[Closed] I know it will bring out the left-wing flamers, but I can't help myself...

Not provided the ammo in the first place?

Not possible, as I've been saying on all these political threads. People find ammo from anything you do, all you can do is get on with the job as best you can and ignore it.

But anyway, that's not an answer. Brown can't go back in time and change his decisions based on some one-sided schoolboy slagging match. What should he have done at the time instead of sit there and ride it out? What would you have done?

willard - Member

He does a good speech. It's just a shame that no one gives a fig about MEPs apart from their accountants and bank managers.

Well you should because 70% of new laws in this country are determined by MEP's in Brussels! The House of Commons has become little more than a quaint little entertainment show.

I dont think anyone was expecting him to break-down in a fit of [i]mea culpa[/i], tears and anguish. 🙂

Possibly an expression of sincerity might have helped though... 🙂

What should he have done?

Sitting with a serious expression shaking his head from time to time might have been a good start instead of the sixth form antics.

not sure I get it right as my level of english wasn't very good but:

A complete unknown from the UK political scene, choose to have a complete non constructive personal attack towards his prime minister in the EU hall.
Did I get it right?
If so sounds pretty much like a knob head to me.
And UK isn't much worst than France or Spain if you ask me.

juan - on one hand you are perfectly right: inconsequential, right wing "*****" has pop at PM on European stage.

On the other hand, and I apologise if it sounds rude, unintended, you probably dont quite pick up on his clarity and style without obfuscation or waffle that marks it out as exceptional. In fact that is why its has been picked up and sited over in the States (by the right wing of course) as an example of the polemic that should be used against Obama.

* your **** might be a right winger's champion, as much as Dennis Skinner might be a right-winger's "****". Politics, the last bastion of childish name-calling.

If Hannan's the new right wing hero, that'll suit me fine. Bring him on.

TBH darcy, I bet Camerons lot will be just as annoyed with him as No. 10.

I wonder what the form the briefing against him will take. He's bound to have some skeletons for them to have a go at.

looks like Andrew Neil is going to be covering it on the daily politics show this lunchtime. Lead comment was "internet phenomenon" NOT political opposition. As I said above, the story now will be the media's failure to pick it up timely, not necessarily the content.

And UK isn't much worst than France or Spain if you ask me.

So he's complaining about the expensive bail out of the banks. He's also complaining that the collapse of the banking sector has hit Britain harder than other countries. He must see that without 'us' bailing out the banks Britain would be even harder hit. Financial services is a much larger proportion of our economy than it is for just about any other country, so unfortunately the government can't just let big banks go to the wall. 'Our' debt as a country has now gone through the ceiling because so much 'private' debt has had to be brought into the 'public' sector.

DId you miss the important bit then?

The exchange rates would suggest otherwise

Big currencies are a safer "bet" than small currencies during a unstable times. It's one of the reasons the Eurozone was set up. It's not just about aiding trade, it's about avoiding being squeezed by the mega currencies. Scarily there are some (non-euro) countries calling for a "global currency" to help avoid the decline of small currencies during this crisis. And yes, Sterling is a small currency and looking vulnerable.

DId you miss the important bit then?

You mean the bit where the leader of a country has to be VERY careful what his says and admits to so as to avoid a run on the currency of his country? No. The PM has a responsibility to show a strong front so as not to further undermine the currency, so this is not the time for apologies and regret, save that for the memoirs.

I never voted Labour, but recognize that the PM has a responsibility to say the 'right thing' more than to engage in debates that don't help the country.

[i]and we've even met[/i]

Best bit on this thread... 😀

Were you having secret talks? Was there a go-between?

It was on neutral territory and both were frisked prior.

So, all you Brown fanboys we have in the house can you list the major plusses of GBs reign as Chancellor and PM? Personally, since the day he strode into office with the words (in effect) "there will be no more boom and bust" I have the opinion that he is an arrogant, deluded bell end with little understanding of what prudence means or how to run a national economy. I suspect that time will prove him to be the worst chancellor we have ever had, leaving this country with a crippling debt that whoever succeeds him as PM will be stuck with for decades. I cannot think of a single good thing that GB has done, so please, fanboys, educate us and show where we are wrong.

or how to run a national economy

Who does know?

