- This topic has 162 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by BermBandit.
-
Cameron is a twunt – part 26532…
-
grummFree Member
Seems people love debt in this country – the cheaper it is to borrow the more they want.
Yeah, they get into loads of debt to buy plasma screen tellies etc then blame Gordon Brown it seems.
ElfinsafetyFree Memberthe cheaper it is to borrow the more they want.
Which is why the housing market is so vastly over-inflated. Which is why people are on such huge binding mortgages. Which is what the banks love. People in debt = people easier to control….
BermBanditFree MemberInsanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert EinsteinQuite right, so why is the chinless **** repeating what hasn't worked before and isn't going to work now pray tell?
tiger_roachFree MemberPeople in debt = people easier to control….
Until more of them become thieves or start rioting anyway.
TandemJeremyFree Memberaracer – yes it is. Many more unemployed in 1997 than now if you count the numbers in the same way. Simple fact.
TandemJeremyFree Memberstoner – I do understand your point – I simply don't agree anbout how serious it is. Look a debt ratios for competitor countries. its easily affordable – and certainly better to do so from a growing than a shrinking economy. Labour had the economy growing again, the condems will soon have it shrinking again. this is a deliberate ploy.
Most of the service improvements have been funded from growth. simple numbers. Some from debt. Thats why i said mainly.
kimbersFull Memberi think thats the point GBs biggest failure was embracing the thatcherite business model entirely- privatisation all the way to the benefit of the the few at the detriment of the many, turning us into a finacial services economy
the condems offer nothing different in this respect just making PR spin bullsh!t out of a tabloid pleasing publicity stunt and looking forward to handing their private sector chums even more of our services/utilities to rape and pillagetiger_roachFree MemberLabour had the economy growing again
It was growing before they took over right?
aracerFree Memberaracer – yes it is.
Did you check my link TJ? See the graph? Where's the discontinuity where they changed the way they count the numbers?
tonydFull MemberHow exactly did Gordon Brown put the country into massive personal debt then? I'd love to hear this.
OK, perhaps a slight exaggeration there, but he did loosen regulation even further than the Tories allowing the banks to take greater risks (check his Mansion House speeches, in one of which he openly encourages the banks to take greater risks) and introduce 100%, 125% mortgages, not to mention all the Credit Default Swap etc garbage.
Mortgage Equity Withdrawal became rife so people could take money out of their homes like it was a cash machine and blow the money on plasmas, new cars, and holidays. All the time their house was increasing in value it didn't matter, problem is houses prices can't go up 10% per year if wages aren't going up too. In real terms I think most people have actually seen wages decline over the last 10+ years, the only reason it wasn't that obvious was because you could get cheap credit to cover the shortfall.
When the housing market started cooling off in ~2004/5 he switched the inflation indexes and dropped the base rates to get the bubble going again. Oddly enough just before an election was due!
Are you seriously telling me he played no part in any of this? Admittedly he didn't put a gun to peoples heads and make them borrow more money than they can ever hope to repay (in some cases), but he put the opportunity in front of them and introduced huge moral hazard by bailing out the banks and overstretched borrowers.
Our economy has become one based on financial services and selling overpriced houses to each other. The banks are technically insolvent and house prices can't keep going up, what now?
We need to generate real wealth to get out of this hole.
tonydFull MemberBerm Bandit – Member
Quite right, so why is the chinless **** repeating what hasn't worked before and isn't going to work now pray tell?I'm not sure of the question? What is he repeating? Austerity measures? I don't know but can only guess that they think we can't borrow any more money.
How are you measuring what works? Presumably you're saying you want to see the nation return to prosperity, or stability at least? I'm not being funny, just don't really understand what you're asking.
StonerFree MemberTony – got to take issue with you there. CDSs can't really be put at Gordons door. They are a perfectly useful global concept that are taken advantage of across the world.
bravohotel9erFree MemberThere's a certain kind of automaton Labour voter that just won't accept the trouble the economy is in and refuses to face up to the fact that we have massively overspent, for years.
