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 (3,071 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:
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Feb 7 2015, 03:47 PM
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.
...... 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,

You are of course referring to the Ted Heath legacy, and as for that final statement - well irony doesn't do it justice.

Mr T was loathed abroad during her tenure, and there is nobody outside the UK Tory party following her (or Reagan's) philosophy today. Ask Chileans what they think of her.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Feb 7 2015, 03:38 PM
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.

You really do need to read what others have posted and not start with hate and then imagine what they posted. Did I say they were wasters and scoundrels? No, but there would have been some in there

We can all think of all sorts of people who we'd like to give money to. The beggar in the street, the kid trying to buy and insure a first car, the old lady that just realised she can't manage her garden anymore etc etc. There is nothing stopping you, me or anyone else making those gifts to them from their own money.

But Labour were borrowing money promised against future taxes we would be compelled to pay, to make those gifts to expectant mothers some of whom would have been wasters, some rich wives of stockbrokers and many who'd prudently worked out what they could afford before getting pregnant.

We weren't given a choice because with an election looming Labour decided to be profligate to buy votes with our money.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Feb 7 2015, 03:47 PM
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.

There was of course all those trips to the IMF more often by the Tories than by Labour. A weak economy made weaker by the turn down in the early seventies, then exacerbated by the oil crisis of 1973.

I have absolutely no doubt that you are the most experienced turd polisher on the forum. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 7 2015, 05:51 PM
Affa
Feb 7 2015, 03:38 PM
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.

You really do need to read what others have posted and not start with hate and then imagine what they posted. Did I say they were wasters and scoundrels? No, but there would have been some in there

We can all think of all sorts of people who we'd like to give money to. The beggar in the street, the kid trying to buy and insure a first car, the old lady that just realised she can't manage her garden anymore etc etc. There is nothing stopping you, me or anyone else making those gifts to them from their own money.

But Labour were borrowing money promised against future taxes we would be compelled to pay, to make those gifts to expectant mothers some of whom would have been wasters, some rich wives of stockbrokers and many who'd prudently worked out what they could afford before getting pregnant.

We weren't given a choice because with an election looming Labour decided to be profligate to buy votes with our money.
You are entitled to be cynical about the timing but that does not mean that it was a cynical move from start to finish. Don't forget the millions ? of workers who tumbled down the earnings league under the Tories.

The problems of leaving fairness to individuals is that many would opt out. So many of the needy would not get their needs met.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 7 2015, 05:51 PM
You really do need to read what others have posted and not start with hate and then imagine what they posted. Did I say they were wasters and scoundrels? No, but there would have been some in there

It's how you are perceived from what you post here.
Quote:
 

Steve
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


I do not deny that a very few of these mothers would not put the money towards the best use and care of the baby, but you appear to think that this misuse as being the norm, as being a lure for votes - as if people on benefits need further encouragement not to vote Tory.
Your post was so politically biased, so presumptuous, one could imagine you are a Tory MP.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
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.
Rubbish. I suspect you get all your opinions from Tory Central Office or alternatively the Torygraph, with a smattering of the Daily Mail, like your leader on this board does.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Buccaneer
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Actually, and in answer to the OP, it's quite clear that Labour are FOR nothing, they exist only to be against everything, until it suits them.

I'd rather be governed by autistics...oh wait a minute, didn't we have them until 1979 ?
Edited by The Buccaneer, Feb 7 2015, 09:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Buccaneer
Feb 7 2015, 09:17 PM
Actually, and in answer to the OP, it's quite clear that Labour are FOR nothing, they exist only to be against everything, until it suits them.

I'd rather be governed by autistics...oh wait a minute, didn't we have them until 1979 ?
Up until the election, yes. Their dereliction of duty left one hell of a costly mess that NL had to attempt to sort out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Buccaneer
Feb 7 2015, 09:17 PM
Actually, and in answer to the OP, it's quite clear that Labour are FOR nothing, they exist only to be against everything, until it suits them.

