[Closed] The nasty party conference...

DrJ - Member
Chewy spouting drivel on overdrive and jamba reciting propaganda cut and paste from central office. This thread has officially imploded.

😆 @ 'propaganda' ...

I thought the die hard lefties are the one going on and on about their "rights" and others "wrongs" all the time by insisting on their views throughout ... well, they keep banging on the topic and people will think that they are "right" sort of thing.

I thought that's weird coz no normal being would be so die hard about an ideology .. then I thought ... bloody hell the foot soldiers have started campaigning.

Like I said many times ... nope, I see you coming. 😆

DrJ - Member

Is Greece prosperous now? Are they still arguing that they are right?

Did the left get a drubbing in the election, as you claimed?

Cannot recall what I said but one thing I am very clear ... they are very desperate people and are just begging for a living due to their own doings. Whether they have elected a right or left party in govt Greeks are very good at arguing I kid you not ... 🙄

Yep, logic and reason have left the building and have been replaced with tinfoil hats.

Of course you don't, of course you don't.

I really don't. Sorry. 😳
I'm not just trying to be difficult, I honestly do try, but for some reason I can rarely follow your arguments or reasoning.

I think all the extreme hyperbole and ZM stuff just confuses me.

I can follow other posters' thinking, even if I don't necessarily agree with it, but yours consistently makes me think of a ping pong ball in a Dyson.

This thread is a case in point: you said the "Bastid ZMs" want to create a nanny state, wwaswas asked you what was wrong with a nanny state and you answered him by talking about EU membership.

I just don't follow. You might as well have said "Because bananas are yellow".

die hard lefties

Like the Telegraph?

Or maybe you meant high quality forks from Cannondale?

Their is a poster called chew this poster is [b]chewk[/b] - more of the famous Jamby analytical skills and attention to detail at work...humbling

...

ITS STILL NOT HIS LOG IN NAME

FFS how many times do you need to be told something to get it?

Ummmm... should I tell him or will someone else...? 😆

I was just moving him to the correct spelling an extra letter at a time as i though anything else would confuse him 😉

"Thousands of words have been delivered about the new Labour leader. But you only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a 'tragedy'"

Misrepresenting people really pisses me off.

You can find out what he actually said if you like;

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-calls-osama-bin-ladens-death-a-tragedy-but-was-it-taken-out-of-context-10479396.html ]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-calls-osama-bin-ladens-death-a-tragedy-but-was-it-taken-out-of-context-10479396.html[/url]

nemesis - Member

OK, not London then - Edinburgh or Bristol to pick two other expensive locations that are inherently at least 20% over the national average.

The places that most desperately need more affordable housing, you mean?
£250000 is still slightly above the average house price in Edinburgh and Bristol btw (and that's even with a pretty narrow definition of Edinburgh not including the commuter towns) but by definition your low cost housing should be pitching well below the average.

We can probably argue about exactly what percentile counts as "low cost" but I don't think anyone can argue that above average is not low cost. I think the technical term for it would be "above average cost". And if housing is unaffordable then the solution isn't more expensive houses. Still, maybe Jamba will have a go?

It used to be, you'd put an element of truth in your announcements, at least a veneer of honesty and respectability. Now you just say whatever you want and declare it to be something else, with a straight face. This is just another, but it's particularily blatant.

GrahamS - Member

Of course you don't, of course you don't.

I really don't. Sorry.
I'm not just trying to be difficult, I honestly do try, but for some reason I can rarely follow your arguments or reasoning.

😀 Ya, I know some of you will have difficulty following my arguments but slowing down, then having to explain, justify etc ... ahhhhh ... it is sooooo slowww. My view is simple you either get it or you don't.

I think all the extreme hyperbole and ZM stuff just confuses me.

I can follow other posters' thinking, even if I don't necessarily agree with it, but yours consistently makes me think of a ping pong ball in a Dyson.

I don't know how you can communicate with a foreign person if you think it is difficult to comprehend me. If you cannot understand me then I am sure you will not be able to interpret a non-native speaker mind.

This thread is a case in point: you said the "Bastid ZMs" want to create a nanny state, wwaswas asked you what was wrong with a nanny state and you answered him by talking about EU membership.

I just don't follow. You might as well have said "Because bananas are yellow".

Am I too fast for everyone or is everyone deliberately slow? 🙄

Very simple. Nanny state means more interference from unwanted rules and being in ZM EU means added rules.

edit: How can you lot with your PhDs cannot understand another person? Aren't you supposed to be more capable of "understanding" with your logic?

The EU and its predecessors have meant that my father's generation was the first is a very long time (200 years? More? Less? About that) not to see a Anglo-Franco-German war (at least 2 out of 3) that had a habit of drawing the rest of Europe in.

