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
What is Labour for?
Topic Started: Jan 30 2015, 08:21 AM (3,073 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]

Quote:
 
Labour would not reverse billions of pounds of spending cuts to the police, hospitals, armed forces and local councils, Ed Balls has confirmed.
The savings include cutting £3.3billion from councils’ budgets, making £700million worth of cuts to the pay of members of the armed forces and shaving £400million off the NHS pay bill.


LINK

It has to be asked, what are Labour for if it is going to match the Tory budget programme? They now promise to stick to current Coalition plans so what are the offering? Maybe they think they can offer an experienced Management Team that can stimulate the economy and hold a tighter grip on State spending? Makes one want to laugh. Let's get real, without a programme of increases in State expenditure coupled with a programme of social engineering to make us fit their mould there is absolutely no point in Labour.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Why mention 2006 C-Too and not 2010 when they were thrown out. Possibly because it all went Pete Tong after 2006 didn't it? As it was all built on unsustainable levels of household debt

Shall we mention who agreed that Romania etc could have unfettered migration here after 10 years?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
C-too
Feb 3 2015, 09:56 PM
ACH1967
Feb 3 2015, 12:18 PM
C-too
Feb 2 2015, 08:42 PM
ACH1967
Feb 2 2015, 11:53 AM
The Labour party appears to be there for exactly the same reasons the other parties are there, to protect the vested interests of those it believes will vote for it (most of the public sector).
You cannot blame them for this but you can disregard as flowery BS those who say that labour is interested in fairness. They may by default make the country fairer, but this is as a side effect to them looking out for their clients.
That's one interpretation. But as fairness increased under Labour and decreased under the Tories, then facts suggest you are mistaken.
So lets see these facts about a subjective measure such as fairness.
The rich got richer and the poor got poorer under the Tories.
The rich got richer quicker than the poor under NL, but at least the poor did get richer.
The number of people living in relative poverty increased under the Tories. (1979/1997).
1.6m people taken out of relative poverty by NL.
The introduction of the minimum wage.
Working Tax Credits. Increased Family Allowance. Winter fuel payments. Free bus passes. VAT on gas and electricity reduced to 5%.
A big reduction in waiting times for the NHS.
12 to 18 month waiting times for some operations dramatically reduced under NL.
17 years of high/mass unemployment under the Tories.
Less than 1m in 2006 under NL.


Record peacetime DEBT.
Record peacetime deficit.
UK drops from 7th to 24th in international maths and literacy rankings.
100 new taxes on the middle class.
Council taxes double for the middle classes.
4,300 petty new laws.
Doubled the length of tax law and created a mass of new regulations.
Sold the UK's gold reserves at the bottom of the MARKET.
Ripped up a system of financial regulation proven over 300 years; 10 years later the UK has 5 failed banks.
Destroyed the best private pension provision in europe, taking £100bn from prudent pensioners.
Destroyed more of the UK's manufacturing sector than Thatcher.
Politicisation of the police, the civil service, education.
Falling productivity in public sector despite 48% real-terms increase in spending.
Overseen the rise of the unaccountable, unsackable, feather-bedded bureaucrat, taking control over every aspect of people's lives.
New GP contract increased average pay to £100,000.
Most GPs refuse to provide care during evenings and weekends.
House prices unaffordable for workers on average salaries.
Soaring knife and violent crime in our cities.
Debasement of politics, endless re-announcements of the same policy, CASH for peerages, lies, spin and deceit.
200+ service personnel killed.
3 million immigrants invited into the UK to take 81% of all NEW JOBS created
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Feb 3 2015, 11:28 PM
C-too
Feb 3 2015, 09:56 PM
ACH1967
Feb 3 2015, 12:18 PM
C-too
Feb 2 2015, 08:42 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
So lets see these facts about a subjective measure such as fairness.
The rich got richer and the poor got poorer under the Tories.
The rich got richer quicker than the poor under NL, but at least the poor did get richer.
The number of people living in relative poverty increased under the Tories. (1979/1997).
1.6m people taken out of relative poverty by NL.
The introduction of the minimum wage.
Working Tax Credits. Increased Family Allowance. Winter fuel payments. Free bus passes. VAT on gas and electricity reduced to 5%.
A big reduction in waiting times for the NHS.
12 to 18 month waiting times for some operations dramatically reduced under NL.
17 years of high/mass unemployment under the Tories.
Less than 1m in 2006 under NL.


Record peacetime DEBT.
Record peacetime deficit.
UK drops from 7th to 24th in international maths and literacy rankings.
100 new taxes on the middle class.
Council taxes double for the middle classes.
4,300 petty new laws.
Doubled the length of tax law and created a mass of new regulations.
Sold the UK's gold reserves at the bottom of the MARKET.
Ripped up a system of financial regulation proven over 300 years; 10 years later the UK has 5 failed banks.
Destroyed the best private pension provision in europe, taking £100bn from prudent pensioners.
Destroyed more of the UK's manufacturing sector than Thatcher.
Politicisation of the police, the civil service, education.
Falling productivity in public sector despite 48% real-terms increase in spending.
Overseen the rise of the unaccountable, unsackable, feather-bedded bureaucrat, taking control over every aspect of people's lives.
New GP contract increased average pay to £100,000.
Most GPs refuse to provide care during evenings and weekends.
House prices unaffordable for workers on average salaries.
Soaring knife and violent crime in our cities.
Debasement of politics, endless re-announcements of the same policy, CASH for peerages, lies, spin and deceit.
200+ service personnel killed.
3 million immigrants invited into the UK to take 81% of all NEW JOBS created
So both parties have made mistakes :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

Labour do not get blamed for 9/11, not even for 7/7, they do not get blamed for the boxingday tsunami nor for bird flu, but they do get blamed for the global banking crisis.
Obviously, if that had never happened then there wouldn't be anything to blame on Labour ........... and that just wouldn't be acceptable.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Feb 4 2015, 01:38 PM
Labour do not get blamed for 9/11, not even for 7/7, they do not get blamed for the boxingday tsunami nor for bird flu, but they do get blamed for the global banking crisis.
Obviously, if that had never happened then there wouldn't be anything to blame on Labour ........... and that just wouldn't be acceptable.

You just lie there, I'll get your rattle for you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Feb 4 2015, 02:18 PM
Affa
Feb 4 2015, 01:38 PM
Labour do not get blamed for 9/11, not even for 7/7, they do not get blamed for the boxingday tsunami nor for bird flu, but they do get blamed for the global banking crisis.
Obviously, if that had never happened then there wouldn't be anything to blame on Labour ........... and that just wouldn't be acceptable.

You just lie there, I'll get your rattle for you.

Are you capable of finding anything without assistance?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Feb 4 2015, 02:51 PM
ACH1967
Feb 4 2015, 02:18 PM
Affa
Feb 4 2015, 01:38 PM
Labour do not get blamed for 9/11, not even for 7/7, they do not get blamed for the boxingday tsunami nor for bird flu, but they do get blamed for the global banking crisis.
Obviously, if that had never happened then there wouldn't be anything to blame on Labour ........... and that just wouldn't be acceptable.

You just lie there, I'll get your rattle for you.

Are you capable of finding anything without assistance?


Yes, I appear to find it disturbingly easy to find childish rants.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Feb 3 2015, 12:18 PM
C-too
Feb 2 2015, 08:42 PM
ACH1967
Feb 2 2015, 11:53 AM
The Labour party appears to be there for exactly the same reasons the other parties are there, to protect the vested interests of those it believes will vote for it (most of the public sector).
You cannot blame them for this but you can disregard as flowery BS those who say that labour is interested in fairness. They may by default make the country fairer, but this is as a side effect to them looking out for their clients.
That's one interpretation. But as fairness increased under Labour and decreased under the Tories, then facts suggest you are mistaken.
So lets see these facts about a subjective measure such as fairness.
Ah that "fairness" word again that appears to mean something, but I wonder what it is. As soon as they trot out that word you can be sure that their claims are without foundations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Feb 4 2015, 02:53 PM
Affa
Feb 4 2015, 02:51 PM
ACH1967
Feb 4 2015, 02:18 PM
Affa
Feb 4 2015, 01:38 PM
Labour do not get blamed for 9/11, not even for 7/7, they do not get blamed for the boxingday tsunami nor for bird flu, but they do get blamed for the global banking crisis.
Obviously, if that had never happened then there wouldn't be anything to blame on Labour ........... and that just wouldn't be acceptable.

You just lie there, I'll get your rattle for you.

Are you capable of finding anything without assistance?


Yes, I appear to find it disturbingly easy to find childish rants.

Is that what you thought it was?
How strange! It was a genuine statement of the actual situation as can be observed on a daily basis. I am supposing that anything that riles your sensitivities gets passed of as a rant, and with your own rant.
Now re-read what was said I try to tell us there wasn't any truth in it?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Feb 4 2015, 03:12 PM
ACH1967
Feb 4 2015, 02:53 PM
Affa
Feb 4 2015, 02:51 PM
ACH1967
Feb 4 2015, 02:18 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Are you capable of finding anything without assistance?


Yes, I appear to find it disturbingly easy to find childish rants.

Is that what you thought it was?
How strange! It was a genuine statement of the actual situation as can be observed on a daily basis. I am supposing that anything that riles your sensitivities gets passed of as a rant, and with your own rant.
Now re-read what was said I try to tell us there wasn't any truth in it?

So this:

“Labour does not get blamed for 9/11, not even for 7/7, they do not get blamed for the Boxing Day tsunami or for bird flu”
Is a genuine statement of the actual situation as can be observed on a daily basis?

Interesting. You just relax on the couch and tell us all about your mother.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Feb 4 2015, 03:19 PM
So this:

“Labour does not get blamed for 9/11, not even for 7/7, they do not get blamed for the Boxing Day tsunami or for bird flu”
Is a genuine statement of the actual situation as can be observed on a daily basis?

Interesting. You just relax on the couch and tell us all about your mother.

What is interesting is your inability to discern fact from your own fiction.

When was the last time you heard or read that Labour were to blame for any of these four examples? Yesterday, the the day before, never? Each day that passes I see no such blame being laid, so I observe on a daily basis the correctness of the statement.

My mother would tell you to stop being silly and to shut up when you have nothing worth hearing to say.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Feb 4 2015, 03:31 PM
ACH1967
Feb 4 2015, 03:19 PM
So this:

“Labour does not get blamed for 9/11, not even for 7/7, they do not get blamed for the Boxing Day tsunami or for bird flu”
Is a genuine statement of the actual situation as can be observed on a daily basis?

Interesting. You just relax on the couch and tell us all about your mother.

What is interesting is your inability to discern fact from your own fiction.

When was the last time you heard or read that Labour were to blame for any of these four examples? Yesterday, the the day before, never? Each day that passes I see no such blame being laid, so I observe on a daily basis the correctness of the statement.

My mother would tell you to stop being silly and to shut up when you have nothing worth hearing to say.

If she had told you the same she would have been doing us all a favour.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
It's just a false premise. No one has blamed Labour for the world banking crisis but many incl I have blamed Labour for

- being a (and maybe the) leading major participan nation in the idiot policies that led to the crisis

- presiding on an unprecedented and unsustainable bubble of UK household debt garnished with extra government debt that left us facing an inevitable UK meltdown and dreadfully vulnerable to the worldwide issues

- being in denial ever since that they were warned on the record and still got it so wrong
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 4 2015, 06:31 PM
It's just a false premise. No one has blamed Labour for the world banking crisis but many incl I have blamed Labour for

- being a (and maybe the) leading major participan nation in the idiot policies that led to the crisis

- presiding on an unprecedented and unsustainable bubble of UK household debt garnished with extra government debt that left us facing an inevitable UK meltdown and dreadfully vulnerable to the worldwide issues

- being in denial ever since that they were warned on the record and still got it so wrong
Indeed, if you copy Conservative derived policies expect to be regarded with the same contempt your core voters reserve for the Conservatives.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 4 2015, 06:31 PM
It's just a false premise. No one has blamed Labour for the world banking crisis

The premise is that there is a blame culture that pays lip service only to the truth.
Without which there would be less contradiction and more actual debate about policies and performance.
The reason these are avoided are obvious ..... The Roman Circus (yes I learnt of it today) rules that what matters is how you are perceived, not how you perform. Hence we have spin, blame, and misdirection.

I don't know how many times I've said it, but once again - if the Tories put as much time, effort (and money) into doing what they are elected to do as they do on PR in trying to escape criticism for failure, then perhaps they wouldn't need to be using spin etc, and could defend themselves with their record of success.
Ministers have whole teams of so called advisers who's real job is to construct the rhetoric, spin the detail, and massage the data. It's all about appearance - plastic tits and collagen pouts.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Feb 3 2015, 11:28 PM
C-too
Feb 3 2015, 09:56 PM
ACH1967
Feb 3 2015, 12:18 PM
C-too
Feb 2 2015, 08:42 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
So lets see these facts about a subjective measure such as fairness.
The rich got richer and the poor got poorer under the Tories.
The rich got richer quicker than the poor under NL, but at least the poor did get richer.
The number of people living in relative poverty increased under the Tories. (1979/1997).
1.6m people taken out of relative poverty by NL.
The introduction of the minimum wage.
Working Tax Credits. Increased Family Allowance. Winter fuel payments. Free bus passes. VAT on gas and electricity reduced to 5%.
A big reduction in waiting times for the NHS.
12 to 18 month waiting times for some operations dramatically reduced under NL.
17 years of high/mass unemployment under the Tories.
Less than 1m in 2006 under NL.


Record peacetime DEBT.
Record peacetime deficit.
UK drops from 7th to 24th in international maths and literacy rankings.
100 new taxes on the middle class.
Council taxes double for the middle classes.
4,300 petty new laws.
Doubled the length of tax law and created a mass of new regulations.
Sold the UK's gold reserves at the bottom of the MARKET.
Ripped up a system of financial regulation proven over 300 years; 10 years later the UK has 5 failed banks.
Destroyed the best private pension provision in europe, taking £100bn from prudent pensioners.
Destroyed more of the UK's manufacturing sector than Thatcher.
Politicisation of the police, the civil service, education.
Falling productivity in public sector despite 48% real-terms increase in spending.
Overseen the rise of the unaccountable, unsackable, feather-bedded bureaucrat, taking control over every aspect of people's lives.
New GP contract increased average pay to £100,000.
Most GPs refuse to provide care during evenings and weekends.
House prices unaffordable for workers on average salaries.
Soaring knife and violent crime in our cities.
Debasement of politics, endless re-announcements of the same policy, CASH for peerages, lies, spin and deceit.
200+ service personnel killed.
3 million immigrants invited into the UK to take 81% of all NEW JOBS created
Your post is not only misguided and even dishonest in places, it also does not alter the gist of my post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 3 2015, 10:13 PM
Why mention 2006 C-Too and not 2010 when they were thrown out. Possibly because it all went Pete Tong after 2006 didn't it? As it was all built on unsustainable levels of household debt

Shall we mention who agreed that Romania etc could have unfettered migration here after 10 years?
Why do you choose to ignore the meltdown ? You must be aware that both the debt and the deficit spiralled out of control when the meltdown hit.

NL's approach to immigration was influenced by a shortage of workers, professional, skilled and otherwise when the UK had an expanding economy and less than 1M unemployed in 2006.
The slide into the meltdown began in 2007, it came with a bang in 2008 and when it arrived no one fully understood just how bad it would turn out to be, although some were speculating on it.

NL were caught in the eye of an economic tsunami. Because it was the worst international financial failure for 60 years, their first priority was to ensure that the recession did not turn into a 1930s style depression.

By 2007 the international financial failure was out of the bag and beginning to be felt that is why I would refer to the period 1997/2006 as the period for which NL should carry both blame and credit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Feb 4 2015, 09:18 PM
Steve K
Feb 3 2015, 10:13 PM
Why mention 2006 C-Too and not 2010 when they were thrown out. Possibly because it all went Pete Tong after 2006 didn't it? As it was all built on unsustainable levels of household debt

Shall we mention who agreed that Romania etc could have unfettered migration here after 10 years?
Why do you choose to ignore the meltdown ? You must be aware that both the debt and the deficit spiralled out of control when the meltdown hit.