Don't waste your breath typing negativity - let's hear something positive. It's a lot harder, you sometimes have to think.

I'm no Brown apologist, far from it, but anyone who looks to Hannan for well thought out ideas for the future, or present, is deluded. Read his words rather than listening to his tone and you'll find nothing other than ya booing.

I have nothing positive to say about Brown - unfortunately. 🙄

And I don't really know much about running an economy (I'm not an economist and I do not claim to be) but one thing I would have done is made sure I spend less than I earn. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp, No, really it isn't.

one thing I would have done is made sure I spend less than I earn

one thing I would have done is made sure I spend less than I earn. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp, No, really it isn't.

The money has been spent by the banks, wakey wakey. Bank bailout? American mortgage defaults dragging the banks down? This is international economics, not household expenditure. It's not so simple. Not that even being able to balance household income with expenditure is easy to achieve sometimes, which brings us back round to defaulting on mortgages quite neatly.

When the going was good the banks should have been made to pay more appropriate corporation taxes in case the government had to step in and bail out their arses when the going became bad.

amazing 20:20 hindsight their kelvin...let's see, "variable tax rates according to forecasts of industrial productivity as a ratio of the peaks and troughs of the forecast economic cycle". That will keep the econometricists thinking....

as for the "rainy day" metaphor, the current govenremnt would have spent more than the tax receipts over the course of a full economic cyle (Browns "golden rule", mysteriously dropped) even WITHOUT the capital commitments to the banks.

The money has been spent by the banks, wakey wakey. Bank bailout?

So we've been bailing the banks out for the past 11 years have we? Saving for a rainy day is not restricted solely to household expenditure. I think you will find it applies everywhere including business and government. I am perfectly awake thank you. We were in deep doodoo before we started bailing the banks out and it is a little disappointing to think that after an unprecented period of economic growth (isn't that how GB defines it?) we are in debt as a nation.

Anyway, that aside, I see there is no rush to point out what GB [i]has[/i] done well.

The money has been spent by the banks, wakey wakey. Bank bailout?

Not hindsight Stoner, there have been calls for more taxes on banks (and oil companies for different reasons) quite often during the last ten years. Lots of voices against the creation of the "mega-banks" we have now as well. If the government had reigned in the banks in terms of their expansion and taxed their profits more, then the current situation could have been quite different. GB would never have done these things though as he was too busy trying to make the City "friends of Labour" to blunt the Conservative's sword as being the party of business and finance.

I am a critic of the government, but this MEP has no answers.

just what do you think Gordon would have done with any extra tax receipts raised from increasing the tax burden on the private sector? It sure as hell would not have been to buy back UK gilts or other government debt objects (like PFI contracts) to free up the UK's balance sheet for the downturn.

GB would never have done these things though as he was too busy trying to make the City "friends of Labour" to blunt the Conservative's sword as being the party of business and finance.

Can you blame him for that? He has elections to win remember.

If they'd imposed high taxes on banks that did well they'd have taken their business elsewhere.

The reason for the global cock-up IS NOT because people are crassly incompetent, it's because the global situation is and has been for a long time really ungovernable. So sitting there slagging off politicians is pretty f*cking pointless when you have absolutely no clue about how things work. I'm still waiting for decent ideas from you lot.

molgrips - I put my ideas in an old thread earlier this year. You can go and dig them out if you like. I cant be arsed*. Schoolboy insults are more fun. 🙂

* based around stricter capital adequacy rules and overhauling the iditoic accounting standards.

I'm still waiting for decent ideas from you lot.

You probably won't get any. This is about Politics, not economics.

Personally, I'm content that the Beeb's lead story at the moment about torture allegations is on the balance of things, largely more important than the perhaps unsurprising ranting of a ring wing MEP.

I'm still waiting for decent ideas from you lot.