I can only assume they're either landed aristocracy with substantial private incomes or third generation lifestyle welfare recipients. I just cannot see how any thinking person from the remaining 95% of society would continue to swallow this pityful New Labour regime apologist bullshit.
Useful idiots.
kimbersFull MemberHow are you measuring what works? Presumably you're saying you want to see the nation return to prosperity, or stability at least? I'm not being funny, just don't really understand what you're asking.
hes not fixing the root of the problem, it wasnt gb that wiped 70bn off our pension funds in one day it was the markets we are just as exposed to them now as we ever were and 'the bankers tax' which aims to collect a paltry 4bn is pointless really
whether we are in debt or solvent when the next crash comes we will be just as buggered economically but a few more of cameron/cleggs buddies will have made a killing off privatised utilities/ services in the meantime
meftyFree MemberComparing levels of debt as a % of GDP between different countries is a not very easy as different countries are funding different things. For instance, in the Netherlands Dutch Civil Service Pensions are not funded from future government expenditure but by a separate pension fund, ABP, which is one of the biggest in the world. In other countries, such as France and Germany, there are still substantial state industries that need funding and so the debt required to fund this will also on the government balance sheet. Likewise, PFI will understate UK government debt because new hospitals and schools have been funded off balance sheet. Debt has not disappeared as a result of PFI, it has been replaced by ongoing contractual expenditure obligations which have not been capitalised in the country's accounts. For all these reasons, commentators therefore generally look at countries' cashflows or their budget deficit when doing international comparisons and their trends. Hence the validity of Stonor's point.
It is untrue to save that the Tories' austerity programme is not being followed elsewhere, the Germans, the French and, to a even greater extent the Spanish, are embarking on very significant cuts in public expenditure and it is very much the US versus Europe on this, not just the UK.
tonydFull MemberStoner – Member
Tony – got to take issue with you there. CDSs can't really be put at Gordons door. They are a perfectly useful global concept that are taken advantage of across the world.
Fair point I'll stand corrected. Without totally derailing the thread though surely they're a part of the problem (along with Alt-A, Option ARM etc) as they allowed the reselling of sub-prime debt without the purchaser really knowing what they were buying? This just encouraged more sub-prime lending as the risk could be placed elsewhere?tonydFull Memberkimbers – Member
hes not fixing the root of the problem, it wasnt gb that wiped 70bn off our pension funds in one day it was the markets we are just as exposed to them now as we ever were and 'the bankers tax' which aims to collect a paltry 4bn is pointless really
whether we are in debt or solvent when the next crash comes we will be just as buggered economically but a few more of cameron/cleggs buddies will have made a killing off privatised utilities/ services in the meantime
Can't argue with that but I do find it odd that people tend to take the age old stance that the Tories, and by association the LibDems also, are the only ones in the pockets of the rich and powerful. The New Labour experiment did a very good job of chumming up with them too.aracerFree Memberwhether we are in debt or solvent when the next crash comes we will be just as buggered economically
You think so? So if our debt was 10% lower you don't think the next 5 years might be £18bn a year less painful?
El-bentFree Memberwasnt Gordons only mea culpa about not winding the banks in earlier? – the banks being ultimately the enablers of personal debt in an unrestrained environment.
Can't believe your that ignorant about politics and what the voter wants Stoner. Nulabs biggest mistake was following tory economic policies, it was a vote winner.
It is untrue to save that the Tories' austerity programme is not being followed elsewhere, the Germans, the French and, to a even greater extent the Spanish, are embarking on very significant cuts in public expenditure and it is very much the US versus Europe on this, not just the UK.
Other countries may be cutting back, but will more than likely restore thoses services/benefits when finances permit. What you are getting from Cameron is "the cuts will be permanent", which means they are cutting beyond what is necessary to get the deficit under control.
So if not enough volunteers can be found to run services under "big society", those services die. I somehow can't see the good folk of middle England flocking to run a bus route or a library now…do you?