I'd rather be governed by autistics...oh wait a minute, didn't we have them until 1979 ?
Yes the majority of autistics are more able than this present incompetent Tory government. And that is the absolute truth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
gansao
Feb 2 2015, 08:03 PM
Lewis
Feb 2 2015, 07:45 PM
papasmurf
Feb 2 2015, 05:08 PM
Nonsense
Feb 2 2015, 04:59 PM
For those of you, like me, who may have experienced health care in this country before the NHS was founded, would know the real cost of treatment\care from that period, but also, more crucially indeed, the NHS was not created to COUNTER THE LIFESTYLE CHOICES THAT CAUSE OBESITY,UNWANTED PREGNANCIES, DRUG ADDITION,SMOKING,ALCOHOL ADDICTION OR LIVER DISEASE & OF COURSE 'GAY' MALADIES.

These things above should be paid for 'PRIVATELY' NOT BY THE NHS.

Do you work for the Daily Mail? (Seriously, the DM had similar rant recently. ) It may surprise you given your ill informed rant that, there are factors involved in obesity, drug addiction, and alcoholism you are not aware of. A substantial number of people have those and other problems as a direct result of sexual and or physical abuse as children.
I would be interested to know what you think "Gay Maladies" are.
Some people are quick to condemn others without considering the reasons for their behaviour.

Should obese people be treated by the NHS? We can always condemn people for eating too much, being lazy. Some have a sluggish metabolism. There is evidence to suggest that a minority of people have a 'fat' gene whereby obesity tends to run in certain families. Here is a report that features in the NHS Choices website:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/11November/Pages/Fat-gene-could-make-you-eat-more-move-less.aspx

With regard to unwanted pregnancies, these have been around since Adam and Eve were teenagers themselves. My first daughter wasn't planned exactly, we drank a bit too much one night when we were youngish and bingo, Eve Mk 2 came along. Any regrets - none. Now all I get when I drink too much is brewers droop. Oh to be young again!

Oh having touched on the misuse of alcohol, there are the problems of alcoholism. Some people are also genetically inclined to favour alcohol or misuse drugs. I quote:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=26119

Quote:
 
One version of the gene, GABRG3, was found statistically linked (associated) with alcoholism in the affected families.


Oh I suppose being gay is considered by the closed right wing mind, to be a disease. A lifestyle choice, rather than being the way some peoples brains are programmed from birth?

Oh I nearly forgot that right wingers are less intelligent than those on the left.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

I reckon that some of the writings by the rabid right wingers here, do add weight to this supposition!


Indeed. Just as I said. In fact for every reason someone comes up with to reduce the range of NHS services others will come up with reasons to maintain or even increase it.
Problem is though, just how wide should' free' treatment be available?
I simply do not know whether to laugh or cry, there 'genes' for 'obesity' genes for 'alcoholism' genes for being 'gay', does the 'penny' ever drop with members of the public?

It sounds like the word 'genes' is a 'euphemism' for an 'excuse' to 'do' or 'be' whatever one wants, WITHOUT ever being 'responsible' for one's own situation that one ends up with.

That being the case, it's not a great leap from that type of thinking, to then justify a visit to the doctor or hospital & demanding 'treatment'.

Perhaps even worse, that it may encourage some to claim PIP, because they have a 'dodgy' liver from alcohol & that they need extra benefits to 'satisfy' their needs for more 'alcohol' to help with their 'condition'.....Oh dear, hang on a minute, they ALREADY do get more 'benefits' to pay for more drink, silly me.

If 'Martians' ever invade this country, it can safely be assumed, that they will conclude that this country is perfectly suited to 'Martian' nutcases.

Does anyone think that the NHS was created to 'treat' the effects of these 'vices' that the indolent, feckless half-wits that indulge themselves at others expense in the first place to indulge, must thereafter be 'treated' to 'mend' their broken bodies?

If people thinks so, then ALL public support would cease for that service, the Tories, I can see, would be wringing their hands in glee at the prospect of 'brown-envelopes' heading in their direction.
Edited by Nonsense, Feb 7 2015, 11:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Feb 7 2015, 08:45 AM
Rich
Feb 6 2015, 11:55 PM
C-too
Feb 6 2015, 11:43 PM
RJD
Feb 6 2015, 06:33 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
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. !poke!
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.
As I have always maintained, you could hold a school lesson in a nissen hut, but if the calibre of the teacher is shit then it does not matter if you hold the lessons in Buckingham palace, all the money targetted at the education and NHS have not been used in a wise manner which is why I chose to use the adjective of profligacy.....in other words.......wasted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gnikkk
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Smell the coffee, shame they don't also admit they caused it all in the first pace.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nonsense
Feb 7 2015, 11:40 PM
gansao
Feb 2 2015, 08:03 PM
Lewis
Feb 2 2015, 07:45 PM
papasmurf
Feb 2 2015, 05:08 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Some people are quick to condemn others without considering the reasons for their behaviour.

Should obese people be treated by the NHS? We can always condemn people for eating too much, being lazy. Some have a sluggish metabolism. There is evidence to suggest that a minority of people have a 'fat' gene whereby obesity tends to run in certain families. Here is a report that features in the NHS Choices website:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/11November/Pages/Fat-gene-could-make-you-eat-more-move-less.aspx

With regard to unwanted pregnancies, these have been around since Adam and Eve were teenagers themselves. My first daughter wasn't planned exactly, we drank a bit too much one night when we were youngish and bingo, Eve Mk 2 came along. Any regrets - none. Now all I get when I drink too much is brewers droop. Oh to be young again!

Oh having touched on the misuse of alcohol, there are the problems of alcoholism. Some people are also genetically inclined to favour alcohol or misuse drugs. I quote:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=26119

Quote:
 
One version of the gene, GABRG3, was found statistically linked (associated) with alcoholism in the affected families.


Oh I suppose being gay is considered by the closed right wing mind, to be a disease. A lifestyle choice, rather than being the way some peoples brains are programmed from birth?

Oh I nearly forgot that right wingers are less intelligent than those on the left.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

I reckon that some of the writings by the rabid right wingers here, do add weight to this supposition!


Indeed. Just as I said. In fact for every reason someone comes up with to reduce the range of NHS services others will come up with reasons to maintain or even increase it.
Problem is though, just how wide should' free' treatment be available?
I simply do not know whether to laugh or cry, there 'genes' for 'obesity' genes for 'alcoholism' genes for being 'gay', does the 'penny' ever drop with members of the public?

It sounds like the word 'genes' is a 'euphemism' for an 'excuse' to 'do' or 'be' whatever one wants, WITHOUT ever being 'responsible' for one's own situation that one ends up with.

That being the case, it's not a great leap from that type of thinking, to then justify a visit to the doctor or hospital & demanding 'treatment'.

Perhaps even worse, that it may encourage some to claim PIP, because they have a 'dodgy' liver from alcohol & that they need extra benefits to 'satisfy' their needs for more 'alcohol' to help with their 'condition'.....Oh dear, hang on a minute, they ALREADY do get more 'benefits' to pay for more drink, silly me.

If 'Martians' ever invade this country, it can safely be assumed, that they will conclude that this country is perfectly suited to 'Martian' nutcases.

Does anyone think that the NHS was created to 'treat' the effects of these 'vices' that the indolent, feckless half-wits that indulge themselves at others expense in the first place to indulge, must thereafter be 'treated' to 'mend' their broken bodies?

If people thinks so, then ALL public support would cease for that service, the Tories, I can see, would be wringing their hands in glee at the prospect of 'brown-envelopes' heading in their direction.
Someone else who doesn't know what they are on about. Since when has it been a crime to be gay? At least not since the 1960s. Since when has it been a crime to be an alcoholic?

There is also a genetic link to committing crimes, by the way - the MAOA link. Since our genes make us what we are, they also largely control our behaviour. Ever heard of nature and nurture - simple scientific facts.
Edited by Lewis, Feb 8 2015, 08:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Feb 8 2015, 12:16 AM
C-too
Feb 7 2015, 08:45 AM
Rich
Feb 6 2015, 11:55 PM
C-too
Feb 6 2015, 11:43 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
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. !poke!
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.
As I have always maintained, you could hold a school lesson in a nissen hut, but if the calibre of the teacher is shit then it does not matter if you hold the lessons in Buckingham palace, all the money targetted at the education and NHS have not been used in a wise manner which is why I chose to use the adjective of profligacy.....in other words.......wasted.
Complete and utter misinformed nonsense.

Being taught in a "nissen hut" in some village in Africa where there is no option would be better than nothing, being taught in a nissen hut while the people next door are being taught in comfortable conditions is not an acceptable situation. Even the attitude of the teachers would be effected because they are only human.

You have been furnished with information from the Wanless Review 2007, WHICH VERY CLEARLY SHOWED HUGE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NHS. Proving your use of the word "profligacy" to be totally inappropriate.

Put your useless misleading newspapers in the bin and start thinking for yourself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Feb 8 2015, 08:10 AM
Nonsense
Feb 7 2015, 11:40 PM
gansao
Feb 2 2015, 08:03 PM
Lewis
Feb 2 2015, 07:45 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deephttp://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/11November/Pages/Fat-gene-could-make-you-eat-more-move-less.aspx

With regard to unwanted pregnancies, these have been around since Adam and Eve were teenagers themselves. My first daughter wasn't planned exactly, we drank a bit too much one night when we were youngish and bingo, Eve Mk 2 came along. Any regrets - none. Now all I get when I drink too much is brewers droop. Oh to be young again!

Oh having touched on the misuse of alcohol, there are the problems of alcoholism. Some people are also genetically inclined to favour alcohol or misuse drugs. I quote:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=26119http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

I reckon that some of the writings by the rabid right wingers here, do add weight to this supposition!


Indeed. Just as I said. In fact for every reason someone comes up with to reduce the range of NHS services others will come up with reasons to maintain or even increase it.
Problem is though, just how wide should' free' treatment be available?
I simply do not know whether to laugh or cry, there 'genes' for 'obesity' genes for 'alcoholism' genes for being 'gay', does the 'penny' ever drop with members of the public?

It sounds like the word 'genes' is a 'euphemism' for an 'excuse' to 'do' or 'be' whatever one wants, WITHOUT ever being 'responsible' for one's own situation that one ends up with.

That being the case, it's not a great leap from that type of thinking, to then justify a visit to the doctor or hospital & demanding 'treatment'.

Perhaps even worse, that it may encourage some to claim PIP, because they have a 'dodgy' liver from alcohol & that they need extra benefits to 'satisfy' their needs for more 'alcohol' to help with their 'condition'.....Oh dear, hang on a minute, they ALREADY do get more 'benefits' to pay for more drink, silly me.

If 'Martians' ever invade this country, it can safely be assumed, that they will conclude that this country is perfectly suited to 'Martian' nutcases.

Does anyone think that the NHS was created to 'treat' the effects of these 'vices' that the indolent, feckless half-wits that indulge themselves at others expense in the first place to indulge, must thereafter be 'treated' to 'mend' their broken bodies?

If people thinks so, then ALL public support would cease for that service, the Tories, I can see, would be wringing their hands in glee at the prospect of 'brown-envelopes' heading in their direction.
Someone else who doesn't know what they are on about. Since when has it been a crime to be gay? At least not since the 1960s. Since when has it been a crime to be an alcoholic?

There is also a genetic link to committing crimes, by the way - the MAOA link. Since our genes make us what we are, they also largely control our behaviour. Ever heard of nature and nurture - simple scientific facts.
I think we might agree that our genes provide the potential to be what we are. Some more prone to violent behaviour than are others. But in most cases nurture is the deciding factor in behaviour.
Edited by C-too, Feb 8 2015, 09:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Gnikkk
Feb 8 2015, 07:42 AM
Smell the coffee, shame they don't also admit they caused it all in the first pace.
Another Mail, Telegraph reader ??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Feb 8 2015, 09:15 AM
Gnikkk
Feb 8 2015, 07:42 AM
Smell the coffee, shame they don't also admit they caused it all in the first pace.
Another Mail, Telegraph reader ??

Perceived reality!
The method by which repeated blame calling obtains the perception of truth, and for no other purpose than party politics.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Feb 8 2015, 12:16 AM
C-too
Feb 7 2015, 08:45 AM
Rich
Feb 6 2015, 11:55 PM
C-too
Feb 6 2015, 11:43 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
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. !poke!
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.
As I have always maintained, you could hold a school lesson in a nissen hut, but if the calibre of the teacher is shit then it does not matter if you hold the lessons in Buckingham palace, all the money targetted at the education and NHS have not been used in a wise manner which is why I chose to use the adjective of profligacy.....in other words.......wasted.
There is no correlation between expenditure and performance as international comparisons have shown. The most important factor is the quality of teaching. Unfortunately we do not encourage our best to teach, quite the opposite.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Feb 8 2015, 09:15 AM
Gnikkk
Feb 8 2015, 07:42 AM
Smell the coffee, shame they don't also admit they caused it all in the first pace.
Another Mail, Telegraph reader ??
Another lefty with his failed logic? I thought you were better than that, obviously not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Feb 8 2015, 03:27 PM
C-too
Feb 8 2015, 09:15 AM
Gnikkk
Feb 8 2015, 07:42 AM
Smell the coffee, shame they don't also admit they caused it all in the first pace.
Another Mail, Telegraph reader ??