Stoner - Member
looks like Andrew Neil is going to be covering it on the daily politics show this lunchtime. Lead comment was "internet phenomenon" NOT political opposition. As I said above, the story now will be the media's failure to pick it up timely, not necessarily the content.

So how come Andrew Neil would want to cover something which was an "internet phenomenon" on a daily politics show ? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me 😕

The 'political content' of the speech was shite, although it was well delivered. So why would a tory politician slagging off the leader of the Labour Party be newsworthy ? Doesn't that happen every day ? Is it because it broke convention and was carried out in the European Parliament ? Or maybe because it's an 'internet phenomenon' ? - in which case, the 'phenomenon' would need to exist before it could be reported.

Please explain ....

Bikingcatastrophe - Member
So, all you Brown fanboys we have in the house ......

I would very interested to know who these 'Brown fanboys' we have in the house are.

Care to enlighten me ?

[i]Is it because it broke convention[/i]

no convention was broken.

The yanks have a convention of not pissing on the president in public, but then since he is head of state that's probably more appropriate. Gordon is the honourable member for Kirkaldy. Fair game IMO.

As for what is "news". You may well be right. Maybe it isnt news. It certainly wasnt according to the primary media. But doesnt it say something that there's been such a wide spread discussion about it in the new, alternative media to imply that it [u]is[/u] news, just not what historically might be thought so. In which case you would be wrong, not by definition but simply by the environment of news changing.

Stoner, for someone who apparently felt so strongly that the video should have been a news item, that you posted a thread about it, your appear [i]not[/i] to have very strong views as to [i]why[/i] it should have been a news item.

Fair enough, I'll just accept that you probably wanted to give the video publicity because it was a right-wing attack on Gordon Brown.

I certainly do have a view that it is a news item. Others will maintain that it isnt. I think that the extraordinary high level of coverage it has had on the internet reinforces my position, not theirs.

As to why I think its a news item, I do so because it was an oppositional attack, made in the same forum and at the same time as Gordon Brown's limp dirge on how wonderful his policies were, giving reason (partisan or otherwise is irrelevant) why his policies have failed, while Gordon stands there postuing under the presumption that he is fit to lead the developed nations out of recession on the back of his policies.

and obviously, as Hannan put it on PM just now, he got a chance to say to Gordon's face what so many people would love to say. Of course there's an element of triumphalism in me that likes that.

i dont think hannan has said anything that isnt blindingly obvious
also he said it in the european parliament, and lets be honest how often does anyone on here pay attention to it ?

infact he was simply summing up what dc etc regularly say at pmqs, he just was able to say it without a load of other old 'debaters' shout "hurumpf" and so on over the top of him

stoner by your criteria this is the most important story ever!
[url=

viewed youtube video[/url]

its a blatant conspiracy that the bbc have not one mention of how charlies finger is now!!!!!!

stoner by your criteria this is the most important story ever!

absolutley. That's exactly what Ive been saying. Definitely. Glad you've been following so closely.

giving reason (partisan or otherwise is irrelevant) why his policies have failed

No stoner, he doesn't.

Whilst Hannan is very happy to mention that the IMF have claimed that Britain is particularly badly placed to weather the current global recession, he comprehensively fails to mention the reasons which the IMF give.

A clear example of him being 'selective with the truth', which I mentioned earlier.

.

BTW, another example is his comment on job losses. Unemployment is indeed rising - that is quite true, however, for the last 11 years of New Labour rule it's been considerably lower than it was during the previous 11 years of Old Tory rule.

A simple and straight forward fact which he conveniently 'forgot' to mention.

Gus, remind me - Who has been in power for the last twelve years?

OK, now I have your answer, why should Hannan, or anyone else, for that matter, have to reference or mention what happened in the preceeding years?

Hannan said a lot of things that a lot of people are feeling about Brown. he was lucky enough to be able to say them TO Brown.

What? Eh? Hannan "conveniently" leaving stuff out for the sake of eloquence while embarrassing us all in the European Parliament? No surely not gg

He conveniently just remembered on Channel 4 news where the original line "a devalued prime minister of a devalued government" came from: at Johns Smith's despatch box facing John Major. And Hannan agreed it was relevant then in the context of a government that refused to listen to critiscism of it's economic policy.

