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 (2,924 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:
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 31 2014, 12:41 PM
C-too
Dec 31 2014, 12:02 PM
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 11:43 AM
C-too
Dec 31 2014, 11:37 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepAFTER
But here's your fundamental problem that you keep trying to ignore: we went into deep trouble BEFORE the international meltdown.

Brown was allowing the money supply to expand to ridiculous unearned levels in the lead in to us getting into trouble. It was an unsustainable but electorally promising bubble.

In short he fecked up and fecked up big time and he has never said sorry.

NO, we were not in "deep trouble" before the meltdown, the figures as shown before the meltdown, were not of themselves a major problem.

As I have asked you once before, do you think we would be in the position we are in today if there had been no meltdown?
The answer is a "likely yes". The housing bubble would have burst and the home grown sub-primes were already facing problems with their commitments. Red "Northern Wreck".
Yes Brown could have continued with his addiction to debt fuelled consumption, but eventually the chickens would have come in as we had already hit the buffers and as the IMF concluded the UK economy was overheated, fuelled by far too much cheap money. There was no indication that Brown would ever return to the prudent budgets inherited from the last lot. He was addicted. Now we are paying a heavier price than that normally necessary. It is very convenient to attempt to sweep all the NL economic mess under the International Bankers carpet, but it does not wash. You have to be a willing participant in propaganda if you believe that NL were not culpable, maybe even section-able for gross self delusion. That said the current lot have not been much better, they too seem to have become addicted, but at least they recognise that they need to shake the habit and Labour never ever will. We even have that idiot Milliband now promising 1940s style post WW2 strategies to rebuild the economy. More taxes, more waste and more unfunded commitments to be paid off by future generations. He and his supporters never learn, they are our toothache.




What rubbish, the often repeated Tory lie about Labour being wholly culpable to a crisis that affected the majority of the developed world is frankly laughable. The incompetents, had they been in power in 2007-08 would have done no better, in fact given their level of incompetence in handling the economy post 2010, we would have been in even a worst state now.

All you think about is lambasting Labour, but thinking people aren't fooled by you or the propaganda of your Tory masters.

Talking about toothache what we need to do in May 2015 is to apply a touch of dentistry and extract the rotten Tory teeth from power! Treat the abscess once and for all, before it finishes off the rest of the patient, the UK.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa please correct your post 132 that falsely attributes comments to me
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Dec 31 2014, 03:10 PM
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 12:55 PM
Sorry C-Too but I agree with RJD. Had there been no international meltdown we would have been the glaring odd country out with no international sympathy or tolerance of our quantitative easing. The £ would have plummeted to junk levels as would our trade in Financial Services. We would have had to get an IMF bail out and their terms would have made Osborne's austerity seem like luxury
Another opinion backed up by no substantive evidence whatsoever. Obviously your boss, namely RJD pulls your puppet strings and you like Cleggy dances to the Tory tune!

A tune no sensible person attaches any credence to whatsoever!
Happy New Year Lewis, if you're lucky Curry's will be repeating that offer on new brains

http://youtu.be/M9Q3xRsZY00
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 07:47 PM
Lewis
Dec 31 2014, 03:10 PM
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 12:55 PM
Sorry C-Too but I agree with RJD. Had there been no international meltdown we would have been the glaring odd country out with no international sympathy or tolerance of our quantitative easing. The £ would have plummeted to junk levels as would our trade in Financial Services. We would have had to get an IMF bail out and their terms would have made Osborne's austerity seem like luxury
Another opinion backed up by no substantive evidence whatsoever. Obviously your boss, namely RJD pulls your puppet strings and you like Cleggy dances to the Tory tune!

A tune no sensible person attaches any credence to whatsoever!
Happy New Year Lewis, if you're lucky Curry's will be repeating that offer on new brains

http://youtu.be/M9Q3xRsZY00
Well have you reserved yours then? You are obviously in urgent need of one! This time don't order a defective Tory indoctrinated one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
somersetli
Dec 30 2014, 02:21 PM


My own prediction of the next GE is that we shall end up with a 'Rainbow Government' that will probably not last a year.
Well the right wing "usual's" who got it into their heads that the notion of coalition governments was the domain of Latin hell holes and unstable third world basket cases predicted the very same as you five years ago!

They also forgot that much of Scandinavia, Germany et al also have coalition governments.

The British are very tribal you know...........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 07:44 PM
Affa please correct your post 132 that falsely attributes comments to me


Amended!

btw ..... that data set revealing the high level of tax reveue (%GDP) under the first fifteen years of Tory administration post '79 is for "Individual Taxation", i.e. personal income. It does not include other sources of income as from NS Oil, Corporation tax, Asset Stripping, etc, and apparently not from VAT the rates of which were also increased.
It must surely be time for people to stop pretending that the Thatcher government was at all competent on the economy! What we had then was Austerity (a massive increase in Welfare spending - public services in decline) and regardless of being (then) oil rich the opportunity to revitalise British industry was ignored - instead we had that awful exercise of 'Downsizing', and 'Asset Stripping'

Today we are seeing the same thing being repeated - only there is not the same oil revenue.



Edited by Affa, Jan 1 2015, 01:47 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 1 2015, 01:28 AM
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 07:44 PM
Affa please correct your post 132 that falsely attributes comments to me


Amended!


Cheers Affa ;D

!mod! just a quick note, by the time I have deleted the punch and judy show in here (not your doing, well i don't THINK so ... !!!) it is UNLIKELY it will still be post 132 ... John V
Edited by johnofgwent, Jan 5 2015, 09:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 1 2015, 01:34 AM
Affa
Jan 1 2015, 01:28 AM
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 07:44 PM
Affa please correct your post 132 that falsely attributes comments to me


Amended!


Cheers Affa ;D

Happy New Year Steve ...... may you prosper and be healthy.

ps ...... the amend has been further amended, or rather added to ...... I hope you revisit the post.


Edited by Affa, Jan 1 2015, 01:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 1 2015, 01:52 AM
Happy New Year Steve ...... may you prosper and be healthy.

ps ...... the amend has been further amended, or rather added to ...... I hope you revisit the post.


/8/ and may you prosper and be healthy too

And yes have now read your updated Post 132 and recommend others to do too, or at least the BBC Timeline of the Financial Crisis which I do accept runs counter to my timeline as their key assertion is that New Century Financials £1B problem was the key event and that predates Northern Rock which required £27B of rescue. It would not have helped but was it really the causal issue or was it Northern Rock's reliance on UK loan and housing markets that were clearly in trouble from late 2006? I guess most will pick their linkages to suit their preconceptions.

I see you are " a committed Capitalist that despises what the Conservative party has become", I'm a committed mixed economy supporter who despairs equally at the Conservative party factions that long for a return to the 1920s and the Labour party core that thinks tax and benefits are the way. Oh for a RMLP candidate in my area.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 1 2015, 12:21 PM
Affa
Jan 1 2015, 01:52 AM
Happy New Year Steve ...... may you prosper and be healthy.

ps ...... the amend has been further amended, or rather added to ...... I hope you revisit the post.


/8/ and may you prosper and be healthy too

And yes have now read your updated Post 132 and recommend others to do too, or at least the BBC Timeline of the Financial Crisis which I do accept runs counter to my timeline as their key assertion is that New Century Financials £1B problem was the key event and that predates Northern Rock which required £27B of rescue. It would not have helped but was it really the causal issue or was it Northern Rock's reliance on UK loan and housing markets that were clearly in trouble from late 2006? I guess most will pick their linkages to suit their preconceptions.

The housing bubble burst in the US because interest rates went up (considerably). That didn't happen here and the market was relatively stable if a bit overheated. What became understood is that few banks had the assets they required to remain viable - the credit crunch being the reaction, loss of liquidity (not that they had a lot) meant the risk of a run on the banks - it took the government to underwrite depositor money to prevent that.

There are two words to bear in mind when discussing the crisis 'liquidity', and 'confidence', the loss of which determined the reactions of investors, both personal and institutional.
Nothing else mattered, and as I have tried to point out before the effect on trade, on the market, was both unnecessary and counter productive - 'business as usual' should have been the shout ......... instead all we heard was 'Austerity'.
You may by now start to realise where I'm coming from when I say this crisis was contrived, was no accident, and done to get the result we see. - 'Falling Standards of Living'.

In saying this I do partly recognise that there could be some merit in this ploy - that re-balancing the global economy and restoring a level of competitiveness to the bloated West (one of the first actions of Obama was to act to return jobs to America that had been transferred abroad). In other words, done in our best interest .......... but I'm yet to be convinced.






Edited by Affa, Jan 1 2015, 07:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 1 2015, 01:28 AM
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 07:44 PM
Affa please correct your post 132 that falsely attributes comments to me


Amended!

btw ..... that data set revealing the high level of tax reveue (%GDP) under the first fifteen years of Tory administration post '79 is for "Individual Taxation", i.e. personal income. It does not include other sources of income as from NS Oil, Corporation tax, Asset Stripping, etc, and apparently not from VAT the rates of which were also increased.
It must surely be time for people to stop pretending that the Thatcher government was at all competent on the economy! What we had then was Austerity (a massive increase in Welfare spending - public services in decline) and regardless of being (then) oil rich the opportunity to revitalise British industry was ignored - instead we had that awful exercise of 'Downsizing', and 'Asset Stripping'

Today we are seeing the same thing being repeated - only there is not the same oil revenue.



You overlook the fact that most of the electorate are completely stupid and prefer to blame anyone but themselves for financial cock ups, this is the same electorate that has spent the last twenty years voting for house price inflation and easy credit, the Conservative opposition was preaching from EXACTLY the same page until the wheels came off.

Rule number one of British politics, don't be in government when the policies the electorate voted for inevitably go tits up, think of it as a sort of high stakes game of musical chairs.

And would you believe it the current government is still singing from that same hymn book!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 11:43 AM
C-too
Dec 31 2014, 11:37 AM
Steve K
Dec 30 2014, 11:53 PM
Affa
Dec 30 2014, 05:27 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
That's very unfair Affa and if anything shows your bias. I have never held back from criticising Osborne for what he is guilty of - and there's a lot. But when someone says he said something he didn't I will defend him.

But Gordon absolutely did

- promise over and over again "no more boom and bust" - and then presided over the biggest UK boom and bust in living memory
- allow the biggest and fastest increase in the money supply due to woefully reckless taking on of household debt and not realise that inevitably that would lead to a bust
- poo poo the on the record warnings that the economy boom was being driven by unprecedented levels of household debt levered off house prices the Bank of England had warned were unsustainable
- promise adherence to a golden rule and then went on a massive public borrowing run once he could no longer keep expenditure off the books using PFI
- promise more giveaways in his 2007 budget despite the UK having run into trouble with the alarming levels of housing repossessions in 2006


And that's what C-Too just cannot get his head around

that 2006 was before 2007 and that was before 2008

- we were in trouble in 2006
- Northern Rock went under in September 2007
- the worldwide melt down did not start until 2008 after the US banks followed - yes followed - what had happened at Northern Rock with similarly improperly risk priced long term loans funded by short term spot rate borrowing.

IndyMac was the first US bank to get in trouble, fully 10 months AFTER Northern Rock and BNP Paribas

We were right amongst the leaders in the melt down because Gordon had placed the UK in the most extraordinarily vulnerable position whereas the likes of Australia and Canada by and large brushed it off as they had proper financial leadership.





Brown did promise quite a few times, "no more boom and bust".

Brown also referred to internal "boom and bust" caused by internal political polices. i.e. The use of inflation/interest rates to control the economy.
How come you never mention that?

Brown NEVER indicated he thought he could control international recessions. The idea that he did is nothing more than political mischief.

Brown's economic policies DID NOT CAUSE THE INTERNATIONAL MELTDOWN.

"unprecedented levels of debt" but still had the lowest deficit and debt to GDP of the major countries and most other countries.
The problems in the housing market came and went DESPITE THE MELTDOWN.
IIRC there was a more serious housing market problem under the Tories in the 1990s, it didn't lead to an international meltdown.

The international meltdown:
The miss-selling of Subprime Mortgages in the USA. Subprime mortgages carried greater penalties for non-payment yet untold numbers of people capable of 'normal' mortgages were talked into taking S/prime Mortgages. At the same time many people who were handling their mortgages quite comfortably were being offered re-mortgage packages at lower interest rates. Once enough were signed up there mortgages were sold to another company who then raised their interest to a higher level than their original rates. (as seen on TV News).
When the whole thing collapsed the massive "toxic" debts were gradually placed into packages which were then slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. These packages were bought by Banks across the Western economy.
THOSE TOXIC DEBTS CAUSED THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN. IMO, to put the blame elsewhere is dishonest.
But here's your fundamental problem that you keep trying to ignore: we went into deep trouble BEFORE the international meltdown.

Brown was allowing the money supply to expand to ridiculous unearned levels in the lead in to us getting into trouble. It was an unsustainable but electorally promising bubble.

In short he fecked up and fecked up big time and he has never said sorry.

Think about it.

No meltdown, then no increased economic problems across Western countries.

No meltdown then no high unemployment across the West.

No meltdown then no need for the Banks across the West to write off all the toxic debts they got caught up in.

This would mean the UK would still be earning a large income from Financial Services, still holding its own on exports and there would have been no need to bail out the Banks so there would be plenty of money available for businesses to borrow

An entirely different situation that should not be confused in any way with the post meltdown one we are actually in.
-----------------------------

LATE EDIT;

AND, it would have left Farage and the rest of the right-wingers still crying in their bear.

Perhaps an apology is due from you, RGD and others?


Edited by C-too, Jan 2 2015, 09:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I see the Guardian retaliated by naming Russell Brand as their man of the year. LOL

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/29/russell-brand-comedian-turned-activist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Anyone want to guess who the Times named as their person of the year

The anti Nigel: Angela Merkel.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I have a feeling that had the person of the year been decided six months ago several publications on the right would have given the title to Putin.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 1 2015, 10:51 PM
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 11:43 AM
C-too
Dec 31 2014, 11:37 AM
Steve K
Dec 30 2014, 11:53 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepAFTER Northern Rock and BNP Paribas

We were right amongst the leaders in the melt down because Gordon had placed the UK in the most extraordinarily vulnerable position whereas the likes of Australia and Canada by and large brushed it off as they had proper financial leadership.





Brown did promise quite a few times, "no more boom and bust".

Brown also referred to internal "boom and bust" caused by internal political polices. i.e. The use of inflation/interest rates to control the economy.
How come you never mention that?

Brown NEVER indicated he thought he could control international recessions. The idea that he did is nothing more than political mischief.

Brown's economic policies DID NOT CAUSE THE INTERNATIONAL MELTDOWN.

"unprecedented levels of debt" but still had the lowest deficit and debt to GDP of the major countries and most other countries.
The problems in the housing market came and went DESPITE THE MELTDOWN.
IIRC there was a more serious housing market problem under the Tories in the 1990s, it didn't lead to an international meltdown.

The international meltdown:
The miss-selling of Subprime Mortgages in the USA. Subprime mortgages carried greater penalties for non-payment yet untold numbers of people capable of 'normal' mortgages were talked into taking S/prime Mortgages. At the same time many people who were handling their mortgages quite comfortably were being offered re-mortgage packages at lower interest rates. Once enough were signed up there mortgages were sold to another company who then raised their interest to a higher level than their original rates. (as seen on TV News).
When the whole thing collapsed the massive "toxic" debts were gradually placed into packages which were then slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. These packages were bought by Banks across the Western economy.
THOSE TOXIC DEBTS CAUSED THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN. IMO, to put the blame elsewhere is dishonest.
But here's your fundamental problem that you keep trying to ignore: we went into deep trouble BEFORE the international meltdown.

Brown was allowing the money supply to expand to ridiculous unearned levels in the lead in to us getting into trouble. It was an unsustainable but electorally promising bubble.

In short he fecked up and fecked up big time and he has never said sorry.

Think about it.

No meltdown, then no increased economic problems across Western countries.

No meltdown then no high unemployment across the West.

No meltdown then no need for the Banks across the West to write off all the toxic debts they got caught up in.

This would mean the UK would still be earning a large income from Financial Services, still holding its own on exports and there would have been no need to bail out the Banks so there would be plenty of money available for businesses to borrow

An entirely different situation that should not be confused in any way with the post meltdown one we are actually in.
-----------------------------

LATE EDIT;

AND, it would have left Farage and the rest of the right-wingers still crying in their bear.

Perhaps an apology is due from you, RGD and others?


An apology for what exactly?

Your claim is/was that NL were not culpable for the economic mess we find ourselves in. The rest of humanity appears to disagree with you, they might of course be wrong, there might be an internationally coordinated conspiracy at work to defame those erstwhile Leaders of an NL Gov. But all evidence points in the opposite direction. The only sane scientifically based conclusion is that for political reasons there are still, in 2015, some people prepared to do their damnedest to white-wash over the truth. One can understand the died in the wool Tribalists to swallow the nonsense, but C2 you come over as someone who has had a smattering of education. So please, in 2015, stop insulting our intelligence.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 2 2015, 05:01 PM


Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having toothache. - Erich Blair

Mrs T obviously understood this philosophy since her entire reign was founded on convincing people that without her it would be much worse, more painful. And so it was. a Legend is born of the notion that having job insecurity is better than having no job. The Utopia of 'I'm all right Jack'.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 2 2015, 05:01 PM
C-too
Jan 1 2015, 10:51 PM
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 11:43 AM
C-too
Dec 31 2014, 11:37 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepAFTER
But here's your fundamental problem that you keep trying to ignore: we went into deep trouble BEFORE the international meltdown.

Brown was allowing the money supply to expand to ridiculous unearned levels in the lead in to us getting into trouble. It was an unsustainable but electorally promising bubble.

In short he fecked up and fecked up big time and he has never said sorry.

Think about it.

No meltdown, then no increased economic problems across Western countries.

No meltdown then no high unemployment across the West.

No meltdown then no need for the Banks across the West to write off all the toxic debts they got caught up in.

This would mean the UK would still be earning a large income from Financial Services, still holding its own on exports and there would have been no need to bail out the Banks so there would be plenty of money available for businesses to borrow

An entirely different situation that should not be confused in any way with the post meltdown one we are actually in.
-----------------------------

LATE EDIT;

AND, it would have left Farage and the rest of the right-wingers still crying in their bear.

Perhaps an apology is due from you, RGD and others?


An apology for what exactly?

Your claim is/was that NL were not culpable for the economic mess we find ourselves in. The rest of humanity appears to disagree with you, they might of course be wrong, there might be an internationally coordinated conspiracy at work to defame those erstwhile Leaders of an NL Gov. But all evidence points in the opposite direction. The only sane scientifically based conclusion is that for political reasons there are still, in 2015, some people prepared to do their damnedest to white-wash over the truth. One can understand the died in the wool Tribalists to swallow the nonsense, but C2 you come over as someone who has had a smattering of education. So please, in 2015, stop insulting our intelligence.

For starters, an apology for the crassness of your post.

And secondly, an apology from all those like yourself who ignore the reality and attempt to put the blame on NL. Which is unbelievably pathetic as I proved so conclusively in the post you replied to. Understandably, you failed to address the contents of that post.


Edited by C-too, Jan 2 2015, 10:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C2: For starters, an apology for the crassness of your post.

General statement without any supporting evidence.

C2: And secondly, an apology from all those like yourself who ignore the reality and attempt to put the blame on NL. Which is unbelievably pathetic as I proved so conclusively in the post you replied to. Understandably, you failed to address the contents of that post.

Rubbish. I said that NL was culpable, I did not and never ever said that they were the only ones to blame. However, you are the only one to claim that they are not culpable. Sorry C2 but it appears you as always are p155ing in the wind. You are still raking over old coals when the rest of humanity has moved on.

C2: It also appears to be the case that when some are confronted with reality they run away and hide?

What reality? Who is hiding? For goodness C2 grow up and get a grip I am exhausted by your desperate desire to white-wash over recent NL history just because it sits uncomfortably with your dogma. Get over it and move on.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 2 2015, 07:13 PM
C2: For starters, an apology for the crassness of your post.

General statement without any supporting evidence.

C2: And secondly, an apology from all those like yourself who ignore the reality and attempt to put the blame on NL. Which is unbelievably pathetic as I proved so conclusively in the post you replied to. Understandably, you failed to address the contents of that post.

Rubbish. I said that NL was culpable, I did not and never ever said that they were the only ones to blame. However, you are the only one to claim that they are not culpable. Sorry C2 but it appears you as always are p155ing in the wind. You are still raking over old coals when the rest of humanity has moved on.

C2: It also appears to be the case that when some are confronted with reality they run away and hide?

What reality? Who is hiding? For goodness C2 grow up and get a grip I am exhausted by your desperate desire to white-wash over recent NL history just because it sits uncomfortably with your dogma. Get over it and move on.

1. Just like the post it referred to.

2. I never posted you did say those things. You just, IMO dishonestly, changed the gist of the exchange.

3. I have never claimed that NL bear absolutely no responsibility for the position we are in today. I have correctly claimed that the situation we are in today is primarily caused by the meltdown, and that many people like yourself do not like that reality.
Oh how you wish the world would accept your nonsense.

"What reality"?? Try answering the points in my earlier post, your reluctance to do so speaks volumes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 1 2015, 10:51 PM
Think about it.

No meltdown, then no increased economic problems across Western countries.

No meltdown then no high unemployment across the West.

No meltdown then no need for the Banks across the West to write off all the toxic debts they got caught up in.

This would mean the UK would still be earning a large income from Financial Services, still holding its own on exports and there would have been no need to bail out the Banks so there would be plenty of money available for businesses to borrow

An entirely different situation that should not be confused in any way with the post meltdown one we are actually in.
-----------------------------

LATE EDIT;

AND, it would have left Farage and the rest of the right-wingers still crying in their bear.

Perhaps an apology is due from you, RGD and others?


That simply does not work

We were always going to have a UK meltdown. The housing market had been over levered to add a staggering £800B to household debt and that massively inflated GDP and tax revenues. By 2003 he was being warned on the record by the likes of Cable and Clarke that it was unsustainable. By 2006 it was falling apart as the mortgage repossessions showed. But still Gordon did nothing except borrow more on the governments own account.

Yes the international meltdown meant we could not just massively devalue and get the rest of the world to buy our goods at knock down prices so yes the wider meltdown has made it worse.

But Gordon's boom was built on irresponsible borrowing with the inevitable bust. I really can't see why you are denying it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 2 2015, 10:33 PM
C-too
Jan 1 2015, 10:51 PM
Think about it.

No meltdown, then no increased economic problems across Western countries.

No meltdown then no high unemployment across the West.

No meltdown then no need for the Banks across the West to write off all the toxic debts they got caught up in.

This would mean the UK would still be earning a large income from Financial Services, still holding its own on exports and there would have been no need to bail out the Banks so there would be plenty of money available for businesses to borrow

An entirely different situation that should not be confused in any way with the post meltdown one we are actually in.
-----------------------------

LATE EDIT;

AND, it would have left Farage and the rest of the right-wingers still crying in their bear.

Perhaps an apology is due from you, RGD and others?


That simply does not work

We were always going to have a UK meltdown. The housing market had been over levered to add a staggering £800B to household debt and that massively inflated GDP and tax revenues. By 2003 he was being warned on the record by the likes of Cable and Clarke that it was unsustainable. By 2006 it was falling apart as the mortgage repossessions showed. But still Gordon did nothing except borrow more on the governments own account.

Yes the international meltdown meant we could not just massively devalue and get the rest of the world to buy our goods at knock down prices so yes the wider meltdown has made it worse.

But Gordon's boom was built on irresponsible borrowing with the inevitable bust. I really can't see why you are denying it.
No meltdown OBVIOUSLY DOES WORK. As I posted.

Our trade and Financial Services would have continued unhindered.
Our Banks would not have had to write off £billions of toxic debts traded into the international financial sector via Wall Street.
The government would not have had to bail out the Banks.
The housing "boom" (not the first one) came and went and that was/is despite the meltdown. Couldn't have been that serious could it?
Government debt would not have begun to rise so dramatically from 2008. i.e. post meltdown.
There would have been no major rise in unemployment because for most people it would have been work as usual.

Or are you claiming the above would not have created a very different situation to the one we are in?

The only problem that may have existed would have been that of cooling the economy. Given a settled international financial/trading environment that should not have been too difficult.

2002/03 saw the very necessary investments going into the NHS and Schools with the deficit much lower than in 1997. Cable and Clark were only doing what opposition politicians do, i.e. paint the worst possible picture.
I suggest you look up the state of the NHS and schools in 1997 before being taken in by political propaganda/mischief.
Can you clarify the date the £80b you refer to comes in? If it is after 2007 then it has to be attributed to the effects of the meltdown.

I don't call cooling the economy a bust, I do call the worst international economic meltdown for 60 years an international bust.

The meltdown has been the biggest friend to those who hated NL's undoubted successes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

As I understand it the National debt in 2008 was around £0.5 trillion. by 2014 it was around £1.2 trillion. The increase costs were caused by the meltdown, i.e. the loss of income to the government and the need to borrow in order to keep the country on an even keel.


Edited by C-too, Jan 3 2015, 09:17 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 2 2015, 10:33 PM
C-too
Jan 1 2015, 10:51 PM
Think about it.

No meltdown, then no increased economic problems across Western countries.

No meltdown then no high unemployment across the West.

No meltdown then no need for the Banks across the West to write off all the toxic debts they got caught up in.

This would mean the UK would still be earning a large income from Financial Services, still holding its own on exports and there would have been no need to bail out the Banks so there would be plenty of money available for businesses to borrow

An entirely different situation that should not be confused in any way with the post meltdown one we are actually in.
-----------------------------

LATE EDIT;

AND, it would have left Farage and the rest of the right-wingers still crying in their bear.

Perhaps an apology is due from you, RGD and others?


That simply does not work

We were always going to have a UK meltdown. The housing market had been over levered to add a staggering £800B to household debt and that massively inflated GDP and tax revenues. By 2003 he was being warned on the record by the likes of Cable and Clarke that it was unsustainable. By 2006 it was falling apart as the mortgage repossessions showed. But still Gordon did nothing except borrow more on the governments own account.

Yes the international meltdown meant we could not just massively devalue and get the rest of the world to buy our goods at knock down prices so yes the wider meltdown has made it worse.

But Gordon's boom was built on irresponsible borrowing with the inevitable bust. I really can't see why you are denying it.
You allege that Brown was borrowing irresponsibly, yet the facts say otherwise?

Labour kept their spending below 40% of GDP right until the international crisis hit hard in 2008. It is even higher now so the wonderful and prudent Tory incompetents have nothing to shout about. In fact for about two-thirds of Thatcher's rein it was even higher reaching more than 45% in 1983.

Posted Image

Edited by Lewis, Jan 3 2015, 11:27 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 2 2015, 10:33 PM
C-too
Jan 1 2015, 10:51 PM
Think about it.

No meltdown, then no increased economic problems across Western countries.

No meltdown then no high unemployment across the West.

No meltdown then no need for the Banks across the West to write off all the toxic debts they got caught up in.

This would mean the UK would still be earning a large income from Financial Services, still holding its own on exports and there would have been no need to bail out the Banks so there would be plenty of money available for businesses to borrow

An entirely different situation that should not be confused in any way with the post meltdown one we are actually in.
-----------------------------

LATE EDIT;

AND, it would have left Farage and the rest of the right-wingers still crying in their bear.

Perhaps an apology is due from you, RGD and others?


That simply does not work

We were always going to have a UK meltdown. The housing market had been over levered to add a staggering £800B to household debt and that massively inflated GDP and tax revenues. By 2003 he was being warned on the record by the likes of Cable and Clarke that it was unsustainable. By 2006 it was falling apart as the mortgage repossessions showed. But still Gordon did nothing except borrow more on the governments own account.

Yes the international meltdown meant we could not just massively devalue and get the rest of the world to buy our goods at knock down prices so yes the wider meltdown has made it worse.

But Gordon's boom was built on irresponsible borrowing with the inevitable bust. I really can't see why you are denying it.
All true, but which sane(?) politician is going to tell the electorate that their little house is not really worth five times what they paid for it?

The British are happy to swallow economic BS because they just blame whoever is in power at the time, and that proud not me guv tradition continues to this very day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 3 2015, 11:56 AM
Steve K
Jan 2 2015, 10:33 PM
C-too
Jan 1 2015, 10:51 PM
Think about it.

No meltdown, then no increased economic problems across Western countries.

No meltdown then no high unemployment across the West.

No meltdown then no need for the Banks across the West to write off all the toxic debts they got caught up in.

This would mean the UK would still be earning a large income from Financial Services, still holding its own on exports and there would have been no need to bail out the Banks so there would be plenty of money available for businesses to borrow

An entirely different situation that should not be confused in any way with the post meltdown one we are actually in.
-----------------------------

LATE EDIT;

AND, it would have left Farage and the rest of the right-wingers still crying in their bear.

Perhaps an apology is due from you, RGD and others?


That simply does not work

We were always going to have a UK meltdown. The housing market had been over levered to add a staggering £800B to household debt and that massively inflated GDP and tax revenues. By 2003 he was being warned on the record by the likes of Cable and Clarke that it was unsustainable. By 2006 it was falling apart as the mortgage repossessions showed. But still Gordon did nothing except borrow more on the governments own account.

Yes the international meltdown meant we could not just massively devalue and get the rest of the world to buy our goods at knock down prices so yes the wider meltdown has made it worse.

But Gordon's boom was built on irresponsible borrowing with the inevitable bust. I really can't see why you are denying it.
All true, but which sane(?) politician is going to tell the electorate that their little house is not really worth five times what they paid for it?

The British are happy to swallow economic BS because they just blame whoever is in power at the time, and that proud not me guv tradition continues to this very day.
Definitely not all true. That is a ridiculous claim.

Years of paying mortgage plus interest mean that it is obvious that we pay more for the house than the original price asked. That means house prices inevitably rise over time.
That there are some ridiculous price rises in certain parts of the country should not be extrapolated to all houses.
Also, any excessive rises in value are quickly sorted by a short period of the economic reality as sales go from being a sellers market to a buyers market. Nothing new about that.

To point the finger at the housing market as if there was something new happening, or that it caused our present difficulties just does not make any sense.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Jan 3 2015, 11:26 AM
. .You allege that Brown was borrowing irresponsibly, yet the facts say otherwise?

Labour kept their spending below 40% of GDP right until the international crisis hit hard in 2008. It is even higher now so the wonderful and prudent Tory incompetents have nothing to shout about. In fact for about two-thirds of Thatcher's rein it was even higher reaching more than 45% in 1983.

Posted Image

Well I'm more saying he was allowing a totally unsustainable level of GDP by allowing household debts to grow at ridiculous levels. But he too was borrowing when he should have been repaying.

Could Osborne have cut the spend:GDP ratio? Well yes but by and large only with such a bonfire of benefits and the NHS that I think everyone but RJD would have seen as unacceptable.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 3 2015, 02:14 PM
Lewis
Jan 3 2015, 11:26 AM
. .You allege that Brown was borrowing irresponsibly, yet the facts say otherwise?

Labour kept their spending below 40% of GDP right until the international crisis hit hard in 2008. It is even higher now so the wonderful and prudent Tory incompetents have nothing to shout about. In fact for about two-thirds of Thatcher's rein it was even higher reaching more than 45% in 1983.

Posted Image

Well I'm more saying he was allowing a totally unsustainable level of GDP by allowing household debts to grow at ridiculous levels. But he too was borrowing when he should have been repaying.

Could Osborne have cut the spend:GDP ratio? Well yes but by and large only with such a bonfire of benefits and the NHS that I think everyone but RJD would have seen as unacceptable.

It is interesting to see that borrowing took off around 2000, just as NL said it would. It is also interesting to see that borrowing began to fall in 2005.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
The general election of 1997 was fought and won on a few key issues, and one of those key issues was tax cuts (The Tories) or better public services (Labour), and we all know the outcome.

What Blair did was to allow a modest but sustainable increase in borrowing, to allow for colossal investment in the NHS, education and other services, the improvements in the NHS were on a huge scale, the hiring and employing of thousands of extra doctors and nurses, the building of new hospitals, clinics, GP centres and health centres.

The colossal investment was also partly funded by the sale of the radio spectrum, and further enabled by a flourishing economy.

As public services are squeezed to almost breaking point, and as it is now becoming the norm to wait half an hour or 45 minutes for an emergency ambulance, the government is now talking about tax cuts again, the idea of considering tax cuts when even basic essential public services are begining to fall apart, is not only very wrong, it is criminal.

Once again the Conservatives have got it very wrong, recent polls have found that the British public would sooner have good, reliable and safe public services as against tax cuts.

What Blair did with the NHS, public services and borrowing was absolutely right, it was what most people wanted, it was what most people approved of, hence the popularity and re-election of Labour.

After the worst financial crash since the 1930s, and a deep recession, the Tories still were unable to get a majority, and I predict that there will not be a Conservative government in June of this year.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 3 2015, 03:40 PM
. . . and as it is now becoming the norm to wait half an hour or 45 minutes for an emergency ambulance, . . .
Go on I challenge you to see if you can back that up with any evidence.

Even in the worst performing area (the Labour run Wales Health Service) most emergency calls are attended to in 8 minutes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 3 2015, 03:18 PM
It is interesting to see that borrowing took off around 2000, just as NL said it would. It is also interesting to see that borrowing began to fall in 2005.
Actually not until 2006 and then it increased again in 2007

Posted Image

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somersetli
Member Avatar
somersetli
[ *  *  * ]
HIGHWAY
Jan 3 2015, 06:21 PM
C-too
Jan 3 2015, 12:15 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 3 2015, 11:50 AM
C-too
Jan 3 2015, 09:20 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
If you mean I can't understand the need,of NL to follow Bush to kill innocent children you are right
As I posted, the situation is far to deep for your shallow thinking.
It maybe shallow,,but it's the one thing your poster boy Tony will always be remembered for
Could it be the £17Million he has made since abandoning New Labour for better pickings?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 3 2015, 12:32 PM
Tigger
Jan 3 2015, 11:56 AM
Steve K
Jan 2 2015, 10:33 PM
C-too
Jan 1 2015, 10:51 PM
Think about it.

No meltdown, then no increased economic problems across Western countries.

No meltdown then no high unemployment across the West.

No meltdown then no need for the Banks across the West to write off all the toxic debts they got caught up in.

This would mean the UK would still be earning a large income from Financial Services, still holding its own on exports and there would have been no need to bail out the Banks so there would be plenty of money available for businesses to borrow

An entirely different situation that should not be confused in any way with the post meltdown one we are actually in.
-----------------------------

LATE EDIT;

AND, it would have left Farage and the rest of the right-wingers still crying in their bear.

Perhaps an apology is due from you, RGD and others?


That simply does not work

We were always going to have a UK meltdown. The housing market had been over levered to add a staggering £800B to household debt and that massively inflated GDP and tax revenues. By 2003 he was being warned on the record by the likes of Cable and Clarke that it was unsustainable. By 2006 it was falling apart as the mortgage repossessions showed. But still Gordon did nothing except borrow more on the governments own account.

Yes the international meltdown meant we could not just massively devalue and get the rest of the world to buy our goods at knock down prices so yes the wider meltdown has made it worse.

But Gordon's boom was built on irresponsible borrowing with the inevitable bust. I really can't see why you are denying it.
All true, but which sane(?) politician is going to tell the electorate that their little house is not really worth five times what they paid for it?

The British are happy to swallow economic BS because they just blame whoever is in power at the time, and that proud not me guv tradition continues to this very day.
Definitely not all true. That is a ridiculous claim.

Years of paying mortgage plus interest mean that it is obvious that we pay more for the house than the original price asked. That means house prices inevitably rise over time.
That there are some ridiculous price rises in certain parts of the country should not be extrapolated to all houses.
Also, any excessive rises in value are quickly sorted by a short period of the economic reality as sales go from being a sellers market to a buyers market. Nothing new about that.

To point the finger at the housing market as if there was something new happening, or that it caused our present difficulties just does not make any sense.



Wishful thinking at best.

There is nothing at all ridiculous about my claims, the opposite in fact, for years it was sound economic practice to limit mortgages to three and a half times the wage of the main breadwinner, this naturally kept housing both affordable and prevented the pathetic price bubbles that almost wrecked the economy. You do not have the right to expect your house to triple in value in thirteen years of financial misrule especially as everyone else will end up bailing you out and paying for it. Labour are guilty as charged on that one, end of.

Sure the Tories started this but Blair's lot chucked a lot of petrol on that particular fire, when you have average house prices at eight times average income you have problems and New Labour ignored those problems and kept the Ponzi scheme going far longer than they should have done by looking the other way while the banks committed fraud with self cert mortgages and LTV'S of 125%+, and let me tell you as an employer the biggest threat to my business is retaining skilled younger staff because of frankly ridiculous housing costs.
Edited by Tigger, Jan 3 2015, 07:04 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Malum Unus
Member Avatar
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
[ *  *  * ]
somersetli
Jan 3 2015, 06:40 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 3 2015, 06:21 PM
C-too
Jan 3 2015, 12:15 PM
HIGHWAY
Jan 3 2015, 11:50 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
As I posted, the situation is far to deep for your shallow thinking.
It maybe shallow,,but it's the one thing your poster boy Tony will always be remembered for
Could it be the £17Million he has made since abandoning New Labour for better pickings?


As I understand it a large part of that £17M was from a South Korean oil company called the UI Energy Corporation... A company which coincidentally enough, is one of those that gets the oil from Iraq.

Pure coincidence I'm sure.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 3 2015, 05:03 PM
krugerman
Jan 3 2015, 03:40 PM
. . . and as it is now becoming the norm to wait half an hour or 45 minutes for an emergency ambulance, . . .
Go on I challenge you to see if you can back that up with any evidence.

Even in the worst performing area (the Labour run Wales Health Service) most emergency calls are attended to in 8 minutes
Dear Sir / Madam,
I am writting to you chiefly in my capacity as a committee member of *************, but also simply as a concerned resident of Whitby.

On Saturday last ( 6th December ) a member of staff at ********* called 999 and requested an ambulance because a customer had collapsed and showed some worrying signs of illness, this call was put out at approximately 11.40 pm.

At 00.15 am the emergency ambulance arrived, the time between putting out the call and the ambulance arriving was between 30 and 35 minutes, we were quite shocked to discover that the crew had actually travelled from Scarborough, which as you know is 21 miles on the A171, a road notorious for hazardous conditions in winter.

According to bar staff, this was the fourth time an ambulance has been called to the club in little over a year, and it seems that on three out the four ocassions, the response time was about 30 minutes, would you agree with me that this situation is not really acceptable. ?

What is YAS policy regarding emergency cover for Whitby, how many emergency ambulances are on stand-by in the Whitby area, and what if there is only one ambulance available and that particular vehicle is required to go to James Cook or Scarborough hospital, does another crew move into the area for the duration that the local crew is out of the area, or is it simply down to whichever ambulance happens to be nearest, Scarborough or possibly further away, and is it true that the ambulance station in Whitby is virtually not used any more. ?

Finaly, I would like to add that the two paramedics who did eventually arrive were clearly very professional, they were very kind, very reassuring to the gentleman and were very thorough.

Thankyou in anticipation
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 3 2015, 05:21 PM
C-too
Jan 3 2015, 03:18 PM
It is interesting to see that borrowing took off around 2000, just as NL said it would. It is also interesting to see that borrowing began to fall in 2005.
Actually not until 2006 and then it increased again in 2007

Posted Image

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data

2007, the slide into the international financial meltdown.


I did post "began to fall" in 2005, but I don't think we should split hairs on this.
Edited by C-too, Jan 4 2015, 10:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jan 3 2015, 07:00 PM
C-too
Jan 3 2015, 12:32 PM
Tigger
Jan 3 2015, 11:56 AM
Steve K
Jan 2 2015, 10:33 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
All true, but which sane(?) politician is going to tell the electorate that their little house is not really worth five times what they paid for it?

The British are happy to swallow economic BS because they just blame whoever is in power at the time, and that proud not me guv tradition continues to this very day.
Definitely not all true. That is a ridiculous claim.

Years of paying mortgage plus interest mean that it is obvious that we pay more for the house than the original price asked. That means house prices inevitably rise over time.
That there are some ridiculous price rises in certain parts of the country should not be extrapolated to all houses.
Also, any excessive rises in value are quickly sorted by a short period of the economic reality as sales go from being a sellers market to a buyers market. Nothing new about that.

To point the finger at the housing market as if there was something new happening, or that it caused our present difficulties just does not make any sense.



Wishful thinking at best.

There is nothing at all ridiculous about my claims, the opposite in fact, for years it was sound economic practice to limit mortgages to three and a half times the wage of the main breadwinner, this naturally kept housing both affordable and prevented the pathetic price bubbles that almost wrecked the economy. You do not have the right to expect your house to triple in value in thirteen years of financial misrule especially as everyone else will end up bailing you out and paying for it. Labour are guilty as charged on that one, end of.

Sure the Tories started this but Blair's lot chucked a lot of petrol on that particular fire, when you have average house prices at eight times average income you have problems and New Labour ignored those problems and kept the Ponzi scheme going far longer than they should have done by looking the other way while the banks committed fraud with self cert mortgages and LTV'S of 125%+, and let me tell you as an employer the biggest threat to my business is retaining skilled younger staff because of frankly ridiculous housing costs.
Don't know were you live but as someone who has bought three houses since the 1970s, I have NEVER experienced any property of mine that has tripled in value in 13 years.

No house bubble has come anywhere near to wrecking the economy, you are hung up on a false assumption. I hope that's the end of your nonsense.

What of the house pricing collapse under the Tories in the 1990s?

Buying a house has always been financially difficult for the average skilled individual.

How many 125% mortgages were issued ??
As far as I'm aware such mortgages were two loans in one. Start to own your own home, and use a loan for buying or car, doing up your property, or whatever else you would normally have made a loan to do.

You are so intent on blaming NL you cannot see the wood for trees.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Buccaneer
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Dec 28 2014, 09:27 AM
I think it shows what a god awful state British politics is in, when a man like Farrage, ex public schoolboy, city trader, tory and stooge of Rupert Murdoch is seen as a breath of fresh air.

I mean seriously, am I really the only one who can see it?
The problem here is that it is your prejudices that show through immediately :

1. Public schoolboy.........tick

2. City trader.................tick

3. 'Stooge' to newspaper proprietor.........tick

Any worthwhile criticism based on politics, zilch.

0/10 must try harder.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Buccaneer
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Dec 28 2014, 10:55 AM
I also note that Farrage partially blamed the latest gaffe by one of his party members that got said member banned on the fact that he was from a council estate and that's how lots of people from council estates talk.

How the hell would he know? I grew up on a council estate and if any of us had spoken to someone like that our mum would have beaten us black and blue.

Frankly Farrage ' s comments sound like the sort of sneering, patronising, out of touch views of the metropolitan elite that he claims to oppose.
I grew up on a council estate too, and many people used shorthand versions of names, viz, 'Just off to the chippy', 'nip along to the corner Paki shop for a loaf', 'going for a Chinky takeaway'.
None of these were said in any pejorative sense, they were merely shorthand terms.

I'm sick to death of the 'holier than thou' lot who constantly seem to look for things to be offended about, on someone else's behalf most of the time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Buccaneer
Jan 4 2015, 11:07 AM
Happy Hornet
Dec 28 2014, 09:27 AM
I think it shows what a god awful state British politics is in, when a man like Farrage, ex public schoolboy, city trader, tory and stooge of Rupert Murdoch is seen as a breath of fresh air.

I mean seriously, am I really the only one who can see it?
The problem here is that it is your prejudices that show through immediately :

1. Public schoolboy.........tick

2. City trader.................tick

3. 'Stooge' to newspaper proprietor.........tick

Any worthwhile criticism based on politics, zilch.

0/10 must try harder.
If you are further to the right than Cameron, then support Nigel.

If you are fooled by his rhetoric (he can't take us completely out of the EU), then vote Nigel.

If you didn't see the inner nasty side of Nigel in his Goebbels' like attack on Von Rompuy, then vote for the new 'nastier' party.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply