Re: London v Hull at Gillingham : Mon May 28, 2012 8:00 am  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

That question has already been answered the current governments aim of 'slash and burn' has actually been more expensive than the Labour plan to slowly reduce the deficit.
I also see you mention the well off paying less tax.
Who was it again that decided that the filth rich should get a tax cut whilst the rest of us are being battered?
I'll give you a clue it wasn't Labour.


All in it together eh!!

believe the propoganda if you want, you're an example of those that believes the world owes them something.

Re: London v Hull at Gillingham : Mon May 28, 2012 8:01 am  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

A very good question but just remember who you have asked for the answer.

This is the guy who can't see a problem with folks moving hundreds of miles from home for work when it isn't financially viable and someone who states that anyone that won't is a waster.

doesn't mean that it's wrong or not viable for ALL people to consider moving to improve themselves and improve the quality of life for their family ? In some cases it's clearly a no-no for many reasons but it worked out fine for me and thousands of others no doubt.

Thanks Norman Tebbitt for telling me to get on my bike

Re: London v Hull at Gillingham : Mon May 28, 2012 8:04 am  

Standee wrote:

believe the propoganda if you want, you're an example of those that believes the world owes them something.

And how do you come by that idea?

Re: London v Hull at Gillingham : Mon May 28, 2012 8:13 am  

Standee wrote:

it's a very complex conversation (as you know, we've attempted to reconcile our thoughts in the past), there is an element of socialism that believes the world owes everyone something, regardless of their effort, input and output

Then you very clearly do not uderstand socialism at all

Re: London v Hull at Gillingham : Mon May 28, 2012 8:19 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Then you very clearly do not uderstand socialism at all

I fully understand socialism, and I agree with it's core values, not the extremes.

Re: London v Hull at Gillingham : Mon May 28, 2012 8:20 am  

Standee wrote:

I don't believe in socialism to the extreme that Labour USED TO, I now find all sides morally bankrupt and corrupt to the core, Balls is great at being clever after the event, not exactly a talent to stand aside and say "I told you so" is it?

I would contend that forewarning of the very real perils of the tory slash & burn policy gives Ed Balls every right to say "I told you so"

Standee wrote:

And the only things I have blamed Brown for were selling our gold at a RECORD LOW and raiding the pensions, but thy both get conveniently forgotten by some.

What useful purpose was "our gold" serving? The money raised was used to pay down the horrendous deficit left by the previous tory administration.

His "raid" on the pensions was also a very good method to prevent private companies raiding their own pension schemes and working an almighty tax dodge. Most final salary schemes were still viable, they just were no longer the cash cows that some companies saw them as.

Standee wrote:

One thing is certain, it is going to get worse before it gets better, I just hope we all survive it as best we can.

It will not get worse for a very select few, the same select few that this government are clearly serving.

Standee wrote:

I could talk about the duplicitous Blair crossing the ocean to fallate dictators, but he's teflon to some people.

Re: London v Hull at Gillingham : Mon May 28, 2012 10:29 am  

cod'ead wrote:

The money raised was used to pay down the horrendous deficit left by the previous tory administration.

It was also used to finally finish off paying the USA our war debts, something that governments of both hues shamefully neglected.

Lets get this straight, before the banking system imploded the state of the nations finances was as good as it has been since WW2.

Re: London v Hull at Gillingham : Mon May 28, 2012 10:46 am  

Big Graeme wrote:

It was also used to finally finish off paying the USA our war debts, something that governments of both hues shamefully neglected.

Lets get this straight, before the banking system imploded the state of the nations finances was as good as it has been since WW2.

Which brings us full circle, I think.

What was the cause of the "deficit" that we keep being reminded of?

Re: London v Hull at Gillingham : Mon May 28, 2012 12:31 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

... Lets get this straight, before the banking system imploded the state of the nations finances was as good as it has been since WW2.

If I could work out how to put it somewhere and then link to it, I have a Powerpoint presentation of data from Prof Colin Talbot of Manchester University (put together by himself and some colleagues) that examines a number of things, including the scale of Labour's spending, buy statistics from more than a century past.

One of the points it illustrates is that, while it suited Labour at the time not to contradict the claim, it is a myth that Labour's spending was at record levels. Far from it.

Another, as it happens, shows that spending as a percentage of GDP exceeded 100% for a vast chunk of the first half of the 19th century – was there public outrage/panic then? Did the country collapse then?

It is, says Talbot, a far more complex matter than simply looking at a stat that says we're spending X of GDP.

Re: London v Hull at Gillingham : Mon May 28, 2012 12:32 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

Which brings us full circle, I think.

What was the cause of the "deficit" that we keep being reminded of?

good question, I'd imagine if we go far enough back the "church" was at fault somewhere along the line.