Worth a bit of red tape that.

Now what's it got to do with the Nasty Party (Teresa's term, not mine)

The EU and its predecessors have meant that my father's generation was the first is a very long time (200 years? More? Less? About that) not to see a Anglo-Franco-German war (at least 2 out of 3) that had a habit of drawing the rest of Europe in.

I'm sorry but that is utter nonsense. It was pretty much universally agreed after WW2 that nobody wanted another war for a long long time.

The EU is now crippling Europe economically, especially the Southern states, leading to political radicalisation (both on the right and the left). The EU is laying the foundations for a series of Balkan-like conflicts.

dit: How can you lot with your PhDs cannot understand another person?

It's because you don't make sense 🙂

igm - Member
The EU and its predecessors have meant that my father's generation was the first is a very long time (200 years? More? Less? About that) not to see a Anglo-Franco-German war (at least 2 out of 3) that had a habit of drawing the rest of Europe in.

Very simple. If you need this bureaucratic entity to stop war within EU nations then you have just proved that the West is not as civilized as they think of themselves to be. Essentially, this is just a temporary halt to a major problem by "sweeping differences under the carpet".

Worth a bit of red tape that.

Not even worth a single penny in my view.

I rather they be honest then to pretend ...

molgrips - Member

dit: How can you lot with your PhDs cannot understand another person?

It's because you don't make sense

Eh? I thought PhD is to research and to make sense of something normal mortal cannot understand?

Are you saying with your PhD you still cannot make sense of my views?

Crikey, if everyone can make sense of the unknown then what's the use of PhD?

Aren't you supposed to research and to make sense of things regardless of how illogical they can be? (note to self: PhDs are just normal mortal with even narrower view)

Am I too fast for everyone or is everyone deliberately slow?

Well I do find myself reading all your posts in a slightly breathless hyperactive tone. Like I've tapped directly into your stream of consciousness where words and thoughts just tumble out almost at random.

So possibly the former. 😀

Very simple. Nanny state means more interference from unwanted rules and being in ZM EU means added rules.

Right. See that makes a bit more sense. Your thought-process is a little easier to follow when you show your working.

Still seems a pretty massive leap, but at least I understand the general trajectory.

Edit: by the way, I don't have a PhD.

GrahamS - Member

Very simple. Nanny state means more interference from unwanted rules and being in ZM EU means added rules.

Right. See that makes a bit more sense. Your thought-process is a little easier to follow when you show your working.

Ahhhh ... Okay ... I will show my "working" only if I can slow down my thought process ... it's going at light speed you know. 😆

Still seems a pretty massive leap, but at least I understand the general trajectory.

Okay, sounds good. One small step for GrahamS and one massive leap from me something like that.

Edit: by the way, I don't have a PhD.

You don't? That's new because many on STW are either PhD or some scientists whatever ... except me as low ranking ZM bureaucrat.

You don't? That's new because many on STW are either PhD or some scientists whatever ..

Just a plain old bachelor's degree here: BSc (Hons) Computer Science, if it makes any odds.

Not much help in understanding sociology and geo-politics I'm afraid.

badnewz - Member
It was pretty much universally agreed after WW2 that nobody wanted another war for a long long time.

It was agreed after WWI - war to end all wars and all that. It just didn't work until they (quite deliberately) set out to tie France and Germany together so closely (via the coal and steel industries as I recall but don't quote me) that they could not go to war.

The EU is now crippling Europe economically, especially the Southern states, leading to political radicalisation (both on the right and the left). The EU is laying the foundations for a series of Balkan-like conflicts.

I would agree that fiscal union without a unifying the financial policy of the various states might have a lot to do with this, but that is more the euro than the EU I think. In fact a common finance ministry (bit radical even for a good European like me) might be one of the long term solutions to the issue - a bit like the federal system in the States. (Yes I am talking about a federal Europe and a 'loss' of national sovereignty, but then I only reckon nations as a basis for picking sports teams - for economics bigger probably is better - discuss, but not on this thread).

And Chewkw, the west isn't civilised, never has been. Britain for example is just about permanently at war with someone somewhere, and really hates to be left out of a good scrap - it's a defining characteristic as a nation. Switzerland meanwhile almost never goes to war, but proving dodgy banking facilities to tyrants, despots and wearing countries isn't entirely civilised either. Nice chocolate and watches though.
And not worth a penny of red tape? Red tape is cheaper than war every time.

Perhaps people like lower taxes so they get to choose how to spend their money. I know I do.

Don't dress it up. Money owed in tax isn't YOUR money, it's the state's. So what you're saying is that you want more money. You want others to suffer because you want more money. That's the definition of greed, and that's why they are called the nasty party.

