach that stymied any chance of rebuilding our industrial base at the time).

What appears to be your inference that Blair/Brown were responsible for the mess in 2010 is like blaming the victims of a tsunami for the deaths and destruction caused by the tsunami.

I think that if right-wingers and and other political opponents of Labour get their way, the next generation will be believing a lie. Hopefully they will be better informed than many people are today.
Edited by C-too, Dec 29 2014, 08:15 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 12:12 AM
Lewis
Dec 28 2014, 08:24 PM
Rich
Dec 28 2014, 08:06 PM
C-too
Dec 28 2014, 10:52 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepdo elect weirdos. Cameron is an example but in particular Thatcher. She totally misled the electorate. Her policies finished up doing more social and economic damage to this country than any Labour PM or for that matter, than any action taken by unions.


And would you care to recall what irreversible social damage and long term economic damage has been inflicted on this country between 1997 upto 2010, I do not blame anyone for having a go at the present administration, but one must be evenhanded when apportioning blame, one will only have to ask the next generation that will be paying for this to see the truth.
There has been no irresversible damage caused between 1997 and 2010, especially compared to that after that date, caused by the incompetents. Of course the right wingers will insinuate otherwise but that is mainly Tory propaganda.


So the fact that several Labour grandees have admitted that NL got it badly wrong on the immigration issue is not true then?
"badly wrong"

Exacerbated by the meltdown. A continuation of a strong economy would have benefited from the immigration.

There also appears to be the case that the best NL could have done was to slow down the speed of immigration, as Germany and France did. There is no guarantee that there would have been fewer immigrants if NL had gone down that road.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK

Quote:
 
That's not true, in fact Margaret Thatcher introduced a whole raft of financial sector regulation. Insider trading was made illegal in 1980. The life insurance industry, which had been almost free of regulation for over 100 years from 1870, was re-regulated from 1980 to 1982. Bank deposit insurance was introduced in 1979. The sale of investment and insurance products came under statutory regulation from 1986. Further, the first ever regulation of UK bank capital took place under Basel I, all under Thachers reign.

I recall the deregulation of Solicitors and the stickers in Taxis in the 1980s. "No deregulation", such was the flow of deregulation at the time. And I recall the selling of Pensions that led to the stink about people being ripped off.

The person who influenced Thatcher most during her spell in office was Alan Greenspan and he was the one pushing for deregulation of financial service and a free market economy. When the financial tsunami hit, he apolgised stating that he did not think the financial sector would have behaved so "irresponsibly".
The City of London, the Tory party along with Greenspan et al all continued to call for "less red tape".

Mrs T did not reign anywhere, in fact she should have been sent to the Tower after 4 or 5 years in office.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Dec 28 2014, 11:18 PM
AndyK
Dec 28 2014, 10:59 PM
krugerman
Dec 28 2014, 05:56 PM
Steve K
Dec 28 2014, 12:29 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Well firstly I did not insult anyone, what I did do is accuse your statement of been missleading, which it is.

The very word "regulation" is something that Conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic have always detested, the Conservative way has always been less regulation and leave market forces to find their own level, which they did, and it led the financial mess and to a near depression.

From 2004 until 2007 government borrowing was on a gentle slide, and at no time did the last government ever borrow more than £50B in any given year until the onsett of the crisis, To say that the long years of growth under Blair and Brown were fuelled by debt is a falsehood.

Of the three times the UK budget has been in the black ( in surplus ) in the last 50 year, two of those times were under a Labour government, and throughout the 18 long years of Thatcher / Major rule, the government borrowed money and ran up a deficit for 16.

The idea that Labour spends on borrowed money, and that the Tories always live within our means is a fairy tale.



That's not true, in fact Margaret Thatcher introduced a whole raft of financial sector regulation. Insider trading was made illegal in 1980. The life insurance industry, which had been almost free of regulation for over 100 years from 1870, was re-regulated from 1980 to 1982. Bank deposit insurance was introduced in 1979. The sale of investment and insurance products came under statutory regulation from 1986. Further, the first ever regulation of UK bank capital took place under Basel I, all under Thachers reign.

The biggest problem for conservatives has always been, having to clear up someone else's mess, but they always seem to run out of ideas once that is done and usually end up doing something stupid, like poll tax or bedroom tax.
But the Tory incompetents are the architects of the 'mess'. They caused it and are continuing the shambles.
The current mess is almost entirely caused by one man, Gordon Brown.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 12:12 AM
Lewis
Dec 28 2014, 08:24 PM
Rich
Dec 28 2014, 08:06 PM
C-too
Dec 28 2014, 10:52 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepdo elect weirdos. Cameron is an example but in particular Thatcher. She totally misled the electorate. Her policies finished up doing more social and economic damage to this country than any Labour PM or for that matter, than any action taken by unions.


And would you care to recall what irreversible social damage and long term economic damage has been inflicted on this country between 1997 upto 2010, I do not blame anyone for having a go at the present administration, but one must be evenhanded when apportioning blame, one will only have to ask the next generation that will be paying for this to see the truth.
There has been no irresversible damage caused between 1997 and 2010, especially compared to that after that date, caused by the incompetents. Of course the right wingers will insinuate otherwise but that is mainly Tory propaganda.