Perceived reality!
The method by which repeated blame calling obtains the perception of truth, and for no other purpose than party politics.
Is asking a question now off limits ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Feb 8 2015, 04:26 PM
C-too
Feb 8 2015, 09:15 AM
Gnikkk
Feb 8 2015, 07:42 AM
Smell the coffee, shame they don't also admit they caused it all in the first pace.
Another Mail, Telegraph reader ??
Another lefty with his failed logic? I thought you were better than that, obviously not.
A knob head who can't recognise a question when it's asked.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Feb 8 2015, 04:25 PM
Rich
Feb 8 2015, 12:16 AM
C-too
Feb 7 2015, 08:45 AM
Rich
Feb 6 2015, 11:55 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
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.
As I have always maintained, you could hold a school lesson in a nissen hut, but if the calibre of the teacher is shit then it does not matter if you hold the lessons in Buckingham palace, all the money targetted at the education and NHS have not been used in a wise manner which is why I chose to use the adjective of profligacy.....in other words.......wasted.
There is no correlation between expenditure and performance as international comparisons have shown. The most important factor is the quality of teaching. Unfortunately we do not encourage our best to teach, quite the opposite.
So better working conditions and investment in computers etc plays no part in education.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
"Put your useless misleading newspapers in the bin and start thinking for yourself."

Perhaps you would like to tell the big business employers who constantly complain of the lack of educated school leavers being sent to them who cannot even fill out an application form correctly that I talk rubbish.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Feb 7 2015, 07:04 PM
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.
Rubbish. I suspect you get all your opinions from Tory Central Office or alternatively the Torygraph, with a smattering of the Daily Mail, like your leader on this board does.
Yes you would say you suspect such. It's the sort of posting that sets you apart from so many on this forum. Just not the sort of setting apart anyone with a brain would want.

 ::)  ::)  ::)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Feb 8 2015, 05:08 PM
Affa
Feb 8 2015, 03:27 PM
C-too
Feb 8 2015, 09:15 AM
Gnikkk
Feb 8 2015, 07:42 AM
Smell the coffee, shame they don't also admit they caused it all in the first pace.
Another Mail, Telegraph reader ??

Perceived reality!
The method by which repeated blame calling obtains the perception of truth, and for no other purpose than party politics.
Is asking a question now off limits ?

Your antenna is off I wasn't criticising you.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Feb 7 2015, 06:43 PM
. . . It's how you are perceived from what you post here.
Quote:
 

Steve
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
You know what? I could care less about the perceptions of the dishonest, the thick or the illiterate.

I know what I posted, you can twist it or misread if you like. The challenge was to show that Labour were profligate and if putting £millions of borrowed cash on the table and saying go on spend this how you like isn't profligate just what is?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
!nono!
What they said it was ........
Edited by Affa, Feb 8 2015, 07:49 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 8 2015, 07:22 PM
Lewis
Feb 7 2015, 07:04 PM
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.
Rubbish. I suspect you get all your opinions from Tory Central Office or alternatively the Torygraph, with a smattering of the Daily Mail, like your leader on this board does.
Yes you would say you suspect such. It's the sort of posting that sets you apart from so many on this forum. Just not the sort of setting apart anyone with a brain would want.

 ::)  ::)  ::)
How very droll and amusing too.

;D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Feb 8 2015, 06:42 PM
"Put your useless misleading newspapers in the bin and start thinking for yourself."

Perhaps you would like to tell the big business employers who constantly complain of the lack of educated school leavers being sent to them who cannot even fill out an application form correctly that I talk rubbish.
I know the problem. Back in 1997/98 the CBI, Blair and a teachers rep came to the conclusion that for pupils to get a good education they must get a good foundation at the start of their education, and that is where investment began.
There was also a new influx of teachers in training, teachers who had retired early were encouraged back with better remuneration, new schools were built, academies started, refurbishment of run down schools began, and old dilapidated text books were binned with new ones introduced along with computers.

Around 2004 the CBI was (still) complaining about the numbers of 16 to 25 years old people who were lacking in education. It is a long term problem. Many of these people would have found apprenticeships in what might be referred to as the lesser trades. Most of those apprenticeship placements died out when the Tories introduce the self employment system.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 8 2015, 07:27 PM
Affa
Feb 7 2015, 06:43 PM
. . . It's how you are perceived from what you post here.
Quote:
 

Steve
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
You know what? I could care less about the perceptions of the dishonest, the thick or the illiterate.