NL's approach to immigration was influenced by a shortage of workers, professional, skilled and otherwise when the UK had an expanding economy and less than 1M unemployed in 2006.
The slide into the meltdown began in 2007, it came with a bang in 2008 and when it arrived no one fully understood just how bad it would turn out to be, although some were speculating on it.

NL were caught in the eye of an economic tsunami. Because it was the worst international financial failure for 60 years, their first priority was to ensure that the recession did not turn into a 1930s style depression.

By 2007 the international financial failure was out of the bag and beginning to be felt that is why I would refer to the period 1997/2006 as the period for which NL should carry both blame and credit.
I don't ignore the meltdown, we all know it was so bad in the UK because of how Labour stoked up such a massive debt ridden bubble.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 4 2015, 09:22 PM
C-too
Feb 4 2015, 09:18 PM
Steve K
Feb 3 2015, 10:13 PM
Why mention 2006 C-Too and not 2010 when they were thrown out. Possibly because it all went Pete Tong after 2006 didn't it? As it was all built on unsustainable levels of household debt

Shall we mention who agreed that Romania etc could have unfettered migration here after 10 years?
Why do you choose to ignore the meltdown ? You must be aware that both the debt and the deficit spiralled out of control when the meltdown hit.

NL's approach to immigration was influenced by a shortage of workers, professional, skilled and otherwise when the UK had an expanding economy and less than 1M unemployed in 2006.
The slide into the meltdown began in 2007, it came with a bang in 2008 and when it arrived no one fully understood just how bad it would turn out to be, although some were speculating on it.

NL were caught in the eye of an economic tsunami. Because it was the worst international financial failure for 60 years, their first priority was to ensure that the recession did not turn into a 1930s style depression.

By 2007 the international financial failure was out of the bag and beginning to be felt that is why I would refer to the period 1997/2006 as the period for which NL should carry both blame and credit.
I don't ignore the meltdown, we all know it was so bad in the UK because of how Labour stoked up such a massive debt ridden bubble.
So no meltdown ?

Ignoring for the moment the low level of deficit and debt to GDP in 2006, and the actual debt was lower than in Germany, what percentage of debt do you think the state of our schools and the NHS inherited by NL in 97 was necessary ?

How much income was lost and expense incurred because of the meltdown ? (both of which affected both the debt and deficit).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Again you try and ignore the obscene level of household debt, that £950B bubble that Labour sat back and watched. Yes it made the GDP look good so the government debt and deficit ratio didn't look so bad but it was all unsustainable, a bubble economy

Go on look at the levels of household debt to GDP in Gordon's run to making sure he was PM in 2007 and see if they look so clever. They don't, they were completely bonkers and he was told they were so and he pressed on. Had to make sure Labour got re-elected, had to make sure the wheels didn't come off before Blair resigned. And hey presto just months later the UK was in its own self made shit creek. Maybe the wider international issues meant we didn't have a paddle either but Labour put us in shit creek.

Try and ignore the UK meltdown Labour caused if you like, millions of others know better.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 4 2015, 10:05 PM
Again you try and ignore the obscene level of household debt, that £950B bubble that Labour sat back and watched.
Which is now heading towards double that under the current government.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Feb 4 2015, 10:08 PM
Steve K
Feb 4 2015, 10:05 PM
Again you try and ignore the obscene level of household debt, that £950B bubble that Labour sat back and watched.
Which is now heading towards double that under the current government.
Got a link for that? It had actually gone down in real terms under this government

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 30 2015, 08:21 AM
Quote:
 
Labour would not reverse billions of pounds of spending cuts to the police, hospitals, armed forces and local councils, Ed Balls has confirmed.
The savings include cutting £3.3billion from councils’ budgets, making £700million worth of cuts to the pay of members of the armed forces and shaving £400million off the NHS pay bill.


LINK

It has to be asked, what are Labour for if it is going to match the Tory budget programme? They now promise to stick to current Coalition plans so what are the offering? Maybe they think they can offer an experienced Management Team that can stimulate the economy and hold a tighter grip on State spending? Makes one want to laugh. Let's get real, without a programme of increases in State expenditure coupled with a programme of social engineering to make us fit their mould there is absolutely no point in Labour.
Too right RJD, I have already said on here several times that whoever gains office in May will HAVE to adopt right wing measures/policies in order to get this country back into the black and with a surplus, sadly, I think that the coalition has failed this country badly by being soft and were it not for UKIP putting the pressure onto all parties then they would have been even softer.....spare the rod and spoil the child......cue Papasmurf.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Feb 5 2015, 12:31 AM
Too right RJD, I have already said on here several times that whoever gains office in May will HAVE to adopt right wing measures/policies in order to get this country back into the black and with a surplus, sadly, I think that the coalition has failed this country badly by being soft and were it not for UKIP putting the pressure onto all parties then they would have been even softer.....spare the rod and spoil the child......cue Papasmurf.
Well Papasmurf here there are right wing policies, I have no problem with that, and there are Tory compassionless doctrinal policies where there don't give an (expletive deleted,) about how many people are made homeless, destitute or die as a result.

Yesterdays Work and Pensions Committee meeting made that glaringly obvious. Hopefully the Witch McVey's constituents will rid themselves of her at the general election.
Edited by papasmurf, Feb 5 2015, 10:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Feb 5 2015, 12:31 AM
RJD
Jan 30 2015, 08:21 AM
Quote:
 
Labour would not reverse billions of pounds of spending cuts to the police, hospitals, armed forces and local councils, Ed Balls has confirmed.
The savings include cutting £3.3billion from councils’ budgets, making £700million worth of cuts to the pay of members of the armed forces and shaving £400million off the NHS pay bill.


LINK

It has to be asked, what are Labour for if it is going to match the Tory budget programme? They now promise to stick to current Coalition plans so what are the offering? Maybe they think they can offer an experienced Management Team that can stimulate the economy and hold a tighter grip on State spending? Makes one want to laugh. Let's get real, without a programme of increases in State expenditure coupled with a programme of social engineering to make us fit their mould there is absolutely no point in Labour.
Too right RJD, I have already said on here several times that whoever gains office in May will HAVE to adopt right wing measures/policies in order to get this country back into the black and with a surplus, sadly, I think that the coalition has failed this country badly by being soft and were it not for UKIP putting the pressure onto all parties then they would have been even softer.....spare the rod and spoil the child......cue Papasmurf.
Are you saying that you don't think these right wing policies will leave people homeless and destitute?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Feb 5 2015, 10:31 AM
Are you saying that you don't think these right wing policies will leave people homeless and destitute?
It isn't will it is are, and that is before all the cuts are in place and before the proposed massive cuts proposed by Osborne.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Feb 5 2015, 10:17 AM
Rich
Feb 5 2015, 12:31 AM
Too right RJD, I have already said on here several times that whoever gains office in May will HAVE to adopt right wing measures/policies in order to get this country back into the black and with a surplus, sadly, I think that the coalition has failed this country badly by being soft and were it not for UKIP putting the pressure onto all parties then they would have been even softer.....spare the rod and spoil the child......cue Papasmurf.
Well Papasmurf here there are right wing policies, I have no problem with that, and there are Tory compassionless doctrinal policies where there don't give an (expletive deleted,) about how many people are made homeless, destitute or die as a result.

Yesterdays Work and Pensions Committee meeting made that glaringly obvious. Hopefully the Witch McVey's constituents will rid themselves of her at the general election.
The Liberals say they will maintain the cuts, but tax more. They even claim credit for the improved economy. Labour says they will maintain cuts and increase taxes so we have to assume that they agree the cuts were necessary, and the Conservative policies sound in principle. The only difference is in the way they will raise taxes ,but on one section of society , the higher earners and the job and wealth creators. I foresee that vat will have to rise across the board, and taxes increase for all.
Better that than the downward spiral in Greece and Spain.

Bring back the poll tax, where we all pay equally for the services we want, and use in our own homes, individually and as a group and council areas.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Feb 5 2015, 10:43 AM
Bring back the poll tax, where we all pay equally for the services we want, and use in our own homes, individually and as a group and council areas.
Not again. I was paying £225 in rates, the poll tax came in at £330 each, £660 for my home, explain to me what was fair about that.
My wife and I were in tears when we saw the poll tax demands, some of our neighbours were traumatised they had four/five/or six times £330 to find.
No-one has ever explained why with far more people paying the poll tax was so high.
Based on numbers on the electoral roll for the county I was expecting the poll tax to be about £80 each.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

On the mention of fairness (again) and how the Poll Tax was declared 'fair', I'm instantly remined of earlier this week when a number of tax exile businessmen, who's tax avoidance schemes lose £bns of FAIR treasury income calling Labour out as wrecking the economy if elected - It's not that profits will be curtailed, only that the tax on them is destined to be collected.

Expect to see Boots up for sale at a bargain basement price ......... not!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Feb 5 2015, 10:33 AM
ACH1967
Feb 5 2015, 10:31 AM
Are you saying that you don't think these right wing policies will leave people homeless and destitute?
It isn't will it is are, and that is before all the cuts are in place and before the proposed massive cuts proposed by Osborne.
Well you say are but I am yet to see convincing evidence
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Feb 5 2015, 11:14 AM
Well you say are but I am yet to see convincing evidence
You won't in news papers or the media. However just published:-

http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/Homelessness_Monitor_England_2015_final_web.pdf

Plus:-

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/research/centres/chrp/projects/spendingcuts/resources/database/reportsgroups/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Feb 5 2015, 10:50 AM
Tytoalba
Feb 5 2015, 10:43 AM
Bring back the poll tax, where we all pay equally for the services we want, and use in our own homes, individually and as a group and council areas.
Not again. I was paying £225 in rates, the poll tax came in at £330 each, £660 for my home, explain to me what was fair about that.
My wife and I were in tears when we saw the poll tax demands, some of our neighbours were traumatised they had four/five/or six times £330 to find.
No-one has ever explained why with far more people paying the poll tax was so high.
Based on numbers on the electoral roll for the county I was expecting the poll tax to be about £80 each.
You get what you pay for ,and we cannot expect others to supply our needs. Cost the need, divide equally amongst those the boroughs voters register, and that is what you pay. No free loaders ,but perhaps a reduction of numbers on the voters register, which will effect some parties more than others.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Feb 5 2015, 11:26 AM
Cost the need, divide equally amongst those the boroughs voters register, and that is what you pay.
But that is NOT what happened.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Feb 5 2015, 11:08 AM
On the mention of fairness (again) and how the Poll Tax was declared 'fair', I'm instantly remined of earlier this week when a number of tax exile businessmen, who's tax avoidance schemes lose £bns of FAIR treasury income calling Labour out as wrecking the economy if elected - It's not that profits will be curtailed, only that the tax on them is destined to be collected.

Expect to see Boots up for sale at a bargain basement price ......... not!

Tax avoidance is legal. To change it change the law.
I invest in ISA,s to legally tax avoid and to help build up a pension pot. One a year over time , even at the lowest level, can grow nicely, and then take one out a year. Tax avoidance can be good for us all.
I think that BOOTS like Starbucks, is American owned, but I may be wrong.

The chairmen has answered his critics with growth in employment and a stable company.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Feb 5 2015, 11:26 AM
papasmurf
Feb 5 2015, 10:50 AM
Tytoalba
Feb 5 2015, 10:43 AM
Bring back the poll tax, where we all pay equally for the services we want, and use in our own homes, individually and as a group and council areas.
Not again. I was paying £225 in rates, the poll tax came in at £330 each, £660 for my home, explain to me what was fair about that.
My wife and I were in tears when we saw the poll tax demands, some of our neighbours were traumatised they had four/five/or six times £330 to find.
No-one has ever explained why with far more people paying the poll tax was so high.
Based on numbers on the electoral roll for the county I was expecting the poll tax to be about £80 each.
You get what you pay for ,and we cannot expect others to supply our needs. Cost the need, divide equally amongst those the boroughs voters register, and that is what you pay. No free loaders ,but perhaps a reduction of numbers on the voters register, which will effect some parties more than others.
if you take a very very narrow view of society then you would be correct. But it's not like that. The Poll Tax took away the only wealth tax we had, it was a monument to Thatcher's disturbed belief that society must protect and enhance the wealth of the better off without them having to pay a penny extra for it. That was bad enough but that it did it by hitting hard some of the worst off was inexcusable.

If you want to destroy UK society just put the Poll Tax back in place again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 5 2015, 11:39 AM


If you want to destroy UK society just put the Poll Tax back in place again.
Quite.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Feb 5 2015, 11:36 AM
Affa
Feb 5 2015, 11:08 AM
On the mention of fairness (again) and how the Poll Tax was declared 'fair', I'm instantly remined of earlier this week when a number of tax exile businessmen, who's tax avoidance schemes lose £bns of FAIR treasury income calling Labour out as wrecking the economy if elected - It's not that profits will be curtailed, only that the tax on them is destined to be collected.

Expect to see Boots up for sale at a bargain basement price ......... not!

Tax avoidance is legal. To change it change the law.
I invest in ISA,s to legally tax avoid and to help build up a pension pot. One a year over time , even at the lowest level, can grow nicely, and then take one out a year. Tax avoidance can be good for us all.
I think that BOOTS like Starbucks, is American owned, but I may be wrong.

The chairmen has answered his critics with growth in employment and a stable company.
Unfortunately a few years back the HMRC redefined the term tax avoidance - it wrong footed me as well. "Avoidance" is now tax that should be paid but wasn't because of (probably) honest use of a scheme that should not have been used

Quote:
 
Avoidance is exploiting the tax rules to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never
intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no
commercial purpose other than to produce a tax advantage. It involves operating
within the letter, but not the spirit of the law. . .


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364009/4382_Measuring_Tax_Gaps_2014_IW_v4B_accessible_20141014.pdf

And HMRC can take action to recover tax that was so avoided as all schemes now have to be declared to HMRC and meet the test of legitimacy. Something that's been clamped down on very firmly in the last few years

ISAs, pension contributions etc are now defined as "legitimate tax planning"

Quote:
 
Legitimate tax planning involves using tax reliefs for the purpose for which they were intended. For example, claiming tax relief on capital investment, saving in a tax-exempt ISA or saving for retirement by making contributions to a pension scheme are all legitimate forms of tax planning.



I hate it when people redefine words but seems HMRC can.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 4 2015, 10:05 PM
Again you try and ignore the obscene level of household debt, that £950B bubble that Labour sat back and watched. Yes it made the GDP look good so the government debt and deficit ratio didn't look so bad but it was all unsustainable, a bubble economy

Go on look at the levels of household debt to GDP in Gordon's run to making sure he was PM in 2007 and see if they look so clever. They don't, they were completely bonkers and he was told they were so and he pressed on. Had to make sure Labour got re-elected, had to make sure the wheels didn't come off before Blair resigned. And hey presto just months later the UK was in its own self made shit creek. Maybe the wider international issues meant we didn't have a paddle either but Labour put us in shit creek.

Try and ignore the UK meltdown Labour caused if you like, millions of others know better.
Labour did not cause the meltdown, there is no way NL could damage so many economies in the world. Damage the world is till struggling with. You should know better, please remove your blinkers.

You ignore the obvious, the deficit-debt/GDP post meltdown had to increase, yes partly because of the loss of some GDP but mostly to enable the country to still tick over after the loss of income and increased costs caused by the meltdown.
Don't forget that since 1986 this country became increasingly dependent upon the Financial Services. Mrs Thatcher made no bones about that when she put millions of skilled and semi skilled people out of work, most of whom obviously never worked in the trades again. She started the ball rolling and it is was made the UK so susceptible to the meltdown.

The real increases in both deficit and debt began with the meltdown, all the facts are there, you have even posted some graphs showing exactly that.



PS, how much personal debt was down to businesses, large and small, borrowing in order to save their businesses from going under ?


Edited by C-too, Feb 5 2015, 12:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
But Labour caused the meltdown in the UK. We were always going to have one, it started with alarming levels of UK mortgage defaults in 2006, then in 2007 our over levered banks couldn't raise loans cheaply anymore.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 5 2015, 12:38 PM
But Labour caused the meltdown in the UK.
No they didn't, they did not cause the personal debt mountain, which is getting towards being double what it was when they left office.
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