So the fact that several Labour grandees have admitted that NL got it badly wrong on the immigration issue is not true then?
And your lot have increased immigration, not reduced it to the 10s of Thousands as promised by Scameron in 2010 or thereabouts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK
Dec 29 2014, 09:42 AM
Lewis
Dec 28 2014, 11:18 PM
AndyK
Dec 28 2014, 10:59 PM
krugerman
Dec 28 2014, 05:56 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
That's not true, in fact Margaret Thatcher introduced a whole raft of financial sector regulation. Insider trading was made illegal in 1980. The life insurance industry, which had been almost free of regulation for over 100 years from 1870, was re-regulated from 1980 to 1982. Bank deposit insurance was introduced in 1979. The sale of investment and insurance products came under statutory regulation from 1986. Further, the first ever regulation of UK bank capital took place under Basel I, all under Thachers reign.

The biggest problem for conservatives has always been, having to clear up someone else's mess, but they always seem to run out of ideas once that is done and usually end up doing something stupid, like poll tax or bedroom tax.
But the Tory incompetents are the architects of the 'mess'. They caused it and are continuing the shambles.
The current mess is almost entirely caused by one man, Gordon Brown.
Rubbish that fallacy has been proved incorrect. Your lot have made things worse without any shadow of doubt, complete incompetence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK
Dec 29 2014, 09:42 AM
Lewis
Dec 28 2014, 11:18 PM
AndyK
Dec 28 2014, 10:59 PM
krugerman
Dec 28 2014, 05:56 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
That's not true, in fact Margaret Thatcher introduced a whole raft of financial sector regulation. Insider trading was made illegal in 1980. The life insurance industry, which had been almost free of regulation for over 100 years from 1870, was re-regulated from 1980 to 1982. Bank deposit insurance was introduced in 1979. The sale of investment and insurance products came under statutory regulation from 1986. Further, the first ever regulation of UK bank capital took place under Basel I, all under Thachers reign.

The biggest problem for conservatives has always been, having to clear up someone else's mess, but they always seem to run out of ideas once that is done and usually end up doing something stupid, like poll tax or bedroom tax.
But the Tory incompetents are the architects of the 'mess'. They caused it and are continuing the shambles.
The current mess is almost entirely caused by one man, Gordon Brown.
So nothing to do with the deregulation of the Stock Exchange in 1985? You are fooling no one, except perhaps yourself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
You have to ask the following relivant question : [Where was the UK economy immediately prior to the financial crisis ?]

The answer

Budget deficit £36.4B (compared to a £156B peak in 2009 towards the end of the recession)

Growth at 1.2% in 2007 (compared to a low of -2.1% in 4th qtr 2008)

Inflation average for 2007 2.5% ( peak of 5.2% at the height of the recession )

Unemployment below 5% ( peak of 8.5% in 2012 )

The fact is that contrary to what the Tories say, the UK economy was in good shape immediately prior to the financial crisis hitting, our defecit was amongst the lowest in the industrialized world at the time, so much for the lie that the years of growth were fuelled by borrowing.

The government at the time made a conscious decision to invest billions in the NHS and education, and mainly because of the horrendous state the NHS was left in, after 18 years of utter neglect by the Tories.

The present coalition keep on telling the lie that everything is Gordon Browns fault, but people are begining to see the truth of it.

Edited by krugerman, Dec 29 2014, 01:32 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
krugerman
Dec 29 2014, 01:31 PM

The government at the time made a conscious decision to invest billions in the NHS and education, and mainly because of the horrendous state the NHS was left in, after 18 years of utter neglect by the Tories.

The present coalition keep on telling the lie that everything is Gordon Browns fault, but people are begining to see the truth of it.

But they didn't invest £billions, As I have stated before, Labour mortgaged the NHS for the next 30+ years under PFI. They allowed the private sector to dictate the TERMS AND CONDITIONS of the PFI deals through utter incompetence in negotiating the contracts.

Tell me what people are beginning to see the truth of it, Labour left a complete mess that everyone knew was going to take years to put right yet Labour have fought austerity measures at every opportunity.

The problem with attacking the Tories is that Labour have no credibility or policies of their own. That’s why the public trust Osborne. You cannot grasp the fact that those who work hard, save, buy their house are aspirational and want a better life for themselves and their families, and should not have their hard EARNED taken off them to fund the Hampstead’s Marxist pet causes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Dec 29 2014, 01:53 PM
That’s why the public trust Osborne.
You must come into contact with a vastly different public to me. I don't know anyone who trusts him.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 29 2014, 01:58 PM
jaguar
Dec 29 2014, 01:53 PM
That’s why the public trust Osborne.
You must come into contact with a vastly different public to me. I don't know anyone who trusts him.
Of course you don't, And yes I do come into contact with a vastly different public, mainly the general public. But then I don't sit on my backside all day trawling through left wing sites.

Explain why all polls claim Voters believe George Osborne is more trustworthy than Ed Balls.

On behalf of HuffPost, Survation also asked voters what words sprang to mind when they thought of Balls and Osborne. The shadow chancellor was variously described as "good" and "funny". However other less flattering words included "idiot", "rubbish", "weak", "boring" and "twat".
Edited by jaguar, Dec 29 2014, 02:32 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LillyBee
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 27 2014, 11:16 PM
Tigger
Dec 27 2014, 08:24 PM
I don't know whether to laugh or cry, what I will say thought is that if Farage, a bloke who consistently has trouble with facts and figures, is considered to be the man of the year it just demonstrates how low England has sunk.........
Well yes if was down to honesty, altruism or some other positive characteristic then someone like the guy who went to fight Ebola, got it, survived and went back again would get it and Nigel would be a long way distant.

But he has caught the imagination of so many of the British public shallow and selfish as it so often is and while he may have the maths of the village idiot and a first line team of misfits and nutjobs he has at times been brave. Farage is for now that thing so rare and transient in politics, a leader.



Sounds a bit like our leader today. He has his many faults but somehow he holds on tight and seems to crawl out of most of his problems to the not so delight of many but to the delight of many more.

His approval rating is going way up again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 28 2014, 07:44 PM
Steve K
Dec 28 2014, 02:52 PM


"No more boom and bust" what an empty promise that was.



Do you understand the correct interpretation of what Boom & Bust means?
The interpretation that was being referred to when Brown made his statement, and not the false interpretation of those being disingenuous for party political reasons.

Well done, you passed the initial test to enroll as a spin doctor. ;-)

But to return to sanity:

It's not like Gordon only made the statement just the once is it? And that in later years he didn't realise he had totally effed up because he felt the need to invent a false account of what he had said

Happy reading: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+no+more+boom+and+bust/2564157.html

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
to remind those with poor memories or afflicted with the denial virus but the last time the nation was made to endure austerity it did so for 19 years - from 1980 to 1999, and then as now all in the cause of the ideological bent of the ruling class (so they call themselves).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Dec 29 2014, 02:29 PM
But then I don't sit on my backside all day trawling through left wing sites.

Explain why all polls claim Voters believe George Osborne is more trustworthy than Ed Balls.

Neither do I, as for the polls, with a right wing media what else do you expect.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Dec 29 2014, 01:31 PM
You have to ask the following relivant question : [Where was the UK economy immediately prior to the financial crisis ?]

The answer

Budget deficit £36.4B (compared to a £156B peak in 2009 towards the end of the recession)

Growth at 1.2% in 2007 (compared to a low of -2.1% in 4th qtr 2008)

Inflation average for 2007 2.5% ( peak of 5.2% at the height of the recession )

Unemployment below 5% ( peak of 8.5% in 2012 )

The fact is that contrary to what the Tories say, the UK economy was in good shape immediately prior to the financial crisis hitting, our defecit was amongst the lowest in the industrialized world at the time, so much for the lie that the years of growth were fuelled by borrowing.

The government at the time made a conscious decision to invest billions in the NHS and education, and mainly because of the horrendous state the NHS was left in, after 18 years of utter neglect by the Tories.

The present coalition keep on telling the lie that everything is Gordon Browns fault, but people are begining to see the truth of it.

And you have the cheek to accuse others of misleading posts?

The whole point is the government abandoned it's so called golden rule to fund election winning initiatives and allowed that obscene £800B to be added to household debt to do similar. All of which left us far far more vulnerable to any wider international downturn. Which of course happened JUST AFTER OURS STARTED. Do we need to explain the concept of "after"? If it helps then massive house repossessions started in 2006, the meltdown in 2007.

Maybe Gordon was only 90% to blame but it was on his watch and he was claiming all the credit of when it appeared to be going right so until he admits it wasn't, he can hardly say its unfair to be in the dock for so much going wrong.

But perhaps what I like best is your claim that the recession was ending in 2009 (conveniently before Gordon was slung out on his ear)

Now remind us all who posted this at the start of 2013:

Quote:
 
At the end of last summer some observers and commentaters suggested that Britain could be heading towards a triple dip recession, but because such a scenario seemed too ridiculous, no one realy took any notice.

Here we are folks on the 25th January 2013 with Britains economy once again contracting, this time by 0.3%, this now means that the UK economy has been in negative growth for half the time the coalition has been in power, we are teetering on the edge of another official recession, the second during this coalitions time in office.


Oh yes, it was you
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 29 2014, 03:27 PM
Affa
Dec 28 2014, 07:44 PM
Steve K
Dec 28 2014, 02:52 PM


"No more boom and bust" what an empty promise that was.



Do you understand the correct interpretation of what Boom & Bust means?
The interpretation that was being referred to when Brown made his statement, and not the false interpretation of those being disingenuous for party political reasons.

Well done, you passed the initial test to enroll as a spin doctor. ;-)

But to return to sanity:

It's not like Gordon only made the statement just the once is it? And that in later years he didn't realise he had totally effed up because he felt the need to invent a false account of what he had said

Happy reading: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+no+more+boom+and+bust/2564157.html

Well I'm certainly not unhappy reading the factcheck account, which is open to interpretation, Brown did say 'Tory Boom & Bust.' just not every time. But that too is another obfuscation. The truth is that as Chancellor he did indeed end Boom & Bust, the monetary manilulations that create an unsustanable short term boom , inevitably followed by a consequential down turn.

That is not SPIN, the wrongly accusing others denying it use SPIN, when claiming the bank crisis was in any way the result such policies - policies that Osborne has returned us to.

This housing generated bubble is of course unsustainable ............ unless you choose to disagree?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Dec 29 2014, 01:53 PM
krugerman
Dec 29 2014, 01:31 PM

The government at the time made a conscious decision to invest billions in the NHS and education, and mainly because of the horrendous state the NHS was left in, after 18 years of utter neglect by the Tories.

The present coalition keep on telling the lie that everything is Gordon Browns fault, but people are begining to see the truth of it.

But they didn't invest £billions, As I have stated before, Labour mortgaged the NHS for the next 30+ years under PFI. They allowed the private sector to dictate the TERMS AND CONDITIONS of the PFI deals through utter incompetence in negotiating the contracts.

Tell me what people are beginning to see the truth of it, Labour left a complete mess that everyone knew was going to take years to put right yet Labour have fought austerity measures at every opportunity.

The problem with attacking the Tories is that Labour have no credibility or policies of their own. That’s why the public trust Osborne. You cannot grasp the fact that those who work hard, save, buy their house are aspirational and want a better life for themselves and their families, and should not have their hard EARNED taken off them to fund the Hampstead’s Marxist pet causes.
Have you looked at the alternative funding cost for the NHS yet? If not, then you are at best only looking at the problem from one point of view with one aim in mind. You obviously have strong opinions in this area, doesn't that put the onus on you to know what you are talking about?

Of course NL increased investment into the NHS and schools. New buildings, more doctors nurses, teachers and so on, more equipment both in the NHS and inschools.

As for the cost of health I suggest you look at the following. Scroll down for early graphs.

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/media/commission-background-paper-social-care-health-system-other-countries.pdf

"trust Osborne" ;D

Everyone got richer under NL but the rich got richer faster. Yet when it comes to rescuing the economy it is the rest that get hit hardest and the rich who get protected. I guess Thatcher would be proud of Osborne.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
It's more complex than a housing generated bubble, it's still a debt fuelled bubble just not as big as the borrowing in the mid 2000s. What it is not is an earnt bubble, we still do not compete sufficiently in the wider markets to sustain the standards of living and welfare we collectively feel we are entitled to

Anyway can any of Affa, Ctoo, Lewis or Krugerman manage to read this without a cringing sense of embarrassment

It's Gordon's last budget speech in March 2007, as the stats showed the household debt facade was already unravelling

http://centrallobby.politicshome.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/budget-2007-gordon-browns-speech-in-full/

Some snippets:

" . .after 10 years of sustained growth, Britain's growth will continue into its 59th quarter - the forecast end of the cycle - and then into its 60th and 61st quarter and beyond . . . "

How Buzz Lightyear-esque.

"Mr Deputy Speaker, in setting the right balance between tax, spending and the stability of the economy, we will not take risks with or break from the stability essential to our long term economic performance."

And of course the unambiguously wrong:

" And we will never return to the old boom and bust." !jk!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Dec 29 2014, 02:29 PM
papasmurf
Dec 29 2014, 01:58 PM
jaguar
Dec 29 2014, 01:53 PM
That’s why the public trust Osborne.
You must come into contact with a vastly different public to me. I don't know anyone who trusts him.
Of course you don't, And yes I do come into contact with a vastly different public, mainly the general public. But then I don't sit on my backside all day trawling through left wing sites.

Explain why all polls claim Voters believe George Osborne is more trustworthy than Ed Balls.

On behalf of HuffPost, Survation also asked voters what words sprang to mind when they thought of Balls and Osborne. The shadow chancellor was variously described as "good" and "funny". However other less flattering words included "idiot", "rubbish", "weak", "boring" and "twat".
Why not come clean and reveal just which papers you do trawl through?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 29 2014, 04:53 PM
It's more complex than a housing generated bubble, it's still a debt fuelled bubble just not as big as the borrowing in the mid 2000s. What it is not is an earnt bubble, we still do not compete sufficiently in the wider markets to sustain the standards of living and welfare we collectively feel we are entitled to

Anyway can any of Affa, Ctoo, Lewis or Krugerman manage to read this without a cringing sense of embarrassment

It's Gordon's last budget speech in March 2007, as the stats showed the household debt facade was already unravelling

http://centrallobby.politicshome.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/budget-2007-gordon-browns-speech-in-full/

Some snippets:

" . .after 10 years of sustained growth, Britain's growth will continue into its 59th quarter - the forecast end of the cycle - and then into its 60th and 61st quarter and beyond . . . "

How Buzz Lightyear-esque.

"Mr Deputy Speaker, in setting the right balance between tax, spending and the stability of the economy, we will not take risks with or break from the stability essential to our long term economic performance."

And of course the unambiguously wrong:

" And we will never return to the old boom and bust." !jk!
IMO it is only the members of the lesser moron brigade who try to equate B&Bust with controlling international recessions. For intelligent individuals and those interested in objectivity. It would not matter if Brown mentioned Tory and B&Bust together or not, what he was referring to had everything to do with how our internal economy was controlled and absolutely nothing to do with controlling world recessions.

It's so obvious it really should not need to be explaned.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 29 2014, 03:40 PM
krugerman
Dec 29 2014, 01:31 PM
You have to ask the following relivant question : [Where was the UK economy immediately prior to the financial crisis ?]

The answer

Budget deficit £36.4B (compared to a £156B peak in 2009 towards the end of the recession)

Growth at 1.2% in 2007 (compared to a low of -2.1% in 4th qtr 2008)

Inflation average for 2007 2.5% ( peak of 5.2% at the height of the recession )

Unemployment below 5% ( peak of 8.5% in 2012 )

The fact is that contrary to what the Tories say, the UK economy was in good shape immediately prior to the financial crisis hitting, our defecit was amongst the lowest in the industrialized world at the time, so much for the lie that the years of growth were fuelled by borrowing.

The government at the time made a conscious decision to invest billions in the NHS and education, and mainly because of the horrendous state the NHS was left in, after 18 years of utter neglect by the Tories.

The present coalition keep on telling the lie that everything is Gordon Browns fault, but people are begining to see the truth of it.

And you have the cheek to accuse others of misleading posts?

The whole point is the government abandoned it's so called golden rule to fund election winning initiatives and allowed that obscene £800B to be added to household debt to do similar. All of which left us far far more vulnerable to any wider international downturn. Which of course happened JUST AFTER OURS STARTED. Do we need to explain the concept of "after"? If it helps then massive house repossessions started in 2006, the meltdown in 2007.

Maybe Gordon was only 90% to blame but it was on his watch and he was claiming all the credit of when it appeared to be going right so until he admits it wasn't, he can hardly say its unfair to be in the dock for so much going wrong.

But perhaps what I like best is your claim that the recession was ending in 2009 (conveniently before Gordon was slung out on his ear)

Now remind us all who posted this at the start of 2013:

Quote:
 
At the end of last summer some observers and commentaters suggested that Britain could be heading towards a triple dip recession, but because such a scenario seemed too ridiculous, no one realy took any notice.

Here we are folks on the 25th January 2013 with Britains economy once again contracting, this time by 0.3%, this now means that the UK economy has been in negative growth for half the time the coalition has been in power, we are teetering on the edge of another official recession, the second during this coalitions time in office.


Oh yes, it was you
IIRC the Golden Rule was to only borrow for investment. Not sure he broke that rule, I might have to review the G/rule.

"International downturn" at least you do give me cause to have chucle now and then. There was no international "downturn" the was a massive international financial collapse. For you to try to create any sort of link between that and what was goining on in the UK at that time is quite obscene.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Gordon Brown broke the Golden Rule. He borrowed during the good times and spent this on current consumption. But that is OK, it's fine and dandy as long as you believe the good times are here forever, he did, they weren't.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
jaguar
Dec 29 2014, 01:53 PM
krugerman
Dec 29 2014, 01:31 PM

The government at the time made a conscious decision to invest billions in the NHS and education, and mainly because of the horrendous state the NHS was left in, after 18 years of utter neglect by the Tories.

The present coalition keep on telling the lie that everything is Gordon Browns fault, but people are begining to see the truth of it.

But they didn't invest £billions, As I have stated before, Labour mortgaged the NHS for the next 30+ years under PFI. They allowed the private sector to dictate the TERMS AND CONDITIONS of the PFI deals through utter incompetence in negotiating the contracts.

Tell me what people are beginning to see the truth of it, Labour left a complete mess that everyone knew was going to take years to put right yet Labour have fought austerity measures at every opportunity.

The problem with attacking the Tories is that Labour have no credibility or policies of their own. That’s why the public trust Osborne. You cannot grasp the fact that those who work hard, save, buy their house are aspirational and want a better life for themselves and their families, and should not have their hard EARNED taken off them to fund the Hampstead’s Marxist pet causes.
Well the first thing to point out to you is that PFI was first used in this country by the Conservatives, it was used by John Major after studying its use in Australia, I have no wish to get into a debate about PFI and its complexities.

The Labour government did a great deal more than simply build new hospitals, by 2010 there were 40,000 more doctors, there were 83,000 more nurses, waiting lists reversed from rising under the Tories and eventualy down by over 600,000.

In 1997 half of all NHS buildings dated to before 1948, that figure was reduced to 20%, and so if you would like any Labour voter or supporter to appologize at what was done to the NHS - you will have a long wait, the service was falling apart in 1997, and no Tory can ever win the NHS argument, its a Tory lost cause, infact it will be an issue at the general election.

The truth - is that the deficit was not a concern or a worry or out of control prior to the financial crisis, the economy was fine.

The truth - is that like many western economies, we ran up borrowing to prevent a catastrophe when the banking crisis and recession hit us, precisely the same as what Norman Lamont did during the recession of the 1990s when the deficit went from 18 billion in 1991 to over 50 billion in 1993, but I suppose thats somehow different.

There are other ways of repairing the deficit, Osborne s plan is grossly unfair, and hits some of the poorest people hardest, a government which introduces the bedroom tax hitting working people on low incomes, whilst at the same time giving tax cuts to millionaires, is despicable.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 29 2014, 03:40 PM
krugerman
Dec 29 2014, 01:31 PM
You have to ask the following relivant question : [Where was the UK economy immediately prior to the financial crisis ?]

The answer

Budget deficit £36.4B (compared to a £156B peak in 2009 towards the end of the recession)

Growth at 1.2% in 2007 (compared to a low of -2.1% in 4th qtr 2008)

Inflation average for 2007 2.5% ( peak of 5.2% at the height of the recession )

Unemployment below 5% ( peak of 8.5% in 2012 )

The fact is that contrary to what the Tories say, the UK economy was in good shape immediately prior to the financial crisis hitting, our defecit was amongst the lowest in the industrialized world at the time, so much for the lie that the years of growth were fuelled by borrowing.

The government at the time made a conscious decision to invest billions in the NHS and education, and mainly because of the horrendous state the NHS was left in, after 18 years of utter neglect by the Tories.

The present coalition keep on telling the lie that everything is Gordon Browns fault, but people are begining to see the truth of it.

And you have the cheek to accuse others of misleading posts?

The whole point is the government abandoned it's so called golden rule to fund election winning initiatives and allowed that obscene £800B to be added to household debt to do similar. All of which left us far far more vulnerable to any wider international downturn. Which of course happened JUST AFTER OURS STARTED. Do we need to explain the concept of "after"? If it helps then massive house repossessions started in 2006, the meltdown in 2007.

Maybe Gordon was only 90% to blame but it was on his watch and he was claiming all the credit of when it appeared to be going right so until he admits it wasn't, he can hardly say its unfair to be in the dock for so much going wrong.

But perhaps what I like best is your claim that the recession was ending in 2009 (conveniently before Gordon was slung out on his ear)

Now remind us all who posted this at the start of 2013:

Quote:
 
At the end of last summer some observers and commentaters suggested that Britain could be heading towards a triple dip recession, but because such a scenario seemed too ridiculous, no one realy took any notice.

Here we are folks on the 25th January 2013 with Britains economy once again contracting, this time by 0.3%, this now means that the UK economy has been in negative growth for half the time the coalition has been in power, we are teetering on the edge of another official recession, the second during this coalitions time in office.


Oh yes, it was you
I am not sure what you are getting at here, but with regard to the "Golden Rule", this rule was not breached until the second half of 2008, two yeas before the general election in 2010, so much for breaking the rule "to fund election winning initiatives".

The Golden Rule was deliberately breached because the economy needed supporting, the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, a world wide recession, its what governments all over the world did.

As for the recession, again I am not sure what you are getting at, except to say that the recssion hit whilst Brown was primeminister, and the recession ended whilst Brown was still primeminister, infact it ended (according to ONS) in the third quarter of 2009 and the economy began to grow slowly - until the coalition arrived, it then when backwards again.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Dec 27 2014, 06:12 PM
Farage has become the fly in the ointment, with the possibility of the SNP taking Labour seats in Scotland, and many disillusioned labour supporters up North voting UKIP.....................

One thing that modern British electoral history conclusively shows is that we never elect Labour weirdos e.g.Foot, or lightweights e.g. Kinnock, Labour now have Miliband.

Whatever the outcome (and my bet is on another Tory-led coalition of some kind), my prediction is that this is the most open election in years and nobody has the faintest idea what the result will be.


Events, dear boy, events, that are thrown up or are out of ones control, plus the baggage that all government collect through their term of office.
Labours baggage before they even start are Milliand , Balls, militant unionists,{currently keeping their heads down} and their recognised financial incompetence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 29 2014, 05:29 PM
Gordon Brown broke the Golden Rule. He borrowed during the good times and spent this on current consumption. But that is OK, it's fine and dandy as long as you believe the good times are here forever, he did, they weren't.

He made plans on the expectations that he could not control., and that is just gambling with other peoples future and their money.
It is always a mistake in government, and in our own private lives, to make plans on events and expectations that we cannot control, or invest money that one cannot afford to lose or do not have.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
post #68 where Kruger tells that the G-rule was not broken until post crisis is correct.
That said borrowing has never been clearly explained. To my mind and contrary to the spin on it, EU expansion and immigrantion are the real reason.
The Welfare bill rose dramatically from 2005, unenploment figures increased, and the Treasury tok a hit. GDP per capita stalled.

None of which are a cause of recession.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 29 2014, 05:29 PM
Gordon Brown broke the Golden Rule. He borrowed during the good times and spent this on current consumption. But that is OK, it's fine and dandy as long as you believe the good times are here forever, he did, they weren't.

I believe you are correct, I also believe it was one minor financial incursion that was quickly resolved. There was no widespread breach of the Golden Rule.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 08:13 AM
Rich
Dec 28 2014, 08:06 PM
C-too
Dec 28 2014, 10:52 AM
jaguar
Dec 27 2014, 06:12 PM
Farage has become the fly in the ointment, with the possibility of the SNP taking Labour seats in Scotland, and many disillusioned labour supporters up North voting UKIP.....................

One thing that modern British electoral history conclusively shows is that we never elect Labour weirdos e.g.Foot, or lightweights e.g. Kinnock, Labour now have Miliband.

Whatever the outcome (and my bet is on another Tory-led coalition of some kind), my prediction is that this is the most open election in years and nobody has the faintest idea what the result will be.


I would agree that M.Foot was not PM material, nor IMO was Brown.

But the Tories do do elect weirdos. Cameron is an example but in particular Thatcher. She totally misled the electorate. Her policies finished up doing more social and economic damage to this country than any Labour PM or for that matter, than any action taken by unions.


And would you care to recall what irreversible social damage and long term economic damage has been inflicted on this country between 1997 upto 2010, I do not blame anyone for having a go at the present administration, but one must be evenhanded when apportioning blame, one will only have to ask the next generation that will be paying for this to see the truth.
Social and economic damage inflicted 1997 - 2010? Even handedness means looking at the facts.

Can you tell me who caused the international financial tsunami? And who introduced the new way of earning a living by introducing deregulation, financial services and the free market economy? (an approach that stymied any chance of rebuilding our industrial base at the time).

What appears to be your inference that Blair/Brown were responsible for the mess in 2010 is like blaming the victims of a tsunami for the deaths and destruction caused by the tsunami.

I think that if right-wingers and and other political opponents of Labour get their way, the next generation will be believing a lie. Hopefully they will be better informed than many people are today.
HOW MANY times do you have to be told, no one on this board has blamed Blair or Brown for the global financial meltdown, what Brown IS blamed for is the shocking and careless way that he handled our own domestic financial matters both as chancellor and pseudo PM, Blair with his policy of open doors policy and his loony leftist colleagues with their social engineering completed the task of Bringing the UK to the brink of disaster.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 08:13 AM
Rich
Dec 28 2014, 08:06 PM
C-too
Dec 28 2014, 10:52 AM
jaguar
Dec 27 2014, 06:12 PM
Farage has become the fly in the ointment, with the possibility of the SNP taking Labour seats in Scotland, and many disillusioned labour supporters up North voting UKIP.....................

One thing that modern British electoral history conclusively shows is that we never elect Labour weirdos e.g.Foot, or lightweights e.g. Kinnock, Labour now have Miliband.

Whatever the outcome (and my bet is on another Tory-led coalition of some kind), my prediction is that this is the most open election in years and nobody has the faintest idea what the result will be.


I would agree that M.Foot was not PM material, nor IMO was Brown.

But the Tories do do elect weirdos. Cameron is an example but in particular Thatcher. She totally misled the electorate. Her policies finished up doing more social and economic damage to this country than any Labour PM or for that matter, than any action taken by unions.


And would you care to recall what irreversible social damage and long term economic damage has been inflicted on this country between 1997 upto 2010, I do not blame anyone for having a go at the present administration, but one must be evenhanded when apportioning blame, one will only have to ask the next generation that will be paying for this to see the truth.
Social and economic damage inflicted 1997 - 2010? Even handedness means looking at the facts.

Can you tell me who caused the international financial tsunami? And who introduced the new way of earning a living by introducing deregulation, financial services and the free market economy? (an approach that stymied any chance of rebuilding our industrial base at the time).

What appears to be your inference that Blair/Brown were responsible for the mess in 2010 is like blaming the victims of a tsunami for the deaths and destruction caused by the tsunami.

I think that if right-wingers and and other political opponents of Labour get their way, the next generation will be believing a lie. Hopefully they will be better informed than many people are today.
HOW MANY times do you have to be told, no one on this board has blamed Blair or Brown for the global financial meltdown, what Brown IS blamed for is the shocking and careless way that he handled our own domestic financial matters both as chancellor and pseudo PM, Blair with his policy of open doors policy and his loony leftist colleagues with their social engineering completed the task of Bringing the UK to the brink of disaster.

If you disagree perhaps you could explain why they are not still holding the reins of power?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
To be fair to Steve in his latest post he goes back to 2007, the pre-crisis period od sustained growth.
Most will recall that the housing bubble was a problem. That bubble was NOT caused by government stimulous (as this latest is) but a result of low interest rates, low inflation, making property the best investment. Buy-t-let etc drove up prices, drove up rents, and combined with councils selling off their own stock.
A simple case of those that had money to invest did so driving up asset prices such that new buyers with no assets (toborrow on) were priced out of the market and onto the renters list.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Dec 29 2014, 06:40 PM
RJD
Dec 29 2014, 05:29 PM
Gordon Brown broke the Golden Rule. He borrowed during the good times and spent this on current consumption. But that is OK, it's fine and dandy as long as you believe the good times are here forever, he did, they weren't.

He made plans on the expectations that he could not control., and that is just gambling with other peoples future and their money.
It is always a mistake in government, and in our own private lives, to make plans on events and expectations that we cannot control, or invest money that one cannot afford to lose or do not have.
Brown made plans on the understanding that the

ALTERNATIVE WAY FOR THE UK TO EARN A LIVING. i.e. DEREGULATION, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND A FREE MARKET ECONOMY WAS ACTUALLY BLOSSOMING INTO A VIABLE WAY OF EARNING A LIVING IN THE WORLD.

Brown was not the only one in the UK taken in by the Deregulation/Financial Services and Free Market approach.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:26 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 08:13 AM
Rich
Dec 28 2014, 08:06 PM
C-too
Dec 28 2014, 10:52 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepdo elect weirdos. Cameron is an example but in particular Thatcher. She totally misled the electorate. Her policies finished up doing more social and economic damage to this country than any Labour PM or for that matter, than any action taken by unions.


And would you care to recall what irreversible social damage and long term economic damage has been inflicted on this country between 1997 upto 2010, I do not blame anyone for having a go at the present administration, but one must be evenhanded when apportioning blame, one will only have to ask the next generation that will be paying for this to see the truth.
Social and economic damage inflicted 1997 - 2010? Even handedness means looking at the facts.