I know what I posted, you can twist it or misread if you like. The challenge was to show that Labour were profligate and if putting £millions of borrowed cash on the table and saying go on spend this how you like isn't profligate just what is?
Are you of the opinion that no pregnant females benefitted from the cash in the way it was hoped they would ?

What of the winter fuel allowance, do you think that none of that is spent in the way you describe ?

Incidentally, what do you think of the government's 4% interest on investment being offered to pensioners ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Feb 8 2015, 07:24 PM
C-too
Feb 8 2015, 05:08 PM
Affa
Feb 8 2015, 03:27 PM
C-too
Feb 8 2015, 09:15 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Perceived reality!
The method by which repeated blame calling obtains the perception of truth, and for no other purpose than party politics.
Is asking a question now off limits ?

Your antenna is off I wasn't criticising you.

Apologies, I obviously misunderstood.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Feb 9 2015, 12:24 AM
Are you of the opinion that no pregnant females benefitted from the cash in the way it was hoped they would ?

Of course some must have done but the point was about profligacy. And introducing a non means tested non monitored giveaway for the rich and poor when we were in desperate financial times wasprofligate.

Quote:
 
What of the winter fuel allowance, do you think that none of that is spent in the way you describe ?

It's very much the same isn't it. Pure vote buying at its inception just very hard to get rid of later. Someone I know well used it to buy a new ten pin bowling ball and shoes, another spent it on a new dress for Christmas. I'd limit it to those on pension credit or over 75 but I'm not standing for election and it's much much harder to take a toy away from a child than decide not to give them one in the first place.

Quote:
 
Incidentally, what do you think of the government's 4% interest on investment being offered to pensioners ?

Does it look like vote buying? Does it walk like vote buying? Do I need to go on? The only redeeming feature is hopefully it will not cost too much long term as those savings will ultimately mean some won't go onto means tested benefits.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Feb 9 2015, 12:24 AM


Incidentally, what do you think of the government's 4% interest on investment being offered to pensioners ?
Not much after the tax it taken out, it is not 4%.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 9 2015, 11:15 AM
C-too
Feb 9 2015, 12:24 AM
Are you of the opinion that no pregnant females benefitted from the cash in the way it was hoped they would ?

Of course some must have done but the point was about profligacy. And introducing a non means tested non monitored giveaway for the rich and poor when we were in desperate financial times wasprofligate.

Quote:
 
What of the winter fuel allowance, do you think that none of that is spent in the way you describe ?

It's very much the same isn't it. Pure vote buying at its inception just very hard to get rid of later. Someone I know well used it to buy a new ten pin bowling ball and shoes, another spent it on a new dress for Christmas. I'd limit it to those on pension credit or over 75 but I'm not standing for election and it's much much harder to take a toy away from a child than decide not to give them one in the first place.

Quote:
 
Incidentally, what do you think of the government's 4% interest on investment being offered to pensioners ?

Does it look like vote buying? Does it walk like vote buying? Do I need to go on? The only redeeming feature is hopefully it will not cost too much long term as those savings will ultimately mean some won't go onto means tested benefits.

They don't appear to get that you are not an ideologue like they. I think they should give the pensioners 8% or 16%. This may finally encourage youngsters to vote when they realise that it is their not voting that allows this kind of pandering to pensioners to continue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 9 2015, 11:15 AM
C-too
Feb 9 2015, 12:24 AM
Are you of the opinion that no pregnant females benefitted from the cash in the way it was hoped they would ?

Of course some must have done but the point was about profligacy. And introducing a non means tested non monitored giveaway for the rich and poor when we were in desperate financial times wasprofligate.

Quote:
 
What of the winter fuel allowance, do you think that none of that is spent in the way you describe ?

It's very much the same isn't it. Pure vote buying at its inception just very hard to get rid of later. Someone I know well used it to buy a new ten pin bowling ball and shoes, another spent it on a new dress for Christmas. I'd limit it to those on pension credit or over 75 but I'm not standing for election and it's much much harder to take a toy away from a child than decide not to give them one in the first place.

Quote:
 
Incidentally, what do you think of the government's 4% interest on investment being offered to pensioners ?

Does it look like vote buying? Does it walk like vote buying? Do I need to go on? The only redeeming feature is hopefully it will not cost too much long term as those savings will ultimately mean some won't go onto means tested benefits.

Reminding you once again that millions of people had suffered 18 years of austerity under the Tories, are you against the winter fuel allowance and the allowance to pregnant females per se, or are you against the timing of their introduction ?


Edited by C-too, Feb 9 2015, 12:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
I would not have and would not introduce any new non means tested benefits.

That clear enough?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Feb 9 2015, 11:46 AM
Steve K
Feb 9 2015, 11:15 AM
C-too
Feb 9 2015, 12:24 AM
Are you of the opinion that no pregnant females benefitted from the cash in the way it was hoped they would ?

Of course some must have done but the point was about profligacy. And introducing a non means tested non monitored giveaway for the rich and poor when we were in desperate financial times wasprofligate.

Quote:
 
What of the winter fuel allowance, do you think that none of that is spent in the way you describe ?

It's very much the same isn't it. Pure vote buying at its inception just very hard to get rid of later. Someone I know well used it to buy a new ten pin bowling ball and shoes, another spent it on a new dress for Christmas. I'd limit it to those on pension credit or over 75 but I'm not standing for election and it's much much harder to take a toy away from a child than decide not to give them one in the first place.

Quote:
 
Incidentally, what do you think of the government's 4% interest on investment being offered to pensioners ?

Does it look like vote buying? Does it walk like vote buying? Do I need to go on? The only redeeming feature is hopefully it will not cost too much long term as those savings will ultimately mean some won't go onto means tested benefits.

They don't appear to get that you are not an ideologue like they. I think they should give the pensioners 8% or 16%. This may finally encourage youngsters to vote when they realise that it is their not voting that allows this kind of pandering to pensioners to continue.
Objectivity is the word you need to contemplate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Feb 9 2015, 12:40 PM
ACH1967
Feb 9 2015, 11:46 AM
Steve K
Feb 9 2015, 11:15 AM
C-too
Feb 9 2015, 12:24 AM
Are you of the opinion that no pregnant females benefitted from the cash in the way it was hoped they would ?

Of course some must have done but the point was about profligacy. And introducing a non means tested non monitored giveaway for the rich and poor when we were in desperate financial times wasprofligate.

Quote:
 
What of the winter fuel allowance, do you think that none of that is spent in the way you describe ?

It's very much the same isn't it. Pure vote buying at its inception just very hard to get rid of later. Someone I know well used it to buy a new ten pin bowling ball and shoes, another spent it on a new dress for Christmas. I'd limit it to those on pension credit or over 75 but I'm not standing for election and it's much much harder to take a toy away from a child than decide not to give them one in the first place.

Quote:
 
Incidentally, what do you think of the government's 4% interest on investment being offered to pensioners ?

Does it look like vote buying? Does it walk like vote buying? Do I need to go on? The only redeeming feature is hopefully it will not cost too much long term as those savings will ultimately mean some won't go onto means tested benefits.

They don't appear to get that you are not an ideologue like they. I think they should give the pensioners 8% or 16%. This may finally encourage youngsters to vote when they realise that it is their not voting that allows this kind of pandering to pensioners to continue.
Objectivity is the word you need to contemplate.
As you should contemplate irony
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Feb 9 2015, 12:39 PM
I would not have and would not introduce any new non means tested benefits.

That clear enough?
So neither of these helping hand payments to the needy would exist if it was up to you. That IMO is a very callous approach befitting of Thatcher herself.

Otherwise you would need to address the costs as it is claimed to be more expensive to do means testing. Plus, going on past experiences it is suggested that many of the needy are too proud to submit themselves to means testing.

Does that open your thinking a little further ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Feb 9 2015, 12:47 PM
C-too
Feb 9 2015, 12:40 PM
ACH1967
Feb 9 2015, 11:46 AM
Steve K
Feb 9 2015, 11:15 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
They don't appear to get that you are not an ideologue like they. I think they should give the pensioners 8% or 16%. This may finally encourage youngsters to vote when they realise that it is their not voting that allows this kind of pandering to pensioners to continue.
Objectivity is the word you need to contemplate.
As you should contemplate irony
I understand both irony and objectivity. I also recognise indirect and cowardly comments, clearly the problem exists with yourself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply