Weapons
Weapons
You see, IDS isn't all bad.
Does suggesting the Tories "turned a recovery into the longest double dip recession" not count? Or are you suggesting that's nothing to do with the international situation
I meant on stw , of course we cannot match the outlandish claims of politicians ,of either hue, in blaming the other lot for everything.
i listened to half of it it was all i could manage and he seemed to be criticising their policies and impacts rather than blaming them for everything - in fact he acknowledges [ many times] the difficulties and the economic conditions.
i listened to half of it it was all i could manage
Well done - I got as far as where he provided that quote - the lengths I got to in the interest of research.
ernie_lynch - MemberIs why you didn't appear to know that far from criticising or condemning the last Labour government for their "spending spree", the Tories pledged to the British people that they would match it penny for penny?
You seem to be imagining that I'm a fan of the current Tory party.
I'm not. 🙂
I meant on stw
I am going to go out on a limb and point out that its a double dip recession and that perhaps the policies of the current govt are to blame for this
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/another-national-myth-punctured/page/3#post-4809346
sbob - MemberYou seem to be imagining that I'm a fan of the current Tory party.
I'm not.
I am not imagining anything. I am however very aware that you launched into a ranting tirade concerning the last Labour government's alleged "spending spree", whilst not uttering one single word of criticism against the Tories for pledging to match Labour's spending penny for penny.
Why would you do that ?
ernie_lynch - MemberWhy would you do that?
Restoring equilibrium, but then I've already mentioned that, and my dislike for CMD, and the coalition. 🙂
sbob - Member
I wouldn't say I was happy, but I was content with the last Conservative government.
The country was doing well, for those of you that don't remember it.
is that sarcasm ?
I'll wager a bike that you're much better off than me, if you'd like to redistribute some wealth I would happily accept a bike.
Done correctly (no idea what that would entail) creating a more equal distribution of wealth would make 90% of the population better off. 9% would lose a bit, and 1% would get hammered where the sun don't shine.
Restoring equilibrium
But you're not are you. All you are doing is directing all your hatred against Labour's spending policy, whilst completely ignoring the fact that it was also the Tories identical spending policy.
I don't call that 'restoring the equilibrium'. I call it straightforward dishonesty.
Haven't read the previous (got lost in the left right banter) so sorry if this has been answered already.
£50 + what?
Is housing paid for?
Dont mean to come across the wrongly but having never claimed anything I don't know the system. I have know people who by their own admission milk the system and "outwards looking in" they seemed to have everything paid for and got money to live on as well. Is this £50 the living allowance?
IDS has spent years getting to grips with the benefits system
Good stuff - then he won't have made any ignorant off the cuff comments and doing the challenge will be a doddle.
it seems i was debating with hora and appealing for the same thing as here not blaming labour[past govt] for everything.
It seems consistent with what is said here and I do attack their policies rather than say everything is their fault. Capitalism is boom and bust it is not their fault [any more than it was labour or any other political leader or party you wish to blame - I may even at a push extend this to the bankers] it is what happens. The question is has the response [their policies]helped or hindered recovery be it labour or coalition. I would say the jury is out but it is certainly not a resounding success so far for many reasons.I am going to go out on a limb and point out that its a double dip recession and that [b]perhaps the policies[/b] of the current govt are to blame for this rather than the last one or else it is [ following this approach] still Thatchers fault
Does suggesting the Tories "turned a recovery into the longest double dip recession" not count? Or are you suggesting that's nothing to do with the international situation?
Well, some fairly well informed people, and not just on the left, have roundly criticised the government's strategy for dealing with the financial crisis, and some other countries are doing quite a lot better than us.
A new and influential voice has also raised concerns over the UK government’s economic policy and a recent budget promise that the state would underwrite some new mortgages. Professor Larry Summers, a former US Treasury Secretary, ex-chief of the World Bank and an advisor to no less than three US Presidents said that the UK economic policy was “illogical”. Speaking on the BBC’s Newsnight Programme, Professor Summers remarked:"I must say as an outside observer I have had some difficulty following the logic of British policy, I would have supposed - and it's something that's taught in basic finance text books - I would have thought a loan guarantee is more or less the same thing as a loan. Both expose tax payers to risk of loss. [b]Britain has been a powerful and empirical test of the efficacy of determined, resolute austerity. The results so far have not been encouraging to advocates of that strategy. The results so far have suggested that in line with predictions that austerity has led to reductions in demand which has led to reductions in output, to an even greater extent than pessimists predicted."[/b]
Pretty sure Larry Summers isn't a loony lefty or New Labour supporter.
http://www.dailyforex.com/forex-fundamental-analysis/2013/03/UK-Economic-Policy-Criticised/19399
It certainly a more convincing claim to say the Tories have caused a double-dip recession than 'New Labour started a worldwide financial crisis and everything would be fine if the Tories had been in charge'.
Even a report commissioned by the government and conducted by Michael Heseltine seems to agree that their strategy is failing.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/31/uk-britain-heseltine-economy-idUKBRE89U03Y20121031
Great, now I'm probably going to get banned again for having to point out the bleedin' obvious. 🙄
ernie_lynch - MemberBut you're not are you. All you are doing is directing all you hatred against Labour's spending policy,
No, I have given other reasons why I don't like Labour. Have another read old chap. 🙂
whilst completely ignoring the fact that it was also the Tories identical spending policy.
I haven't ignored it, I'm well aware of it.
You're simply imagining things to have an argument. 🙂
I don't call that 'restoring the equilibrium'.
You're accusing me of ignoring the Tory party's faults whilst criticizing Labour's.
The reverse is precisely what others were doing and why I posted. 💡
I call it straightforward dishonesty.
Then you have a poor grasp of the English language old chap.
Do you need me to list all the things the Tory party have ever done that I am not happy with, lest I get accused of dishonesty again?
Just because I don't like mushrooms doesn't mean I automatically like aubergine.
I hope you can understand that.
🙂
the 53 quid is what the market trader said he had left after rent, bills etc
IDS said yes that he could live on that and has since pointed out that he has claimed dole before
(but neglected to mention he was engaged to a millionaire daughter of a baronetcy at the time)
allmountainventure - MemberHaven't read the previous (got lost in the left right banter) so sorry if this has been answered already.
£50 + what?
Is housing paid for?
As the market trader mentioned that since his housing benefit had been reduced he was left with only £53 a week, I would say yes, housing is paid for.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9968031/IDS-challenged-to-live-on-53-a-week-by-man-who-gets-156.html ][/url]
Are you suggesting the UK's current economic situation is totally unrelated to the international situation, grum?
Are you suggesting the UK's current economic situation is totally unrelated to the international situation, grum?
Hang on let me think about that for a mo...
[img] 
[/img]
So again, rather than engaging with the points I've raised (with links, quotes etc), you ask an irrelevant question about something I didn't say? What do you hope to achieve with this approach?
And just for clarity, no I'm not, which is why I didn't say it.
No, I have given other reasons why I don't like Labour. Have another read old chap.
I haven't accused you of not giving any other reasons. Have a go at reading the whole quote without chopping it in half :
[i]"All you are doing is directing all your hatred against Labour's spending policy, whilst completely ignoring the fact that it was also the Tories identical spending policy."[/i]
Do you need me to list all the things the Tory party have ever done that I am not happy with
Go on then. We now know that you think the Tory Party's spending policy when in Opposition was just like Labour's, so presumably an [i]"unprecendented spunkfest of money that wasn't theirs"[/i], what else is there ? Don't be shy - tell us how much you hate the Tories.
Sorry didn't read the article.
So; he's paid his rent and all bills (including food?) and he has £50 a week left over?
I haven't accused of not giving any other reasons.
🙂
All you are doing is directing all your hatred against Labour's spending policy
Do you see it now? 🙂
Now stop being silly and give me a bike you tight arsed lefty, thx1138 seems to have missed the bit where he owes me. 😆
Go on then
I'll give you one (and it's a biggie, for me anyway) and one only for the time being as the missus says it's bedtime:
I don't like CMD as he is trying to privatize the police [s]force[/s] service with his chums, the notorious **** wits, G4S.
If you play nicely I'll give you more tomorrow. 🙂
Do you see it now?
I see that you've chopped my quote in half again.
Here it is again in it's entirety :
[i]"All you are doing is directing all your hatred against Labour's spending policy, whilst completely ignoring the fact that it was also the Tories identical spending policy."[/i]
See ? I haven't accused of not giving any other reasons.
Now are you going to keep editing my post and making the same false claim again ? It could become boring.
What do you hope to achieve with this approach?
Well I hoped to determine whether you were attempting to answer the point I made about the UK's situation being linked to the international one - I assumed that as you'd quoted me maybe that's what you were trying to do, but I'll take that as a no.
ernie_lynch - MemberDo you see it now?
I see that you've chopped my quote in half again.
Here it is again in it's entirety :
"[b]All you are doing is directing all your hatred against Labour's spending policy[/b], whilst completely ignoring the fact that it was also the Tories identical spending policy."
See ? I haven't accused of not giving any other reasons.
Now are you going to keep editing my post and making the same false claim again ? It could become boring.
You see that bit in bold?
If that's all I'm doing then I'm not doing anything else am I?
Jesus H, I never thought I'd be giving lessons on comprehension, especially to the author of the work in question! 😆
So don't use your lack of comprehension to accuse me of making false claims.
If that wasn't what you meant and it's simply a poorly written statement, then fine, leave it be.
Just try a bit harder in the future and think about what the words you are using actually mean.
🙂
it's simply a poorly written statement
It's extremely well written. Nowhere do I accuse you of not giving other reasons why you don't like Labour, as you quite falsely claim I have.
Still, I guess banging on and on making the same silly false claim over and over again, detracts from your embarrassment over the revelation that whilst in opposition, the Tories promised to match Gordon Browns's spending penny for penny, eh ?
ernie_lynch - MemberIt's extremely well written.
😆
Nowhere do I accuse you of not giving other reasons why you don't like Labour, as you quite falsely claim I have.
Yes you do. I've pointed where, clearly.
Still, I guess banging on and on making the same silly false claim over and over again, detracts from your embarrassment over the revelation that whilst in opposition, the Tories promised to match Gordon Browns's spending penny for penny, eh ?
The embarrassment is in your lack of understanding of the very words you've used.
The was no revelation, that's a fantastical invention of yours.
It's like me going "Tee hee hee! Ernie doesn't know that grass is green!" and getting all excited about it.
Have a play with [url= http://dictionary.reference.com/ ]this[/url], it may help you. 🙂
You're tenacious, sbob, I'll give you that.
Embarrassingly misguided and confused, but tenacious all the same.
Where is the petition asking Mr Bennett to live on £53 a week?
Why don't you start one.
Where is the petition asking Mr Bennett to live on £53 a week?
Why would one be relevant? IDS claimed, publicly, that he could live on £53 a week. Time he put his claim to the test.
A better test would be to strip IDS of all assets, and bar all outside financial assistance. For a year. Then see if his glib, sneering attitude was the same in 12 months. I somewhat doubt it would be, were he forced to live on such meagre means for such a period of time.
It's easy to say 'yeah I could do it' for just one week; like those people who give up their precious car for a week. When it's your day to day reality to suffer deprivation, it becomes and entirely different game.
Lifer - because, as with the IDS version, it would be a red herring requiring replacing fact with fiction (in both cases).
No he didn't!
He said he could live on the same amount as someone else if he had to.
'If he had to' being the important part.
teamhurtmore - Member
Lifer - because, as with the IDS version, it would be a red herring requiring replacing fact with fiction (in both cases).
Why ask about it then? Bizarre.
Exactly Lifer - point proven!
THM you should concentrate on trying to make your posts more coherent. You really don't make an awful lot of sense half the time.
Well I hoped to determine whether you were attempting to answer the point I made about the UK's situation being linked to the international one - I assumed that as you'd quoted me maybe that's what you were trying to do, but I'll take that as a no.
Yes obviously the international situation is a large factor, but as I said, there are many, not just on the left, who think the government's strategy is quite clearly failing. I thought that much was obvious.
See how it's possible to just give a straight answer, and not simply keep asking (irrelevant) straw man questions?
teamhurtmore - Member
Exactly Lifer - point proven!
😕
I know Grum, it's a good job I am not a teacher!* Then again this idea of 20 hours max teaching a week sounds pretty appealing!
* actually that would be very insulting towards pupils, who are perfectly capable of identifying red-herrings and spurious arguments. They would see through the IBD/Bennett thing straight away.
Yes obviously the international situation is a large factor, but as I said, there are many, not just on the left, who think the government's strategy is quite clearly failing.
Yes, and? You found an economist who gave the opinion you wanted - can I just check if he also predicted the big financial meltdown? No? I'm sure I could find another economist saying exactly the opposite if I tried. The fact is, as the Europhiles are so fond of telling us, the Eurozone is an important trading partner for us - so long as large parts of that are doing rather worse than us economically it's not exactly making it easy for the UK economy. All very easy to say the current strategy is failing when there's no evidence that any alternative strategy would do better.
not simply keep asking (irrelevant) straw man questions?
Maybe you need to check some definitions.
A better test would be to strip IDS of all assets, and bar all outside financial assistance. For a year. Then see if his glib, sneering attitude was the same in 12 months. I somewhat doubt it would be, were he forced to live on such meagre means for such a period of time.
Do you think he would die? Or would he maybe struggle by as all the people on really low income do? Do you think he's too stupid to cope at all? It's all a really silly argument - I remind you again of the words he actually used "if I had to I would". You're picking on the wrong man if you want sneering attitude.
You made out that I was suggesting international factors weren't an issue, when I hadn't said anything of the kind. A classic straw man.
There's plenty of other people of all political persuasions saying the same things btw. But I'm sure you (and George Osbourne) know best. All the evidence certainly points that way eh?
Even by their own benchmarks they're failing miserably.
I was asking a question - a quite important question related to my point, one which you hadn't answered - not putting words in your mouth. There's quite an important difference. Why don't you check back.
As I said, I'm sure it would be easy to find plenty of other economists saying the opposite. I presume their benchmarks when they set them weren't based on the Eurozone failing as miserably as it has - can I just check if your pet economists predicted that?
Pretty obvious I wasn't saying that, otherwise I would have said it - unless you're being deliberately obtuse/trolling of course.
As I said, I'm sure it would be easy to find plenty of other economists saying the opposite.
Go on then.
* actually that would be very insulting towards pupils, who are perfectly capable of identifying red-herrings and spurious arguments.
They pull you up on those quite often eh?