Can you tell me who caused the international financial tsunami? And who introduced the new way of earning a living by introducing deregulation, financial services and the free market economy? (an approach that stymied any chance of rebuilding our industrial base at the time).

What appears to be your inference that Blair/Brown were responsible for the mess in 2010 is like blaming the victims of a tsunami for the deaths and destruction caused by the tsunami.

I think that if right-wingers and and other political opponents of Labour get their way, the next generation will be believing a lie. Hopefully they will be better informed than many people are today.
HOW MANY times do you have to be told, no one on this board has blamed Blair or Brown for the global financial meltdown, what Brown IS blamed for is the shocking and careless way that he handled our own domestic financial matters both as chancellor and pseudo PM, Blair with his policy of open doors policy and his loony leftist colleagues with their social engineering completed the task of Bringing the UK to the brink of disaster.
How many times do you need to be told that the UK economy was facing no problems before the meltdown. Brown's handling of the economy only came under any real attack AFTER the meltdown.

"Social Engineering"??

Thatcher not only threw millions of people out of work, with millions of skilled personel who would never work in their trades again. But she then turned her back on them setting the foundation for high to mass unemployments for 17 years.
As the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, there was a big increase in the number of pensioners and children living in relative poverty. Do you think that adds up to "SOCIAL ENGINEERING"?
Edited by C-too, Dec 29 2014, 07:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:26 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 08:13 AM
Rich
Dec 28 2014, 08:06 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepdo
Social and economic damage inflicted 1997 - 2010? Even handedness means looking at the facts.

Can you tell me who caused the international financial tsunami? And who introduced the new way of earning a living by introducing deregulation, financial services and the free market economy? (an approach that stymied any chance of rebuilding our industrial base at the time).

What appears to be your inference that Blair/Brown were responsible for the mess in 2010 is like blaming the victims of a tsunami for the deaths and destruction caused by the tsunami.

I think that if right-wingers and and other political opponents of Labour get their way, the next generation will be believing a lie. Hopefully they will be better informed than many people are today.
HOW MANY times do you have to be told, no one on this board has blamed Blair or Brown for the global financial meltdown, what Brown IS blamed for is the shocking and careless way that he handled our own domestic financial matters both as chancellor and pseudo PM, Blair with his policy of open doors policy and his loony leftist colleagues with their social engineering completed the task of Bringing the UK to the brink of disaster.
How many times do you need to be told that the UK economy was facing no problems before the meltdown. Brown's handling of the economy only came under any real attack AFTER the meltdown.

"Social Engineering"??

Thatcher not only threw millions of people out of work, with millions of skilled personel who would never work in their trades again. But she then turned her back on them setting the foundation for high to mass unemployments for 17 years.
As the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, there was a big increase in the number of pensioners and children living in relative poverty. Do you think that adds up to "SOCIAL ENGINEERING"?


The unions and their stubborn pig headed leaders caused their own downfall by demanding wages that priced their commodities out of the market and then DEMANDING that the government step in with taxpayers money to save them, compromise is the winning word of any negotiations whereas ultimatums and strikes get you nowhere as has been witnessed time and time again all around the world except for France.

What do you think of the French economy and it's future in a competetive global market?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:54 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:26 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 08:13 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepdoand other political opponents of Labour get their way, the next generation will be believing a lie. Hopefully they will be better informed than many people are today.
HOW MANY times do you have to be told, no one on this board has blamed Blair or Brown for the global financial meltdown, what Brown IS blamed for is the shocking and careless way that he handled our own domestic financial matters both as chancellor and pseudo PM, Blair with his policy of open doors policy and his loony leftist colleagues with their social engineering completed the task of Bringing the UK to the brink of disaster.
How many times do you need to be told that the UK economy was facing no problems before the meltdown. Brown's handling of the economy only came under any real attack AFTER the meltdown.

"Social Engineering"??

Thatcher not only threw millions of people out of work, with millions of skilled personel who would never work in their trades again. But she then turned her back on them setting the foundation for high to mass unemployments for 17 years.
As the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, there was a big increase in the number of pensioners and children living in relative poverty. Do you think that adds up to "SOCIAL ENGINEERING"?


The unions and their stubborn pig headed leaders caused their own downfall by demanding wages that priced their commodities out of the market and then DEMANDING that the government step in with taxpayers money to save them, compromise is the winning word of any negotiations whereas ultimatums and strikes get you nowhere as has been witnessed time and time again all around the world except for France.

What do you think of the French economy and it's future in a competetive global market?
Nonsense there was nothing of the sort in recent times. You live in your own fantasy world that died out nearly two generations ago. If there is anyone to blame for the global meltdown, then blame your dead heroine Thatcher. Her policies created the conditions that caused the problems.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

The Trade Unions certainly did contribute to their own downfall!
imo the biggest reason that UK business struggled to compete was decades of high inflation, high interest rate, making investments in modernising plant difficult if not completely unaffordable. With 'payback' periods stretching over five years investors went elsewhere, went abroad, went to the Yuppies of the City. Wasn't it Thatcher that told that the UK economy would rest entirely on the Services Sector?





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply