|
Replies:
|
|
Steve K
|
Feb 5 2015, 12:47 PM
Post #201
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Feb 5 2015, 12:42 PM
- 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. An allegation you were challenged on yesterday in post 185 and still haven't given a shred of evidence to support.
And all the evidence says you've very wrong on that
As for the debt bubble under Labour of course that was their fault. It was their job to manage the economy and instead they let it run riot. Banks had to lend recklessly or go out of business as so many reckless banks were allowed to trade and steal their business.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Feb 5 2015, 12:50 PM
Post #202
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 5 2015, 12:38 PM
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. With no international meltdown then anything the UK might have endured would have been insignificant in comparison. You have seen the other side of the coin, if you choose to ignore it, then that is your choice.
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Feb 5 2015, 12:54 PM
Post #203
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Feb 5 2015, 11:23 AM
And you read those reports did you? Care to summarise. Becasue I have and it is a very inconclusive nuanced picture. The key points were some of the most meaningless key points I have ever had the misfotune to read in a report.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Feb 5 2015, 05:20 PM
Post #204
|
- Posts:
- 17,277
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- ACH1967
- Feb 5 2015, 12:54 PM
Becasue I have and it is a very inconclusive nuanced picture. No as nuanced and inconclusive as Grant Shapps was on The Daily Politics today. He knew he was stuffed because everyone involved knows and admits to the official numbers for homeless and rough sleepers is a massive underestimate.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Feb 5 2015, 05:42 PM
Post #205
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- 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. Why not just compare the state of the economy just prior to the last two recessions, the one in the early 1990s followed by the one in 2007? I think you will find that the economy was in a far worse position, the worst position of any G20 economy to face the recession just before the last one. It is, after all, the responsibility of Gov. not to expose the economy to these chill winds which do blow with surprising regularity.
The real question is who do you trust to run the economy, Balls or Osborne? Well considering the number of catastrophic mistakes made by Balls as Browns head economics honcho I am very surprised that even Labour tolerate that serial failure. I don't need to list them all but the raid on private pensions and the hobbling of the regulatory system should have been enough to consign him to the back benches in perpetuity. Osborne is nothing to write home about, but he has not taken any major risks and has done a great deal to tidying up, plus he is a lucky boy and one needs a bit of that. So why take a risk at this time on Milliband and Balls when our national debt is still well down there is the Ring of Fire. It's not as if there is any money to play around with.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Feb 5 2015, 07:11 PM
Post #206
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Feb 5 2015, 12:42 PM
- 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. So you've been challenged twice on this and strangely not a peep from you.
May 2010: UK Household debt £1.460 Trillion
Nov 2014: UK household debt £1.463 Trillion (not even 1% higher and actually lower in real terms)
http://themoneycharity.org.uk/money-statistics/
So your fairy story you twice posted about it doubling under this government was utter rubbish wasn't it. But would you admit that when challenged? No.
Edited by Steve K, Feb 5 2015, 07:11 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Feb 5 2015, 07:38 PM
Post #207
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 5 2015, 11:39 AM
- 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. The value of a property bears no relationship to the number of people living in it, or the level of their income. or the means to pay. An elderly couple on a fixed income living in the family home that has become highly desirable , and therefore valuable, does not mean that they have the means to pay the higher rate tax band or a mansion tax. Alternatively you could have a family of 4 or more, with their wives, all high earners, living in a smaller property and paying little or nothing for the services they use. If they paid equally to all others, , a sum within their means to pay, then that would be fairer. The poll tax was fairer to all and was more democratic in the sense that the people could vote on what they were willing to pay.
You would be right to say that it would not be tolerated, for party politics would prevent a fair and open discussion on it. Most people have not thought it through IMO.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Feb 5 2015, 07:39 PM
Post #208
|
- Posts:
- 17,277
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 5 2015, 07:11 PM
So you've been challenged twice on this and strangely not a peep from you. May 2010: UK Household debt £1.460 Trillion Nov 2014: UK household debt £1.463 Trillion (not even 1% higher and actually lower in real terms) http://themoneycharity.org.uk/money-statistics/ So your fairy story you twice posted about it doubling under this government was utter rubbish wasn't it. But would you admit that when challenged? No. I have looked at your link I can't see data for 2010, which someone earlier in the thread quoted as around £950 billion, THAT was the figure I was commenting about.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Feb 5 2015, 07:51 PM
Post #209
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Well look again then
http://themoneycharity.org.uk/money-statistics/ links to http://themoneycharity.org.uk/money-statistics-archive/ which CLEARLY has http://themoneycharity.org.uk/money-statistics/july-2010/ and at the bottom it shows http://themoneycharity.org.uk/media/july-2010.pdf
And the £950B was the addition to household debt when it trebled in a very few years under labour. So you were wrong on that esp as even a dunce knows that £1.4Trillion is not twice £950B
You post made up data and false stats way way too often to do anything other than harm to the causes you affect to espouse
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Feb 5 2015, 07:59 PM
Post #210
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Feb 5 2015, 05:42 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.
Why not just compare the state of the economy just prior to the last two recessions, the one in the early 1990s followed by the one in 2007? I think you will find that the economy was in a far worse position, the worst position of any G20 economy to face the recession just before the last one. It is, after all, the responsibility of Gov. not to expose the economy to these chill winds which do blow with surprising regularity. The real question is who do you trust to run the economy, Balls or Osborne? Well considering the number of catastrophic mistakes made by Balls as Browns head economics honcho I am very surprised that even Labour tolerate that serial failure. I don't need to list them all but the raid on private pensions and the hobbling of the regulatory system should have been enough to consign him to the back benches in perpetuity. Osborne is nothing to write home about, but he has not taken any major risks and has done a great deal to tidying up, plus he is a lucky boy and one needs a bit of that. So why take a risk at this time on Milliband and Balls when our national debt is still well down there is the Ring of Fire. It's not as if there is any money to play around with. The recession in the 1990s was not caused by the worst international financial tsunami since the 1930s.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Feb 5 2015, 08:01 PM
Post #211
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- ACH1967
- Feb 5 2015, 10:31 AM
- 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. LINKIt 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? I am saying that if left wing socialist policies are put into action then the whole country will be at risk of destitution (imo) rather than a sector of society, some of whom have made themselves homeless, some of whom have fallen on hard times but are caught by the safety net, some who through no fault of their own are unable to help themselves but are looked after by the state and some who are just plain feckless and expect to live their whole adult life at the expense of the taxpayer.
I am merely waiting for a certain poster to call IDS an outright murderer, for if he does then he will have some serious explaining to do to prove it.
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Feb 6 2015, 08:56 AM
Post #212
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
- Rich
- Feb 5 2015, 08:01 PM
- ACH1967
- Feb 5 2015, 10:31 AM
- Rich
- Feb 5 2015, 12:31 AM
- RJD
- Jan 30 2015, 08:21 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep LINKIt 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?
I am saying that if left wing socialist policies are put into action then the whole country will be at risk of destitution (imo) rather than a sector of society, some of whom have made themselves homeless, some of whom have fallen on hard times but are caught by the safety net, some who through no fault of their own are unable to help themselves but are looked after by the state and some who are just plain feckless and expect to live their whole adult life at the expense of the taxpayer. I am merely waiting for a certain poster to call IDS an outright murderer, for if he does then he will have some serious explaining to do to prove it. Most of this is essentially true apart from this statement:
“some who through no fault of their own are unable to help themselves but are looked after by the state”
Where people are victims of domestic violence and mental health issues they are falling through this safety net at a higher rate. Local authorities are facing cuts and what they are cutting is areas where they have no statutory obligations.
Personally I don’t think it is right that Universal benefits are given to those who can quite comfortably afford to go without them whilst victims of domestic violence and sufferers of mental health issues are left to fend for themselves. I do not consider this to be an effective of fair use of my taxes.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Feb 6 2015, 09:09 AM
Post #213
|
- Posts:
- 17,277
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Rich
- Feb 5 2015, 08:01 PM
I am merely waiting for a certain poster to call IDS an outright murderer, for if he does then he will have some serious explaining to do to prove it.
You seem to think I am in a minority of one about my feelings about Iain Duncan Smith, you really should widen your choice of internet forums.
http://disabilitynewsservice.com/2015/01/ministers-change-story-yet-benefit-related-deaths/
http://www.welfareweekly.com/iain-duncan-smiths-directory-death/
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Feb 6 2015, 09:59 AM
Post #214
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Feb 6 2015, 09:09 AM
Yes Rich you should widen you horizons because no doubt disabilitynewservice and welfare weekly are going to be objective.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Feb 6 2015, 10:05 AM
Post #215
|
- Posts:
- 17,277
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- ACH1967
- Feb 6 2015, 09:59 AM
Yes Rich you should widen you horizons because no doubt disabilitynewservice and welfare weekly are going to be objective. Iain Duncan Smith has single handedly wrecked the DWP, been the cause of thousands of deaths, and probably lost the Tories the general election. If you don't know anyone who has died as result of the welfare reforms you must have a very narrow circle of friends and be totally insulated from seeing what a disaster Iain Duncan Smith is.
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Feb 6 2015, 10:19 AM
Post #216
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Feb 6 2015, 10:05 AM
- ACH1967
- Feb 6 2015, 09:59 AM
Yes Rich you should widen you horizons because no doubt disabilitynewservice and welfare weekly are going to be objective.
Iain Duncan Smith has single handedly wrecked the DWP, been the cause of thousands of deaths, and probably lost the Tories the general election. If you don't know anyone who has died as result of the welfare reforms you must have a very narrow circle of friends and be totally insulated from seeing what a disaster Iain Duncan Smith is. more fantasy from the fantasy font
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Feb 6 2015, 10:27 AM
Post #217
|
- Posts:
- 17,277
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- ACH1967
- Feb 6 2015, 10:19 AM
more fantasy from the fantasy font No fantasy involved, not only has IDS been responsible for thousands of deaths, he has cost and is costing the taxpayer £billions.
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/
Iain Duncan Smith is trying to trick you into thinking he has saved £50 billion because fewer people are claiming benefits. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2938797/My-welfare-reforms-save-taxpayer-50billion-says-Iain-Duncan-Smith-Welfare-grows-slowest-rate-reforms.html)
Apparently this is a good thing despite the massive human cost of his project to push people off-benefit and contract the welfare state – we know that 1.6 million people have stopped claiming, http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/01/21/unemployment-figures-are-a-sanction-based-stitch-up-research-shows/
not because they got a job but because they could no longer cope with the abusive behaviour of DWP employees.
We also know that many thousands have died - http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2014/08/31/more-or-less-on-the-esa-deaths-more-stupidity-less-accuracy/
through suicide or complications of their physical conditions (if claiming incapacity benefits) after receiving decisions that were not only wrong, but may have been fraudulent.
And there’s the Universal Credit fiasco on which this blog reported today (February 4). http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/02/04/duncan-smith-has-ruined-the-dwp-and-has-nothing-to-show-for-it/
Jonathan Portes said delays to ‘reform’ of these benefits was costing the DWP £5 billion per year – that’s £25 billion over the course of the Parliament and this writer is far more likely to believe Mr Portes than the Coward of Caxton House.
Of course, if you would rather believe the Secretary-in-a-State, then this blog has words of advice that are to be taken to heart:
Don’t lose your job. Don’t contract a long-term illness or disability. Don’t have an accident at work that harms your general health.
You may not survive the benefit system.
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Feb 6 2015, 10:35 AM
Post #218
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
Ah more objectivity from an impartial source
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Feb 6 2015, 10:40 AM
Post #219
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- ACH1967
- Feb 6 2015, 08:56 AM
- Rich
- Feb 5 2015, 08:01 PM
- ACH1967
- Feb 5 2015, 10:31 AM
- Rich
- Feb 5 2015, 12:31 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep LINK
Are you saying that you don't think these right wing policies will leave people homeless and destitute?
I am saying that if left wing socialist policies are put into action then the whole country will be at risk of destitution (imo) rather than a sector of society, some of whom have made themselves homeless, some of whom have fallen on hard times but are caught by the safety net, some who through no fault of their own are unable to help themselves but are looked after by the state and some who are just plain feckless and expect to live their whole adult life at the expense of the taxpayer. I am merely waiting for a certain poster to call IDS an outright murderer, for if he does then he will have some serious explaining to do to prove it.
Most of this is essentially true apart from this statement: “some who through no fault of their own are unable to help themselves but are looked after by the state” Where people are victims of domestic violence and mental health issues they are falling through this safety net at a higher rate. Local authorities are facing cuts and what they are cutting is areas where they have no statutory obligations. Personally I don’t think it is right that Universal benefits are given to those who can quite comfortably afford to go without them whilst victims of domestic violence and sufferers of mental health issues are left to fend for themselves. I do not consider this to be an effective of fair use of my taxes. I agree with you in principle, but where do you think the condemnations will come from with claims of means testing, or we have paid our taxes something that is anathema to the left, for for them, they will fear the assessment of need to be made through to all such benefits. I suspect that universal benefits are here to stay. Our long term failure has been in being over generous , with the introduction of new benefits, and benefits that we can no longer afford. Once governments start splashing the cash to gain votes, it is so much harder to cut or reduce them, for it will be seen as meanness and harsh Some should have been means tested from the beginning, with more available to give to those in real need.
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Feb 6 2015, 10:56 AM
Post #220
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Feb 6 2015, 10:40 AM
- ACH1967
- Feb 6 2015, 08:56 AM
- Rich
- Feb 5 2015, 08:01 PM
- ACH1967
- Feb 5 2015, 10:31 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep LINK
I am saying that if left wing socialist policies are put into action then the whole country will be at risk of destitution (imo) rather than a sector of society, some of whom have made themselves homeless, some of whom have fallen on hard times but are caught by the safety net, some who through no fault of their own are unable to help themselves but are looked after by the state and some who are just plain feckless and expect to live their whole adult life at the expense of the taxpayer. I am merely waiting for a certain poster to call IDS an outright murderer, for if he does then he will have some serious explaining to do to prove it.
Most of this is essentially true apart from this statement: “some who through no fault of their own are unable to help themselves but are looked after by the state” Where people are victims of domestic violence and mental health issues they are falling through this safety net at a higher rate. Local authorities are facing cuts and what they are cutting is areas where they have no statutory obligations. Personally I don’t think it is right that Universal benefits are given to those who can quite comfortably afford to go without them whilst victims of domestic violence and sufferers of mental health issues are left to fend for themselves. I do not consider this to be an effective of fair use of my taxes.
I agree with you in principle, but where do you think the condemnations will come from with claims of means testing, or we have paid our taxes something that is anathema to the left, for for them, they will fear the assessment of need to be made through to all such benefits. I suspect that universal benefits are here to stay. Our long term failure has been in being over generous , with the introduction of new benefits, and benefits that we can no longer afford. Once governments start splashing the cash to gain votes, it is so much harder to cut or reduce them, for it will be seen as meanness and harsh Some should have been means tested from the beginning, with more available to give to those in real need. There will always be winners and losers. Ideally the losers should be those best able to weather the loss. Unfortunately the losers are those with little or no political clout and often easy to demonise. With no one going to bat for them there is only charity left. It is a miserable state of affairs that at least we should recognise rather than pretending that the safety net is effective.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Feb 6 2015, 06:33 PM
Post #221
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Feb 5 2015, 07:59 PM
- RJD
- Feb 5 2015, 05:42 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.
Why not just compare the state of the economy just prior to the last two recessions, the one in the early 1990s followed by the one in 2007? I think you will find that the economy was in a far worse position, the worst position of any G20 economy to face the recession just before the last one. It is, after all, the responsibility of Gov. not to expose the economy to these chill winds which do blow with surprising regularity. The real question is who do you trust to run the economy, Balls or Osborne? Well considering the number of catastrophic mistakes made by Balls as Browns head economics honcho I am very surprised that even Labour tolerate that serial failure. I don't need to list them all but the raid on private pensions and the hobbling of the regulatory system should have been enough to consign him to the back benches in perpetuity. Osborne is nothing to write home about, but he has not taken any major risks and has done a great deal to tidying up, plus he is a lucky boy and one needs a bit of that. So why take a risk at this time on Milliband and Balls when our national debt is still well down there is the Ring of Fire. It's not as if there is any money to play around with.
The recession in the 1990s was not caused by the worst international financial tsunami since the 1930s. True, but so what? The question is one of securing the economy from external threats and that is the responsibility of Gov. The point is that the UK was, according to nearly everyone on the planet, the worst placed economy ------ you know the rest.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Feb 6 2015, 06:35 PM
Post #222
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Rich
- Feb 5 2015, 08:01 PM
- ACH1967
- Feb 5 2015, 10:31 AM
- Rich
- Feb 5 2015, 12:31 AM
- RJD
- Jan 30 2015, 08:21 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep LINKIt 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?
I am saying that if left wing socialist policies are put into action then the whole country will be at risk of destitution (imo) rather than a sector of society, some of whom have made themselves homeless, some of whom have fallen on hard times but are caught by the safety net, some who through no fault of their own are unable to help themselves but are looked after by the state and some who are just plain feckless and expect to live their whole adult life at the expense of the taxpayer. I am merely waiting for a certain poster to call IDS an outright murderer, for if he does then he will have some serious explaining to do to prove it. He just might and I might call Milliband a closet Marxist, but I wonder who will be closer to the truth?
|
|
|
| |
|
Lewis
|
Feb 6 2015, 10:55 PM
Post #223
|
- Posts:
- 3,478
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- RJD
- Feb 6 2015, 06:35 PM
- Rich
- Feb 5 2015, 08:01 PM
- ACH1967
- Feb 5 2015, 10:31 AM
- Rich
- Feb 5 2015, 12:31 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep LINK
Are you saying that you don't think these right wing policies will leave people homeless and destitute?
I am saying that if left wing socialist policies are put into action then the whole country will be at risk of destitution (imo) rather than a sector of society, some of whom have made themselves homeless, some of whom have fallen on hard times but are caught by the safety net, some who through no fault of their own are unable to help themselves but are looked after by the state and some who are just plain feckless and expect to live their whole adult life at the expense of the taxpayer. I am merely waiting for a certain poster to call IDS an outright murderer, for if he does then he will have some serious explaining to do to prove it.
He just might and I might call Milliband a closet Marxist, but I wonder who will be closer to the truth? I would say he is. Milliband is no more Marxist than Scammers is.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Feb 6 2015, 11:43 PM
Post #224
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Feb 6 2015, 06:33 PM
- C-too
- Feb 5 2015, 07:59 PM
- RJD
- Feb 5 2015, 05:42 PM
- C-too
- Feb 4 2015, 09:18 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Why not just compare the state of the economy just prior to the last two recessions, the one in the early 1990s followed by the one in 2007? I think you will find that the economy was in a far worse position, the worst position of any G20 economy to face the recession just before the last one. It is, after all, the responsibility of Gov. not to expose the economy to these chill winds which do blow with surprising regularity. The real question is who do you trust to run the economy, Balls or Osborne? Well considering the number of catastrophic mistakes made by Balls as Browns head economics honcho I am very surprised that even Labour tolerate that serial failure. I don't need to list them all but the raid on private pensions and the hobbling of the regulatory system should have been enough to consign him to the back benches in perpetuity. Osborne is nothing to write home about, but he has not taken any major risks and has done a great deal to tidying up, plus he is a lucky boy and one needs a bit of that. So why take a risk at this time on Milliband and Balls when our national debt is still well down there is the Ring of Fire. It's not as if there is any money to play around with.
The recession in the 1990s was not caused by the worst international financial tsunami since the 1930s.
True, but so what? The question is one of securing the economy from external threats and that is the responsibility of Gov. The point is that the UK was, according to nearly everyone on the planet, the worst placed economy ------ you know the rest. The UK, probably alone on the planet had indulged its economy in a deregulation/financial services/free market system, done deliberately by Mrs T.
Little wonder that according to the IMF the UK was "hit hardest".
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Feb 6 2015, 11:55 PM
Post #225
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- C-too
- Feb 6 2015, 11:43 PM
- RJD
- Feb 6 2015, 06:33 PM
- C-too
- Feb 5 2015, 07:59 PM
- RJD
- Feb 5 2015, 05:42 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
The recession in the 1990s was not caused by the worst international financial tsunami since the 1930s.
True, but so what? The question is one of securing the economy from external threats and that is the responsibility of Gov. The point is that the UK was, according to nearly everyone on the planet, the worst placed economy ------ you know the rest.
The UK, probably alone on the planet had indulged its economy in a deregulation/financial services/free market system, done deliberately by Mrs T. Little wonder that according to the IMF the UK was "hit hardest". So, how long would you give any administration to absolutely get rid of so called Thatcherism>would you say that 13 years would be long enough to have reversed this so called evil and vile theology, or would you also deny that adopting the majority of thatcherism by a certain Mr Blair, (I just cannot find it within me to call him the "right honourable) was just as bad and also that no one on this board has blamed the 13 years of Labour government for the global meltdown (and let us get this out of the way once and for all) but that they are blamed for leaving the domestic cupboard bare by utter profligacy with taxpayers hard earned cash and yet we are still back where we started in 97 up until 2010 and the present administration is playing catch up...answers on a postcard please....that is if you have the spine to tell the truth as it is.
Yours,
very most sincerely,
Rich.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Feb 7 2015, 12:21 AM
Post #226
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- RJD
- Feb 6 2015, 06:33 PM
The point is that the UK was, according to nearly everyone on the planet, the worst placed economy ------ you know the rest.
A point you here say is "according to .........", and I'm guessing you have never thought to doubt that presumption? Has it for instance ever crossed your mind to ask 'if the debt crisis in the UK is so large, who is that the debt is OWED to'? As the major centre for finance UK Financial Services debts are huge, but so are its owed debts from across the globe'. We hear so often of the debts each is crippled by, but nothing of the money owed .... the Government is paying out £50bn a year in interest payments for government debts - who to?
I have seen figures published in 2010 that showed the 'CITY' was owed from other nations far more than the debt they had. To say we have been conned is an understatement imo. This money owed to London bankers is why the bail-out was preferred ....... and remember Osborne bailed-out the Irish bankers because "the UK was most exposed if Ireland defaulted on its debts". That is true now, was true, in 2008/09 when the deal to rescue the FS Sector was made at the G20.
Edited by Affa, Feb 7 2015, 12:22 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Feb 7 2015, 08:45 AM
Post #227
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Rich
- Feb 6 2015, 11:55 PM
- C-too
- Feb 6 2015, 11:43 PM
- RJD
- Feb 6 2015, 06:33 PM
- C-too
- Feb 5 2015, 07:59 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
True, but so what? The question is one of securing the economy from external threats and that is the responsibility of Gov. The point is that the UK was, according to nearly everyone on the planet, the worst placed economy ------ you know the rest.
The UK, probably alone on the planet had indulged its economy in a deregulation/financial services/free market system, done deliberately by Mrs T. Little wonder that according to the IMF the UK was "hit hardest".
So, how long would you give any administration to absolutely get rid of so called Thatcherism>would you say that 13 years would be long enough to have reversed this so called evil and vile theology, or would you also deny that adopting the majority of thatcherism by a certain Mr Blair, (I just cannot find it within me to call him the "right honourable) was just as bad and also that no one on this board has blamed the 13 years of Labour government for the global meltdown (and let us get this out of the way once and for all) but that they are blamed for leaving the domestic cupboard bare by utter profligacy with taxpayers hard earned cash and yet we are still back where we started in 97 up until 2010 and the present administration is playing catch up...answers on a postcard please....that is if you have the spine to tell the truth as it is. Yours, very most sincerely, Rich. The economic die was cast in the 1980s. And just like nationalisation was set after WWII it takes a serious watershed in order to make drastic changes. The problems with changing Thatcherism was a least two fold. 1. It appeared to be working and working well. So for most of NL's period in office there didn't seem to be any reason to change. 2. How does a government make people invest in industry when they are making money by happily investing in the financial sector ?
I don't think anyone blames NL for the international meltdown, but I think some are reluctant to accept the level of damage done to our Financial Services led economy.
"PROFLIGATE". Recklessly extravagant. Shamelessly immoral. I recommend you look at the state of the NHS and school buildings inherited by NL in 1997. The final stages of refurbishing old schools was stopped by this government causing at least one Tory councillor to resign because of the state of her local school. The improvements made means we are categorically NOT back to 1997.
|
|
|
| |
|
Lewis
|
Feb 7 2015, 11:52 AM
Post #228
|
- Posts:
- 3,478
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Rich
- Feb 6 2015, 11:55 PM
- C-too
- Feb 6 2015, 11:43 PM
- RJD
- Feb 6 2015, 06:33 PM
- C-too
- Feb 5 2015, 07:59 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
True, but so what? The question is one of securing the economy from external threats and that is the responsibility of Gov. The point is that the UK was, according to nearly everyone on the planet, the worst placed economy ------ you know the rest.
The UK, probably alone on the planet had indulged its economy in a deregulation/financial services/free market system, done deliberately by Mrs T. Little wonder that according to the IMF the UK was "hit hardest".
So, how long would you give any administration to absolutely get rid of so called Thatcherism>would you say that 13 years would be long enough to have reversed this so called evil and vile theology, or would you also deny that adopting the majority of thatcherism by a certain Mr Blair, (I just cannot find it within me to call him the "right honourable) was just as bad and also that no one on this board has blamed the 13 years of Labour government for the global meltdown (and let us get this out of the way once and for all) but that they are blamed for leaving the domestic cupboard bare by utter profligacy with taxpayers hard earned cash and yet we are still back where we started in 97 up until 2010 and the present administration is playing catch up...answers on a postcard please....that is if you have the spine to tell the truth as it is. Yours, very most sincerely, Rich. Sorry Rich, but there was no profligacy at all by Labour. The facts say different. It is just a lie, a fairy tale put about by your lot!
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Feb 7 2015, 12:15 PM
Post #229
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Lewis
- Feb 7 2015, 11:52 AM
Sorry Rich, but there was no profligacy at all by Labour. The facts say different. It is just a lie, a fairy tale put about by your lot!
No they never ever went on a spending spree using a mix of other people's money and money they just printed? Oh yes they did
The facts show different. Remember for example that £190 "Health in Pregnancy Grant" money just thrown at pregnant women ahead of the General Election no questions asked so they if they wanted they could spend it on fags, booze, CDs. holidays whatever so they'll vote Labour while Labour told us no of course they will only ever spend it on fresh vegetables? Purest profligacy
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Feb 7 2015, 01:12 PM
Post #230
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 7 2015, 12:15 PM
- Lewis
- Feb 7 2015, 11:52 AM
Sorry Rich, but there was no profligacy at all by Labour. The facts say different. It is just a lie, a fairy tale put about by your lot! No they never ever went on a spending spree using a mix of other people's money and money they just printed? Oh yes they did The facts show different. Remember for example that £190 "Health in Pregnancy Grant" money just thrown at pregnant women ahead of the General Election no questions asked so they if they wanted they could spend it on fags, booze, CDs. holidays whatever so they'll vote Labour while Labour told us no of course they will only ever spend it on fresh vegetables? Purest profligacy As far as I'm aware QE was only used after the meltdown.
In terms of social spending one has to remember that those at the lower end of the economic spectrum had suffered 18 years of austerity, many of them getting poorer while the rich got richer under the Tories.
I see some of NL's spending as a re distribution of wealth at a time when the country appeared to be getting richer. The needy would probably spend more on food. Making these sort of payments universal is not ideal but different systems are likely to have more than one problem including being more costly.
I don't believe anyone ever suggested "they will only ever spend it on fresh vegetables". I also have no objection for those who are in need to spend the minute amount of my taxes they receive, on whatever little luxuries they are able to manage.
|
|
|
| |
|
Lewis
|
Feb 7 2015, 01:23 PM
Post #231
|
- Posts:
- 3,478
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 7 2015, 12:15 PM
- Lewis
- Feb 7 2015, 11:52 AM
Sorry Rich, but there was no profligacy at all by Labour. The facts say different. It is just a lie, a fairy tale put about by your lot! No they never ever went on a spending spree using a mix of other people's money and money they just printed? Oh yes they did The facts show different. Remember for example that £190 "Health in Pregnancy Grant" money just thrown at pregnant women ahead of the General Election no questions asked so they if they wanted they could spend it on fags, booze, CDs. holidays whatever so they'll vote Labour while Labour told us no of course they will only ever spend it on fresh vegetables? Purest profligacy What about the billions your lot have wasted on a so called reform of the NHS that has done nothing to improve matters but make it worse!