I want others to suffer. I'm greedy. The party I voted for are nasty.

Pretty standard stuff these days to a Conservative voter. Typical approach, no wonder it puts so many people off.

I believe in smaller government. To me Austerity means living within our means, and people who are anti-austerity want to run up the credit card bill again. Naah, you're right, screw it, spend spend spend. Works a treat every time.

Are you saying with your PhD you still cannot make sense of my views?

HTH

I believe in smaller government. To me Austerity means living within our means, and people who are anti-austerity want to run up the credit card bill again. Naah, you're right, screw it, spend spend spend. Works a treat every tim

Economics fail.

Running a deficit in a country isn't that big of a deal. Countries aren't like households. Sure, it would be nice to have no deficit, but austerity means cutting services to vulnerable people who really really need state help, whilst the rich have no disadvantage whatsoever.

How is that fair? A black balance sheet would be nice, but not at the expense of the helpless. That's why they're called the nasty party, because they don't give a shit about people.

To me Austerity means living within our means

So how does that fit with you wanting lower taxes?

Surely if you want us to live austerely, within our means, then reducing our means is not a very good start.

Running a deficit in a country isn't that big of a deal.

Really? Ask the Greeks how they are enjoying a big deficit.

Even the nice party was planning to cut the deficit.

A Labour government will cut the deficit every year. The first line of Labour’s
first Budget will be: “This Budget cuts the deficit every year”. This manifesto
sets out that we will only lay a Budget before the House of Commons that
cuts the deficit every year, which the OBR will independently verify.
We will get national debt falling and a surplus on the current budget as soon
as possible in the next parliament. This manifesto sets out that we will not
compromise on this commitment.

hugo - Member

I want others to suffer. I'm greedy. The party I voted for are nasty.

Pretty standard stuff these days to a Conservative voter. Typical approach, no wonder it puts so many people off.

I understand all that, what I don't understand is if you support the Tory Party's taxation policies so much why has it made you leave the country?

As exemplified here :

hugo - Member

They were democratically elected. The outpouring of grief and whinging by the left is staggering.

Perhaps people like lower taxes so they get to choose how to spend their money. I know I do. In fact that's why I moved abroad.

Perhaps you don't know yourself ❓ 💡

hugo - Member

I believe in smaller government. To me Austerity means living within our means, and people who are anti-austerity want to run up the credit card bill again. Naah, you're right, screw it, spend spend spend. Works a treat every time.

Have you ever stopped and looked at what the Tories have actually done in power? Osborne borrowed more in the last 5 years than Labour did in the 13 before. That'd be pretty incredible even if Labour hadn't had the extra costs of the financial crisis, and if the Tories hadn't flogged irreplacable assets in the same timescale (for, of course, less than they're worth)

Tory austerity has nothing to do with cutting spending; that was just the excuse. I'll be honest, I was slow on the uptake on this; when they announced their plans, I said "you're wrong, you'll hurt the recovery and reduce tax take". But they weren't wrong- they were just lying. They knew they were going to hurt the economy, lose revenues, and be left with higher debt- they just didn't care about any of that, as long as they got to hack away at the state with an axe. It was always the goal.

That's austerity- we're more in debt, and less able to deal with it.

I moved before the election.

To me Austerity means living within our means, and people who are anti-austerity want to run up the credit card bill again. Naah, you're right, screw it, spend spend spend.

As others have said, a national economy is not like a household. A government only gets into the black by taking money from the people, running down their savings or putting them into debt. Is that what you want?

Really? Ask the Greeks how they are enjoying a big deficit.

molgrips didn't mention a "big" deficit, he just said deficit.

And you could of course ask the Americans, they seem to like deficits.

[img] [/img]

Should we all be panicking 'cause the world's largest economy has a deficit ?

Really? Ask the Greeks how they are enjoying a big deficit.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.BAL.CASH.GD.ZS

Worth seeing how many run at a deficit

EDIT: DAMN YOU ERNIE

Running a deficit in a country isn't that big of a deal. Countries aren't like households. Sure, it would be nice to have no deficit, but austerity means cutting services to vulnerable people who really really need state help, whilst the rich have no disadvantage whatsoever.

Presumably we're at the point where if services aren't cut we lose the good credit rating and end up paying higher interest rates which forces us to errr... cut services. Or at very least risk meltdown if the economy goes tits up again because you have no buffer.

Whatever the reason, I find it very hard to believe that every country in Europe and has got it wrong. Every civil servant, every state economist. Only people who have no responsibility for the outcome seem to be advocating any other course of action. A bit like commentators in WW1 claiming they could win the war in weeks by simply opening a second front.