While all the rumours about how much is being cut from state budgets abound, I would suspect worse case scenario is going to happen. Which means a wave of the oh so successful privatisation even to parts of the NHS where they can get away with it.
If you look at what Gideon has been saying about Trident being funded by the defence budget than it's pretty clear what the programme is all about. The defence budget cannot afford Trident without losing a massive amount of the armed services. But, having nuclear weapons is all about maintaining a seat on the top table of world powers, which buys you political and most importantly economic power. So to hell with the rest of the armed forces.
The only reason why the NHS is being sort of spared is it's sacred to middle England voters.
And come election time a lovely tax cut will magically land on Middle Englands doorstep.
TandemJeremyFree Memberbravohotel9er – Member
There's a certain kind of automaton Labour voter that just won't accept the trouble the economy is in and refuses to face up to the fact that we have massively overspent, for years.
I can only assume they're either landed aristocracy with substantial private incomes or third generation lifestyle welfare recipients. I just cannot see how any thinking person from the remaining 95% of society would continue to swallow this pityful New Labour regime apologist bullshit.
Useful idiots.
What utter drivel my son.
Its about world view, priorities and the sort of world we want. I don't even vote labour very often.
We can easily afford the current level of public sector and services and more. Many countries do. Again – simple fact.
You may want to pay less tax and beggar your neighbour. I don't. I want a fair society without poverty. Where everyone has access to quality healthcare and education.
Sorry – you ignorant ideas show you for the selfish clown you are.
At least attempt to make some sort of logical coherent case
aracerFree MemberSince you're back, TJ, no comment on my proof that you're wrong about unemployment?
PhilbyFull MemberNot seen the Tories encouraging the thousands of people who are missing out on benefits to which they are legitimately entitled to take them up, which would improve the lives of many families in the most vulnerable situations.
And surely a significant slice of the country's debt (about £70bn) was bailing our banks out – yet still obscene bonuses are being paid out.
And Cameron making policy on the hoof – such as milk for kids – rather goes against his statement that everything is up for cuts.
With the current policies it is likely that the benefits budget will be increased massively as a whole new section of the population will be signing on.
TandemJeremyFree MemberHmmmm
I give you half a point.Unemployment has climbed to a similar level – having been far lower for most of the 13 yrs – however it is raw figures and does not show employment which is much higher now – ( more people on the island) so as a % it is still lower now than in 97.
That graph does not take into account the differences in counting methods in 1997 not those 1979 – 1997 – so while the 1997 – 2010 comparision is reasonable the 1978 – 1997 figures are 30- 50% too low. by the same count.
TandemJeremyFree MemberPhilby – that is the sad part -and tax take will go down as well so these cuts will not cut the deficit.
JunkyardFree Memberbravohotel9er – Member
We seem to have wasted some of the public purse educating you sorryaracerFree MemberHmmmm
I give you half a point.So you're admitting that "There were more unemployed at the end of the tory years than there are now" is untrue?
Unemployment has climbed to a similar level
If you're going to describe 2.435 million as a similar level to <2.1 million (over 15% lower), then yes.
so as a % it is still lower now than in 97.
Wrong again – you really should try reading the article I linked. "While the latest data shows that the jobless rate, under International Labour Organisation (ILO) rules, rose to 7.8% in the three months to June – the highest rate since the final quarter of 1996" – that would tend to suggest the rate (measured in the same way) is higher now than at any point in 1997!
That graph does not take into account the differences in counting methods in 1997 not those 1979 – 1997 – so while the 1997 – 2010 comparision is reasonable the 1978 – 1997 figures are 30- 50% too low. by the same count.
As I said before, if the counting method has changed somewhere, show me the discontinuity in the graph.
bravohotel9erFree Member#
Junkyard – Memberbravohotel9er – Member
We seem to have wasted some of the public purse educating you sorry
Posted 4 hours ago # Report-PostNo, the money was wasted on you.