Hannan made it clear he considered a policy of extending government debt and spending with the public sector was not a viable economic policy. It should be fair to assume his personal policy would be the reverse of that or do you need him to spell it out for you?

do you need him to spell it out for you?

What I need, is for him to give the reasons why the IMF have said Britain is particularly badly placed to weather the current global recession. Otherwise it 'devalues' his reference to the IMF's comment.

.

why should Hannan, or anyone else, for that matter, have to reference or mention what happened in the preceding years?

Leave that to me Captain - I'll remind people what previous Tory governments have done.

Even though some would rather 'conveniently forget'.

Not at all, Gus. I think we should just focus on the current situation as it is far more relevant to, erm, well, the current situation.

Funny that.

Feel free to remind anyone you like about what happened 13 or more years ago. That's fine. I'll feel free to remind people about what has happened over the last 12.

go on GG.
tell me "why the IMF have said Britain is particularly badly placed to weather the current global recession".

is it something to do with thatcher's deregulation again. it is isnt it? 🙂

I think we should just focus on the current situation as it is far more relevant to, erm, well, the current situation.

That's where you're wrong Flash - the current situation which we find ourselves in is very much due to what has happened on the past. Which is what the IMF pointed out.

They made no mention that dire situation which Britain finds itself in today, is due to current government policy.

So, the last twelve years haven't happened then? Clearly the case if everything is the fault of the previous Conservative government from 1996/7 and before. All their fault, surely.

The US and UK look like running fiscal deficits of around 10 per cent of GDP this coming financial year and next – levels that have never been reached before in peacetime. That reflects the weak underlying finances of both countries as a result of policies during the past eight years (or so), with the US cutting taxes too much and the UK increasing spending by too much. Seems to be what the IMF are saying, unless I read it wrong.

go on GG tell me ......is it something to do with thatcher's deregulation .....

That's not what the IMF said was the reason, plenty of other countries have followed the disastrous policies of deregulation, not something uniquely British.

The Daily Telegraph reported what the IMF said - doesn't Hannan read the Daily Telegraph ? Bet he does.

this makes startling reading (Ive been pouring over the IMF archives for your "reason" Gus, still looking. In the meantime...)

check out the table on Page 7.

The UK government are committing on our behalf nearly 20% of this year's GDP (A STINK of a lot of money) to upfront support for the financial industry. Astonishing. No other country comes close. What kind of government goes out on an economic policy limb like that!?

or table 11, page 45
the current value cost of the future commitments of Gordons fiscal remedies is third only to those two basket cases, Japan and Italy!

or this one

Table 4, page 17
the net expected cost to our economy of the financial sector bailout committments from dear Gordon is going to cost us over 9% of our economy! 3rd only to the US and Ireland!

I should stop reading this stuff. It's scaring me 🙂

meanwhile Ill pop over to the Telegraph and see what you're banging on about Gus. PS Hanna "writes" for the telegraph apparently.

all Ive found is this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4378322/Britain-to-suffer-worst-recession-of-any-advanced-nation-says-IMF.html

The economy will shrink by 2.8 per cent this year, with Britain faring significantly worse than the United States, Western Europe or Japan due to its reliance on the financial sector, the International Monetary Fund said.

yes?

and?

meanwhile Ill pop over to the Telegraph and see what you're banging on about Gus

TBH stoner I could post the link to the report in the Telegraph and go into a detailed discussion about it, but quite frankly I can't be arsed and I got a lot to do. Maybe I'll do it tomorrow, maybe I won't. I reckon this geezer Hannan probably doesn't deserve me spending too much time on his crap speech.

as honest a testament as needed.
🙂

Stoner, so have you come around to agreeing with me about how the bail out of the financial sector is the biggest problem as regards the future deficit? Do you see anyway that the government could have allowed these banks to fail? I've said before that I'm no GB apologist, but I don't see how they the government could have avoided taken on this private debt and making them public debt. I just wish they'd taken more control over the banks when bailing them out. We're going to be DEEP in debt for the next few years, but that debt would have been taken on by any government. The LibDems would have privatised the banks and I presume that despite what Hannan has said, the Conservatives would have done something very similar to Labour in terms of debt guarantees and phoney insurance that bails the banks out but doesn't put them properly in public hands. In fact Cameron claimed, in PMQ a few weeks ago, those policies were his own and suggested the government should have introduced them earlier.

Come now Kelvin, don't spoil stoners fun. Incidently Hannan was advocating an Icelandic style economic system before it completely collapsed.

So, the last twelve years haven't happened then? Clearly the case if everything is the fault of the previous Conservative government from 1996/7 and before. All their fault, surely.

Well the continuation of "light touch regulation" was taken from the previous Government, so I am more than happy to:

A: blame this Government for not reversing this, even though this decision would have been political suicide at the time of the "boom",

B: blame the previous government for introducing this form of regulation.

I'm sure the Torys will win the next election, but will we notice the difference?

Nice one Stoner you've found that even GG has a limit to how far he can push the "it was all Maggie's fault" line

Yes Kelvin I agree the government couldn't let the banks fail but the point is that if Culpability Brown hadn't raised public expenditure and government borrowing to the extent he has (with so little to show for it) we wouldn't now be in as deep a hole as we are after having bailed the banks out.

Guys, considering that a scumbag like DSK is head of the IMF, I wouldn't really trust the IMF to do anything to get out of the crisis.
DMK is meant to be a socialist, but his policies will make tony blair or gordon brown to be hung high and short for being reds...

Can we talk about tats? I've no idea what this thread is about, its way too-highbrow for my brain 😕

I am slightly horrified to note that the Grauniad's Micheal White has exactly the same opinion as I expressed on the first page.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/26/conservatives-europe ]In short (well, short by my standards), the content of his viral triumph is wearily predictable Oxford Union stuff and the tone is horribly priggish.[/url]

LOL, I liked that last comment..."you wee man"

alwyn - Member

Amen to that, so true too. That's why I'm leaving as soon as I get a degree.

LOL, why not juwt **** off now then?

Stoner - Member

yes?

and?

Sorry stoner, real life got in the way of my virtual world (all good stuff though) And whilst I recognise the futility of challenging anyone's predetermined views, I decided to come back to it because I like you and because you have a surprising capacity to listen to an opposing view.

Yes, sorry, that was indeed the article which you found in the Daily Telegraph. According to the Daily Telegraph the IMF said that Britain will suffer the worst recession of any advanced nation 'due to its reliance on the financial sector'.

But what do you mean stoner "yes ? And ?" I reckon the [u]actual reason[/u] why Britain will suffer the worst recession of any advanced nation is really rather important - don't you ?

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the [i]actual reason[/i] why Britain will suffer the worst recession of any advanced nation, is [i]more[/i] important than the fact that we will suffer the worst recession of any advanced nation. And of course the [i]actual reason[/i] is quite different to the one which the Tory plonker was implying in his shite speech - making it doubly relevant on this thread. Specially as he was attempting to point the finger of blame.

So let's point the finger of blame then. From the dawn of the industrial revolution until the 1980s, Britain was a net producer of manufactured goods - we exported more manufactured goods than we imported. Then, due to deliberate government policy all that changed. A combination of disastrous monetarist policies, such as sky-high interest rates and, government unwillingness to support British manufacture, we experienced the wholesale collapse of our manufacturing base.

Not to worry, the government assured us. The British economy would move away from manufacturing into the financial sectors. A policy which was much trumpeted at the time - manufacturing would be left to third world countries which a ready supply of cheap labour, and a modern advanced nation like Britain would be left to concentrate on financial services. Indeed we were told Britain would be a great global financial centre. The future was bright, and Canary Wharf the monument built to this brave new world.

It was a however a crap idea. And it's still a crap idea. Attempting to build a stable economy based on fictitious capital is nonsense. It has to be said though that of course it's a good idea, in fact it's an [i]excellent[/i] idea, if you happen to be one of the chosen few who will make vast amounts of money out of producing nothing.

You reap what you sow, and today Britain finds itself where it is. But I'm not sure just how much proportion of the blame can placed on a man who has been Prime Minister for less than 2 years, for government policies towards British manufacturing two decades ago, and the growth of the finance industries in the 1980s.

Interestingly enough though, according that Daily Telegraph article, quote :

[i]"The IMF did offer one crumb of comfort however, saying the UK economy would grow by 0.2 per cent next year.

Its forecasts for the UK were drawn up after Mr Brown launched his £20 billion "fiscal stimulus" package of tax cuts and increased public spending."[/i]

Which suggests that whilst the IMF is saying that Britain is in the sh1t because our economy is so dependant on the on the financial sector, it apparently quite likes this present government's response to the crises.

It would appear that the new tory blue-eyed boy (who has apparently found the Tory Party clitoris) read the Daily Telegraph headline, but didn't bother reading the first sentence of the article.

Now personally I couldn't give a toss what the IMF has to say about governments economic policies (although apparently Hannan does). After all, it is IMF mandated economic policies which have caused so much misery, suffering, and death in the world. And nowhere more so than in Latin America. Here we see that after years of the neo-liberal experiment with all it's disastrous consequences, Latin America is finally ridding itself of the IMF shackles and re-establishing democratic control - to the undeniable benefit of it's people.

It is however interesting to note what the IMF says, in the same way that it is interesting to note how the Bush administration in the US entered the White House as neo-conservatives, and left 8 years later as neo-socialists 😯

The neo-conservative, neo-liberal, "the market knows best" experiment has failed. The responsibility for that, does not rest on the shoulders of one man, however much spotty-faced tory-boys up and down the country want to blame Gordon Brown.

.

And finally I think it's important to comment [i]again[/i] on the tory plonker's reference to job losses.

Unemployment is something which the Tories [i]always[/i] bleat on about when in opposition. Indeed this election poster was very much credited for wining them the 1979 general election, as unemployment [i]is[/i] a real concern to ordinary people.

[img] [/img]

Now contrary to the claim at the bottom of the poster "BRITAIN'S BETTER OFF WITH THE CONSERVATIVE" the [u]actual truth[/u] was that Britain ended up worst off with the conservatives. Because rather than reducing unemployment as they clearly suggested they were going to do, within 3 years they had actually doubled it. In fact, throughout their whole term in power, the Tories never managed to get it down to the figure it was when they came to power.

Indeed the former Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson let the cat out of the bag concerning what Tories [u]really[/u] think, when he famously described unemployment as a, quote : "price well worth paying". A particularly callous and insensitive remark to make, considering the misery and hardship it causes. And rather strange from a party which won an election on the back of the slogan "Labour isn't working". It's interesting to see that tories such as Hannan [i]still[/i] cynically exploit people's fear of unemployment.

Hannan might have made a fine speech, but it's [i]devalued[/i] by "the truth" - he is a [i]devalued[/i] politician, from a [i]devalued[/i] party. Simple as.

Wow...I'm in love with gg!

fancy a shag ?

Only if I can sing the red flag while we do it...all together now:

Then raise the scarlet standard high
Within its shade, we'll live and die...

What the Tory Boys like Stoner and CFH fail to realise is, that although they may have relatively comfortable lives now, as unemployment and poverty increase, Britain will become an increasingly restless place. As the gap between the haves and have-nots grows, it will be the haves who will become more and more paranoid, as anger and resentment against 'wealthier' people will grow, in the minds of those who lack the economic ability to improve their situation.

See, the more you have, the less someone else has. Take away people's ability to obtain things by fair means, and they will find ways of obtaining things by unfair means.

You know where most burglary actually takes place? Not on rough inner city 'sink' estates, but in quieter, more affluent suburbs. Because there's richer picking, in the' burbs. No point in doing a council flat, as you won't find owt worth nicking. Where I live, the biggest 'victims' of burglary are those that live in new developments; young professionals who have a bit more disposable. Workers from Canary Wharf have been robbed at knifepoint, of their iPods, laptops, spensive bikes, etc. Such crimes are linked intrinsically with poverty. And most of those doing the robberies have as little respect for their victims,a s their victims do for them. Respect is an increasing rarity in our society.

You can only stay within your nice, cosy little gated community for so long. And those happy little utopian pockets are shrinking. One day, you'll have to come out into the real World. And it's no longer the nice, prosperous Tory dreamland you'd imagined it to be. Stoner thinks he's being clever, having a pop at the 'Left'. Mate, there ain't no Left, left (!), certainly not in Westminster. Everything's just gone so far right, you can't distinguish Tory from Labour any more. By having a pop at Labour, you're only having a pop at people like yourself. The Right, it seems, is eating itself.

Hold on to what you've got, 'cos you might not have it for too much longer....

Gus, as I am sure Stoner will agree, that was a come-back well worth waiting for. 🙂

GG - nice post!

You did forget tho that the oil money was wasted thru the 80s paying for people not to work. Norway invested its much smaller amount of oil money in infrastructure and in a fund for the hard times. So if we had not had the mass unemployment of the 80s that meant all the oil wealth was spent on benefits we would be much richer now and in a much better position.

Whilst this government has made mistakes no doubt - mainly IMO by being too timid the roots of this crisis go back decades not just the last decade

GG - genuninely impressed, and for the time being at a loss for words, although I will bring you up on one point now:

If you dont have communism, or indeed advanced socialism, (and lets be honest, we never will in the UK), how is the country supposed to fund its welfare requirements if the sources and uses of state funds get increasingly out of balance? i.e. increasing the size of the public sector in ratio to the private sector. That was the crux of Hannans argument about job losses - not the absolute numbers that tyou would want the argument to be about, but relative balance between commercially funded employment and tax funded employment.

I do love

(who has apparently found the Tory Party clitoris)

I have to apologise for this being a "holding post". Im not able to respond properly right now as Im not at home, prob tomorrow evening.

[i]What the Tory Boys like Stoner...[/i]
back in your box dozy. If you cant play the game with any skill, get off the pitch.

Stoner stick at it your doing a great job. Can't stop must get back to subsidising the welfare state. They know it has to be payed for and Culpability Brown (love it) has spent all the our tax money. Makes me laugh the defence of the PM they voted for him and now he's shit on us all. At least Tony would have lied with a smile.

Behave yourself, Stoner. Same old crap you spout, time and time again. And never about society itself- only money. Owt else is well outside your narrow little repertoire.

Face it, you're just another little Thatcher boy, who can't see beyond yourself and the little world immediately around you. Just another faceless suit, commuting in on the 8.15, to sit behind yer desk, wait until it's 5 o'clock, then piss off back to your soulless little suburb, complaining about how it's all someone else's fault.

Change the record, mate. Try coming up with something inertesting for a change.

You know, there's things beyond money. Like people, society, culture, that sort of stuff.

Oh, sorry; you don't do Society, do you?

Run along, Maggie's calling you...

😉

See, the more you have, the less someone else has.

Not really sure why I'm picking out a particular point though, when all Rudeboy spouts is rubbish.

No need for the childish attempt at insults, Rudeboy. Isn't that what you keep getting banned for?

Classic lefty rubbish

Not at all. Look at the poverty and despair, in places like Africa and India, and tell me exploitation does not in any way exist.

What's 'Lefty' about that? If actually giving a toss about all other people is being 'Lefty', then better Red, than wetting the bed.

Nickc; RudeBoy has never been banned. Besides, Stoner can take it. He loves it. Gives his life meaning!

(Notice the Smiley, folks. Don't take it too seriously, now, will you?)

If you cant play the game with any skill, get off the pitch

The only way you'd even get near the pitch, would be as a streaker... 😉 <NOTE THE SMILEY.

[i]RudeBoy has never been banned[/i]

tenner says it won't be long.

Chill. Stoner gave first, I gave it back. S'ok. Nowt to get alarmed about.

How about some ducklings?

[img] [/img]