Greece is all the evidence you need that spending your way out of trouble is a progressive gambling scheme - when the money runs out you lose big.

...but frankly if you like borrowing, this government *is* borrowing. Austerity, this is not. It's profligacy. Coining the term was PR genius and electoral gold.

hugo - Member

I moved before the election.

You had no faith that the Tories could form a government?

Well we've had a Tory prime minister for five and half years now. So when can we look forward to your return?

Or do you intend carrying on telling us what's good for us and how much you support Tory taxation policies from distant shores?

Tory austerity has nothing to do with cutting spending; that was just the excuse. I'll be honest, I was slow on the uptake on this; when they announced their plans, I said "you're wrong, you'll hurt the recovery and reduce tax take". But they weren't wrong- they were just lying. They knew they were going to hurt the economy, lose revenues, and be left with higher debt- they just didn't care about any of that, as long as they got to hack away at the state with an axe. It was always the goal.

So how do you explain all the other EU countries cutting spending?

Greece is all the evidence you need that spending your way out of trouble is a progressive gambling scheme - when the money runs out you lose big.

Eh? Surely Greece is all the evidence you need that cutting yourself out of trouble only gets you in deeper shit. Even the damned commies at the IMF agree on that.

So how do you explain all the other EU countries cutting spending?

A million lemmings can't be wrong.

Osborne borrowed more in the last 5 years than Labour did in the 13 before.

So he's overspending. Bloody austerity.

Theres been a conservative party conference, must have missed that, with all the trouble in syria, a new labour leader,x factor 6 chair challenge, a police officer been murdered by a car theif down the road,steelworks closing down , huge loss of jobs, and other more important things in life to worrry about than a failed party run by a load of idiots youd never associate with

Eh? Surely Greece is all the evidence you need that cutting yourself out of trouble only gets you in deeper shit. Even the damned commies at the IMF agree on that.

They didn't cut themselves out of trouble - the couldn't get anyone to lend them any more and *had* to cut to find a lender. As for the IMF they refused to lend Greece the necessary cash just like all the other potential lenders.

A million lemmings can't be wrong.

I'm not convinced by this explanation.

So he's overspending. Bloody austerity.

Right in one. "Austerity" was only ever a slogan to convince fhe masochistic British public to accept more poverty while the Etonians partied on, splashing the cash.

Don't dress it up. Money owed in tax isn't YOUR money, it's the state's.

Worth seeing how many run at a deficit

Thanks for that Junkyard, straightaway (cause it's in alphabetical order) I saw that Algeria and Angola haven't got deficit ...... they're in surplus!

Perhaps the UK could hire their economical advisers? I think what we need is an economy more like Angola's.

A government only gets into the black by taking money from the people, running down their savings or putting them into debt. Is that what you want?

No. You might want to read my posts again. I think I've been pretty clear that I want to give people more money, boost their savings or get them out of debt. So exactly the opposite. To be criticised is slightly bizarre!

As to getting out of the black, you can also reduce the cost of government and encourage private businesses (who also pay tax those horrible people). Well except the Starbucks of this world, and that rubbish needs to be sorted asap.

Osborne borrowed more in the last 5 years than Labour did in the 13 before.

Yes, you're right, even with austerity the deficit is still going up, let's do the opposite and spend more, that'll do the trick.

Madness.

The reason the borrowing has gone up is because the economy was in dire straits, a big spending gap appeared, and it's like turning round a supertanker.

and encourage private businesses (who also pay tax those horrible people). Well except the Starbucks of this world

TOP TIP: Dont contradict your own point in a debate

They didn't cut themselves out of trouble

No. They cut and it created more trouble. The IMF refused to lend more if cutting was the only remedy allowed by the EU.

No. You might want to read my posts again. I think I've been pretty clear that I want to give people more money, boost their savings or get them out of debt. So exactly the opposite. To be criticised is slightly bizarre!

I read your post, but it made no sense. You can't give people more money and keep the govt in the black. It doesn't work like that. But don't believe me - have a little read ...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2015/01/14/beware-of-politicians-bearing-household-analogies-3/2/

As to getting out of the black, you can also reduce the cost of government

How does that work, exactly? You cut the NHS and then the doctors and nurses cure people for free?

I thought the nanny state stuff was the dumbest thing I'd ever read. Well done. You've exceeded that benchmark.

Well unless you're printing your own money with a mugshot of you on the notes that's correct. Of course your own money would be worthless what gives an otherwise worthless piece of paper value is that it is printed by the state.

But by all means prove me wrong and use your own money, you won't have pay any tax on it. Just let me know how you get on with using it in transactions.