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Feb 7 2015, 02:05 PM
Post #232
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Feb 7 2015, 01:12 PM
- Steve K
- Feb 7 2015, 12:15 PM
- Lewis
- Feb 7 2015, 11:52 AM
Sorry Rich, but there was no profligacy at all by Labour. The facts say different. It is just a lie, a fairy tale put about by your lot! No they never ever went on a spending spree using a mix of other people's money and money they just printed? Oh yes they did The facts show different. Remember for example that £190 "Health in Pregnancy Grant" money just thrown at pregnant women ahead of the General Election no questions asked so they if they wanted they could spend it on fags, booze, CDs. holidays whatever so they'll vote Labour while Labour told us no of course they will only ever spend it on fresh vegetables? Purest profligacy
As far as I'm aware QE was only used after the meltdown. In terms of social spending one has to remember that those at the lower end of the economic spectrum had suffered 18 years of austerity, many of them getting poorer while the rich got richer under the Tories. I see some of NL's spending as a re distribution of wealth at a time when the country appeared to be getting richer. The needy would probably spend more on food. Making these sort of payments universal is not ideal but different systems are likely to have more than one problem including being more costly. I don't believe anyone ever suggested "they will only ever spend it on fresh vegetables". I also have no objection for those who are in need to spend the minute amount of my taxes they receive, on whatever little luxuries they are able to manage. Well lets look at what they did say
'Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said: "We understand that the run up to a birth is an expensive time for families. The new Health in Pregnancy Grant will help expectant mums meet these extra costs and give their child the best possible start in life. "It's very easy to make a claim and pregnant women can spend the cash on whatever they like, including fresh fruit and vegetables, nappies or even a pram or baby bath. It's their choice."
So what was the first thing they mentioned? Fruit and vegetables
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Feb 7 2015, 02:28 PM
Post #233
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 7 2015, 02:05 PM
- C-too
- Feb 7 2015, 01:12 PM
- Steve K
- Feb 7 2015, 12:15 PM
- Lewis
- Feb 7 2015, 11:52 AM
Sorry Rich, but there was no profligacy at all by Labour. The facts say different. It is just a lie, a fairy tale put about by your lot! No they never ever went on a spending spree using a mix of other people's money and money they just printed? Oh yes they did The facts show different. Remember for example that £190 "Health in Pregnancy Grant" money just thrown at pregnant women ahead of the General Election no questions asked so they if they wanted they could spend it on fags, booze, CDs. holidays whatever so they'll vote Labour while Labour told us no of course they will only ever spend it on fresh vegetables? Purest profligacy
As far as I'm aware QE was only used after the meltdown. In terms of social spending one has to remember that those at the lower end of the economic spectrum had suffered 18 years of austerity, many of them getting poorer while the rich got richer under the Tories. I see some of NL's spending as a re distribution of wealth at a time when the country appeared to be getting richer. The needy would probably spend more on food. Making these sort of payments universal is not ideal but different systems are likely to have more than one problem including being more costly. I don't believe anyone ever suggested "they will only ever spend it on fresh vegetables". I also have no objection for those who are in need to spend the minute amount of my taxes they receive, on whatever little luxuries they are able to manage.
Well lets look at what they did say'Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said: "We understand that the run up to a birth is an expensive time for families. The new Health in Pregnancy Grant will help expectant mums meet these extra costs and give their child the best possible start in life. "It's very easy to make a claim and pregnant women can spend the cash on whatever they like, including fresh fruit and vegetables, nappies or even a pram or baby bath. It's their choice."So what was the first thing they mentioned? Fruit and vegetables Then they didn't say they would only ever spend it on fresh fruit and vegetables.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Feb 7 2015, 02:48 PM
Post #234
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- C-too
- Feb 7 2015, 02:28 PM
Then they didn't say they would only ever spend it on fresh fruit and vegetables.
- Quote:
-
Steve wrote- The facts show different. Remember for example that £190 "Health in Pregnancy Grant" money just thrown at pregnant women ahead of the General Election no questions asked so they if they wanted they could spend it on fags, booze, CDs. holidays whatever so they'll vote Labour while Labour told us no of course they will only ever spend it on fresh vegetables?
I see the word 'only' in there. Your own quote of the minister has other items that a new mum would require. Neither do I suspect that such mothers are more likely to spend more on booze and fags when a baby comes along no matter that a FEW never do rise to the challenge of parenting. We cannot condemn a policy simply because there could be a tiny minority that behave badly and misspend the money.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Feb 7 2015, 02:50 PM
Post #235
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Feb 7 2015, 02:28 PM
- Steve K
- Feb 7 2015, 02:05 PM
- C-too
- Feb 7 2015, 01:12 PM
- Steve K
- Feb 7 2015, 12:15 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
As far as I'm aware QE was only used after the meltdown. In terms of social spending one has to remember that those at the lower end of the economic spectrum had suffered 18 years of austerity, many of them getting poorer while the rich got richer under the Tories. I see some of NL's spending as a re distribution of wealth at a time when the country appeared to be getting richer. The needy would probably spend more on food. Making these sort of payments universal is not ideal but different systems are likely to have more than one problem including being more costly. I don't believe anyone ever suggested "they will only ever spend it on fresh vegetables". I also have no objection for those who are in need to spend the minute amount of my taxes they receive, on whatever little luxuries they are able to manage.
