Forum menu
munrobiker - Member
This is how much of a nasty piece of work my MP
Is there a website you ca get those stats? Would like to check out my candidates
A tory MP punching someone
I think most people took the view that he had it coming, for the terrible haircut if nothing else.
[i]Everyone can recall Blair's relationship with Murdoch, Blair was a lapdog to the right wing press, everyone knows it[/i]
No they don't!
They always say a picture tells a thousand words...
[img] 
[/img]
whats that in her mouth? 😯
arggh....you've edited it!
That said, none of this was on Blairs watch:
[img] 
[/img]
and all of the above was due to the fact that Labour spent all the effing money!
Hmm, nothing to do with the Bankers then... plenty of scapegoats in the political landscape.
I don't hold much faith in any of the main parties (though on an individual level there are several good MPs) but the same tired bullcrap of blaming Labour for a global financial crisis that benefited those who brought it about doesn't wash
Will you also blame the Royal Mail sell off on Labour?
and all of the above was due to the fact that Labour spent all the effing money!
Could've borrowed more and got us out this mess (that the banker's are the main culprit of, or are Labour to blame for the recessions in all the other countries too?), instead of using the opportunity as a cover-up for passing nasty policies off as austerity, such as the "back to work" scheme for people unable to work, scrapping Remploy and shafting the NHS.
and all of the above was due to the fact that Labour spent all the effing money!
Well, they could've let the banks fail instead. Do you think that would have been a good idea?
You might also recall Osborne committing himself to Labour's spending plans...
[i]Hmm, nothing to do with the Bankers then... plenty of scapegoats in the political landscape.[/i]
Doesn't matter....Labour were in power and had the responsibility for our Country's success or failure. Sadly it was the latter!
Will you also blame the Royal Mail sell off on Labour?
[i]nasty policies[/i]
FFS....there were no options but nasty policies........how TF do you get out of deep deep shit by spending more money?
There is no magic wand...you should try it with your family budget!
[i]Will you also blame the Royal Mail sell off on Labour?[/i]
You're tip toeing around the simple facts here with petty snipes....its not difficult you know?
how TF do you get out of deep deep shit by spending more money?
Isn't it obvious? It's called investment.. perhaps you're not qualified to make economic judgements..?
Everyone can recall Blair's relationship with Murdoch, Blair was a lapdog to the right wing press, everyone knows it
Make friends with your enemies.. shrewd move no?
Doesn't matter....Labour were in power and had the responsibility for our Country's success or failure. Sadly it was the latter!
They took decisive action to avert a catastrophe caused by forces largely outside of their control, and left office with a growing economy. The Tories then screwed it up, realised that austerity wasn't working, and reverted back to Labour's strategy.
Getting a loan for my family budget will not increase my family's income. Getting a loan for the nation to embark on public projects, increase employment and generally stimulate things increases tax income, reduces welfare payments and makes everyone happy. Austerity simply makes things rubbish for everyone except the very rich.
[i]Isn't it obvious? It's called investment.. perhaps you're not qualified to make economic judgements..?[/i]
Priceless! What a fool.
FFS....there were no options but nasty policies........how TF do you get out of deep deep shit by spending more money?
Seems the UK is not run like a household budget, but keep believing that if you like... 🙄
...in the calendar year 2007, the Labour government borrowed [b]£37.7bn[/b], of which [b]£28.3bn was invested in big projects[/b] (the balance of £9.4bn represents the current budget deficit). Conversely, in 2013, the [b]Conservative-led coalition borrowed £91.5bn[/b], with just [b]£23.7bn invested[/b]. [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653 ]UK debt and deficit[/url]
[i]Getting a loan for my family budget will not increase my family's income.[/i]
Yes it will....you could get a buy to let, pay less repayments than the rental income etc.
However it would be subject to market conditions and you would have no safety net in case things went tits up.
Yes it will....you could get a buy to let, pay less repayments than the rental income etc.
You're describing investment. Did you mean to prove munrobiker's point?
@munro - I must try harder eh ?
@jj a few notes on your post;
one million visits to foodbanks, eg 500,000 went twice, about 50,000 went 3 times or more. Numbers not that different to period 2005-10 ?
zero hours contracts, not a fan myself but did you see the programm on JJ SPorts with all the Polish workers on zero hour contracts. Classic case of immigrants being abused and undercutting UK workers in terms of wages and security of employment
Bankers bonuses bring in £8bn in taxes each year, bonuses subject to limits imposed by the EU nothing the UK can do about it
Of course debt is higher than under Labour trying to correct the mess they left is very difficult. it took Labour 5 years to ramp to deficit upto £90bn you can't reverse that over 5 years in a recessionary environment
bedroom tax - wrong solution to the real problem of too many welfare claiments living in oversized properties versus their needs.
3.6m disabled people, 6% of our population are disabled, wow.
£3bn tax cut for top 1%, HMRC figures said £100m
Re bankers the primary cause of the financial crises where the sub-prime lenders in California, most of those entities are not banks by the way. What do you propose we do about them ? HBOS and Northern Rock made a good go at poor lending too, two of the worst payers amongst large scale financial services firms btw.
..in the calendar year 2007, the Labour government borrowed £37.7bn, of which £28.3bn was invested in big projects (the balance of £9.4bn represents the current budget deficit). Conversely, in 2013, the Conservative-led coalition borrowed £91.5bn, with just £23.7bn invested. UK debt and deficit
@ratnips indeed, the Tories inherited a mess which is still in place 5 years later despite their cuts. it shows the scale of the inherited spending mess
A large portion of the deficit is money borrowed every year to pay wages, benefits, pensions just like they do in Greece.
@ratnips indeed, the Tories inherited a [s]mess[/s]messy but recovering economy which [s]is still in place 5 years later despite [/s]went into reverse because of their cuts. it shows the [s]scale of the inherited spending mess [/s]folly of ideology
A large portion of the deficit is money borrowed every year to pay wages, benefits, pensions just like they do in Greece.
People spend money on food, just like they do in Greece.
People breathe in and out, just like they do in Greece.
..in the calendar year 2007, the Labour government borrowed £37.7bn, of which £28.3bn was invested in big projects (the balance of £9.4bn represents the current budget deficit). Conversely, in 2013, the Conservative-led coalition borrowed £91.5bn, with just £23.7bn invested. UK debt and deficit
The way those figures are presented is biased so you would have to wonder about the accuracy. They are not intended to be purely factual but instead guide the opinion of the reader. Percentages would probably be a better way of displaying the information*. To use absolute values when comparing current spend to an historic one is never going to be accurate since no account is taken of inflation and the real value the numbers represent.
As this thread has shown, all previous governments have done good and bad things and you can cherry pick the bits you like to make your point.
*Best way would be a pie chart, obviously.
[b]how TF do you get out of deep deep shit by spending more money?[/b]
Isn't it obvious? It's called investment.. perhaps you're not qualified to make economic judgements..?
FFS this is ridiculous. Labour created literally hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs that weren't there 5 years before and then granted massive year on year pay rises. The country was no more successful on education, crime or healthcare than before but £640Bn was borrowed to do this.
Take GPs as an example. Their pay doubled and their working hours dropped. Their incomes rose so much that many started to work reduced hours and now many are retiring early and despite 10 years less service are on track to get pensions 50% higher than they would otherwise have been - our current "GP crisis" is precisely due to the "investment" that was made 12 years ago and the decisions in 2009 to reduce training places for medics.
An investment is something that normally gives you a net positive return. Paying more to receive the same thing or less is absolute madness and the fact people can't see it for what it really is is pretty shocking. The fact that borrowing has continued to rise under the current government is no different to a wonga loan - the borrowing was never affordable and throw in a bit of world crisis and uptick in unemployment and the whole lot just expands exponentially.
[i]FFS this is ridiculous.[/i]
Save your breath just5mins....there are none so blind than those who will not see!
An investment is something that normally gives you a net positive return.
I was talking in general principles - the question was 'how does spending get you out of debt?' and I answered it. It can work very well - at the time, it was often commented that no country has ever cut its way out of a deficit.
The investments may not have been made well in this case but that is a different issue, on which I am not going to comment.
In other words, they aimed for something that could well have worked, but cocked it up. Like taking a shot from the edge of the area. If you're Lionel Messi, it's a reasonable thing to try.
An investment is something that normally gives you a net positive return
Is it hell. Investments can pay off or they can bomb. How to invest is a whole industry.
If the deficit hadn't been so large, or ideally a surplus, then any government could have borrowed/spent more to see the country out of recession without making spending cuts. However that wasn't the situation.
I have some sympathy with @just5's post on Doctors. I have a few friends who are GPs and they took advantage of pay rises to work fewer hours and definitely not weekends. Also as their pensions are related to final salary they can retire earlier and on higher pensions following the pay rises. Law of unintended consequences.
Labour created literally hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs that weren't there 5 years before and then granted massive year on year pay rises. The country was no more successful on education, crime or healthcare than before but £640Bn was borrowed to do this.Take GPs as an example. Their pay doubled and their working hours dropped.
Most GPs are not public sector employees.
Spending is not the same as investment
The re-writing of the crisis is great! #teflon
True, THM, but it's quite complex to figure out where all the spent money goes and what effects it will ultimately have.
it was often commented that no country has ever cut its way out of a deficit
Incorrectly, Canada did in the 1990s with 20% per annum spending cuts, balanced the budget in three years.
EDIT:
Spending is not the same as investment
It is if you are Gordon Brown's speechwriter.
Incorrectly, Canada did in the 1990s with 20% per annum spending cuts, balanced the budget in three years.
True enough - it does appear to be the one exception to the rule.
The GP thing is nuts, they earn so much now that at my local surgery not one single GP works a full week. So of course we are short of GPs if they are all going part time. Also means the UK will need to train a third to a half more GPs than previously for the same level of cover. That is not money well spent.
Labour screwed the risk and reward balance between the public and private sectors. You can now in the public sector earn more over a life time, retire earlier and have greater stability. What's the incentive to work in the private sector and take risks?
Just a thought. If organisations were not allowed to profit from the NHS, would the big drug companies (Astra Zeneca etc) sell drugs to the NHS?
Labour screwed the risk and reward balance between the public and private sectors. You can now in the public sector earn more over a life time, retire earlier and have greater stability. What's the incentive to work in the private sector and take risks?
I'll repeat it again: GPs are not in the public sector.
I'll repeat it again: GPs are not in the public sector.
They are predominately funded by the public purse, so it is purely a semantic point.
I found this to be an enlightening read about GPs:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-zoe-norris/nhs-gp-appointment_b_7164322.html
They are predominately funded by the public purse, so it is purely a semantic point.
No it isn't. They would not have been able to negotiate the significant rises talked about if they were public sector employees.
There are plenty of other areas where the private sector receives the majority of its income from the public purse.
No it isn't. They would not have been able to negotiate the significant rises talked about if they were public sector employees.
Depends on the counterfactual if they had been paid on the basis of number of patients etc, it would.
Just a thought. If organisations were not allowed to profit from the NHS, would the big drug companies (Astra Zeneca etc) sell drugs to the NHS?
The drug companies, as well as those with their fingers in the pie, are fleecing the NHS. In fact there was an interesting post in the BMJ about this.