I have no credit cards, no hire purchase agreements or other loans, have paid off my student debt and have plenty of money in the bank. I'm a responsible member of society, enjoy the reckoning! :p
ElfinsafetyFree MemberI can only assume
Because you have no real experience or knowledge to draw from? Just assumption.
Now isn't that a surprise…
anagallis_arvensisFull MemberI have no credit cards, no hire purchase agreements or other loans, have paid off my student debt and have plenty of money in the bank. I'm a responsible member of society, enjoy the reckoning! :p
Thats great but has nothing to do with your lack of intellect or reasoning.
MSFree MemberSurely looking in the long run though pin pointing benefit cheats will reduce the government debt. Yes tax avoidance has to be dealt with but you can't do everything at once.
I think this is a case of the Labour supporters and the Torrie supporters. If GB had done the same thing would the Labour supporters be moaning about it?
JunkyardFree MemberAs above I am pleased you have no debts* but what exactly is the relationshp between this an your inability to think/reason properly?
* You seem to be implying that I do have some huge personal debt your mystic meg powers are as poor as your logical powers
I dont think anyone is saying that benefits cheats are ace and should not be targetted but we should erhpas also go after the mega rich as ther eis mor emoney to be gained closing loopholes in tax evasion than in benefit cheats. Targets and priority selection of Dave is to constantly attack weak rather than the rich. See also VAT rise and current budget as further exaples. Yes we would we have principles and who does this is not the issue. It is too simple to just critcise those who oppose this as just Labur supporters. Perhpa syou cold reason with "us" intead?
TandemJeremyFree MemberMS – Member
If GB had done the same thing would the Labour supporters be moaning about it?
he did.
Its the methods that Cameron wants to use – using a private company for a state function and the blurring of the lines. Experian collect data on peoples credit usage for marketing – to then use this data in a quasi judicial investigation without oversight from the courts is very wrong
MS – Member
Surely looking in the long run though pin pointing benefit cheats will reduce the government debt. Yes tax avoidance has to be dealt with but you can't do everything at once.
Benefit fraud is tiny amounts of money in comparison to tax fraud.
ElfinsafetyFree MemberSurely looking in the long run though pin pointing benefit cheats will reduce the government debt.
As has already been said; the actual amount 'stolen' by cheats is a relatively small amount, far far less I'd imagine than what's 'lost' by tax-cheating. This is just Cameron trying to look tough, and using emotive issues to gain support for what will surely be a whole swathe of devastating cuts to public services and benefit payments. No talk of actually trying to get to the root of poverty, and the reasons why so many are on benefits, is there? No, because let's be honest, the Tories don't really care about the Underclass. And neither do many STWers, it seems.
Britain is no longer divided simply by class ie Working, Middle etc; there is now 'Decent hardworking taxpayers' and 'Feral benefit scrounging scum'. And underclass has been created to give others the illusion they are more worthy citizens. Someone to hate. The Goldstein of today. Hate, and ye shall be rewarded.
5 minute Hate, anyone?
I blame Disabled Lesbian Asylum-Seeking Foreigners, myself. All their fault. What's this country come to, thin end of the wedge, decent citizens forced out of their own homes, knife crime, etc.
Etc.
Etc….
allthepiesFree Member>Its the methods that Cameron wants to use – using a private company for a state function and the blurring of the lines.
An approach initiated by the previous gov.
tonydFull MemberI fully agree that tax avoidance and evasion should also be targeted but am willing to give the coalition the benefit of the doubt (for now). To use a nasty American euphemism, I would think that benefit fraud could be seen as 'low hanging fruit' and could be dealt with more quickly than the legislation required to deal with the broader tax issue. Plus everyone can commit benefit fraud if it came to it, how many of us earn enough money to avoid tax on the scales discussed here (unless you're also talking about seasonal cash in hand type work)? By dealing with this you remove some of the moral issues the voting public so enjoy arguing over.
I understand peoples feelings on getting to the root of poverty etc, but the desire to stop the family down the road receiving more money than you can earn by working a 40+ hour week doesn't seem unreasonable to me. These are the cases I want to be targeted, in no way do I want those who need benefits to have them removed but why should everyone be entitled to free money? I have a young family and struggle to make ends meet sometimes, while I'm happy to help people out I resent paying so much tax to allow someone to opt out of work in the long term. I was brought up to believe that if you can't afford something you save for it or don't have it, is it so wrong to expect others to behave in the same way? Does that make me a bad person? And no I don't mean people shouldn't receive free health care, I'm talking money for cigarettes, booze, plasmas, etc.
Outsourcing the benefit testing, well if they get paid per case then as long as strict controls and criteria are put in place to ensure they don't fiddle the system (I know, I know) then surely this would be more cost effective than paying a government departments salaries and being liable for those much vaunted public sector pensions? Before I get flamed by the public sector on here, I'm not against you I just don't like waste (especially when it costs me money) in either public or private sector.
To the point about the VAT rise, I'd rather VAT rose than my personal tax. VAT is for the most part a discretionary tax, if I don't want to pay it I won't buy something. Increasing the tax I pay on my wages is not optional. This works right across the board, rich and poor. The most important purchases I make are food and clothes for my kids which are VAT exempt. We pay enough taxes through stealth (petrol for example), if there's a way to avoid paying more I'm all for it but unfortunately I don't earn enough to warrant paying an accountant to help me do that!
As for the Tory/Labour bias we always seem to drop back to I'll proclaim myself a Tory supporter, there it's out there. I don't necessarily support all of their policies but I believe their ideology fits best with mine. This doesn't mean I'm rich (far from it) or hate Labour (although I do dislike a lot of what they've done over the last 12 years or so). What I do resent is the way people drop into Tory boy/Labour scum type assumptions and insults in the way a lot of perfectly reasonable discussions degenerate into a rich/poor, North/South divide, etc, type of slanging match. Surely we can all (most) think rationally enough to discuss this stuff in an adult manner?!
nickcFull Memberbut the desire to stop the family down the road receiving more money than you can earn by working a 40+ hour week doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Those people rarely exist outside the pages of the Daily Wail really. Living off benefits isn't really living the dream, y'know?
VAT increases disproportionally hit the poor. So a VAT increase for them could be the difference between eating, or having the heating on in the winter…
Oh, and what people spend their money on is really none of your business, plasma, fags or anything…sorry.
JunkyardFree MemberI understand peoples feelings on getting to the root of poverty etc, but the desire to stop the family down the road receiving more money than you can earn by working a 40+ hour week doesn't seem unreasonable to me
I know it makes me sick to see the billions of profit companies make whilst denying their staff a living wage. We really should legislate against this and increase the minimum wage to get them out of this trap. I mean when you can "earn" more by being given the bare minimum required to keep you and your children out of poverty than you can from working then something has gone wrong with trickle down capitalism.
tonydFull Membernickc – Member
Oh, and what people spend their money on is really none of your business, plasma, fags or anything…sorry."Their" money comes from the government, part of which is taken directly from my (and your) wage packet. I think that entitles me to feel somewhat peeved if it's spent on luxuries don't you?
And yes, I can speak from direct experience – my sister in law is on benefits, she's not a benefit cheat but she knows how to work the system and is better off there. She has Sky TV, smokes 20 fags a day, gets a new mobile phone every 6 months, and has just gone to Spain on a 4 week holiday with her daughter.
Her Dad got up at 4am to drive them to the airport (60 miles each way) as she can't afford the train or airport parking, and he'll be collecting her when they get back. We (her family) pay her petrol money so she can come and visit (20 mile drive) because she apparently can't afford it.
I work over 40 hours per week and we just had a week in Wales for our holiday, next year we probably won't have one. No doubt you think I'm bitter, I'm just pointing out a situation that is probably repeated across the country.
The topic ‘Cameron is a twunt – part 26532…’ is closed to new replies.