Well lets look at what they did say'Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said: "We understand that the run up to a birth is an expensive time for families. The new Health in Pregnancy Grant will help expectant mums meet these extra costs and give their child the best possible start in life. "It's very easy to make a claim and pregnant women can spend the cash on whatever they like, including fresh fruit and vegetables, nappies or even a pram or baby bath. It's their choice."So what was the first thing they mentioned? Fruit and vegetables
Then they didn't say they would only ever spend it on fresh fruit and vegetables. Picky picky. You know what they said, they clearly wanted the impression it would only be spent on good things but placed no restraint at all to prevent it going on fags, booze, CDs, MP3 players, scratch cards etc etc or even worse
Utter vote buying profligacy using other people's money. It's what they do.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Feb 7 2015, 02:55 PM
Post #236
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 7 2015, 02:50 PM
- C-too
- Feb 7 2015, 02:28 PM
- Steve K
- Feb 7 2015, 02:05 PM
- C-too
- Feb 7 2015, 01:12 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Well lets look at what they did say'Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said: "We understand that the run up to a birth is an expensive time for families. The new Health in Pregnancy Grant will help expectant mums meet these extra costs and give their child the best possible start in life. "It's very easy to make a claim and pregnant women can spend the cash on whatever they like, including fresh fruit and vegetables, nappies or even a pram or baby bath. It's their choice."So what was the first thing they mentioned? Fruit and vegetables
Then they didn't say they would only ever spend it on fresh fruit and vegetables.
Picky picky. You know what they said, they clearly wanted the impression it would only be spent on good things but placed no restraint at all to prevent it going on fags, booze, CDs, MP3 players, scratch cards etc etc or even worse Utter vote buying profligacy using other people's money. It's what they do. I think your cynicism is in overdrive.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Feb 7 2015, 02:58 PM
Post #237
|
- Posts:
- 33,954
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Think what you like, 2003 to 2009 was utter bonkers economic management by Labour. They threw all caution to the wind.
And profligate they certainly were.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Feb 7 2015, 03:38 PM
Post #238
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 7 2015, 02:50 PM
You know what they said, they clearly wanted the impression it would only be spent on good things but placed no restraint at all to prevent it going on fags, booze, CDs, MP3 players, scratch cards etc etc or even worse
Utter vote buying profligacy using other people's money. It's what they do.
You too know what was said, you posted the Quote
- Quote:
-
'Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said: "We understand that the run up to a birth is an expensive time for families. The new Health in Pregnancy Grant will help expectant mums meet these extra costs and give their child the best possible start in life. "It's very easy to make a claim and pregnant women can spend the cash on whatever they like, including fresh fruit and vegetables, nappies or even a pram or baby bath. It's their choice."
The CLEAR impression is that he was helping new mothers at a very expensive time for them. Helping the baby, and giving the mothers the respect of being able to make their own choices. Treating them as dutiful considerate adults - you view them as wasters and scroungers.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Feb 7 2015, 03:44 PM
Post #239
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 7 2015, 02:58 PM
Think what you like, 2003 to 2009 was utter bonkers economic management by Labour. They threw all caution to the wind.
And profligate they certainly were. NL were having the economy taken out of their hands in 2007 and were doing all they could to alleviate the problems caused by the meltdown in 2008/09. Your reluctance to acknowledge this is a weakness in your otherwise high standard of posting.
Big spenders ? Yes. Profligate ? No.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Feb 7 2015, 03:47 PM
Post #240
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Feb 7 2015, 02:58 PM
Think what you like, 2003 to 2009 was utter bonkers economic management by Labour. They threw all caution to the wind.
And profligate they certainly were. Completely wasting your time with the serial turd polishers. The benefits of Thatcher's reforms to the economy are well established and continue to be praised around the Globe decades later, but the turd polishers would have us believe that the era prior to 1979 was a workers paradise. Yeah a paradise where productivity in many major industries had sunk to 50% of our major European competitors. Why should my pension have been invested in UK industry at that time when it was more secure and produced a better return elsewhere? I am afraid that these people are incapable of learning anything and are happy to repeat past mistakes, which they will if that closet Marxist Milliband gains office, by accident as it will not be by design. As the man said best sell up and pi55 off to France as it will be better under Hollande now he has had to embrace capitalism than under Marxist Milliband who appears Hell bent in pi55ing off the wealth creating sector.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|