Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 21 October 2010, 10:56:59
-
OK, hands up all those who thought the "government" will be spending less in the years to come.
You're wrong!
They will be increasing its spending every year from now until 2015.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_budget_10.html
Smoke and mirrors. ::) ::) ::)
-
Smoke and mirrors indeed.
However for a growing economy no doubt they would argue that increased expenditure is necesary in order for the private sector to create all those jobs (in pizza hut and starbucks etc) for the displaced public sector workers. ;D ;D
-
looks like 2013 - 2015 is where the big cuts in public sector spending start biting :o
what increasingly annoys me is this mantra about "the mess Labour left us in" funnily enough I do recall Cameron pledged to match Labours spending pound for pound so what mess are we in that the Tories would have avoided - they admitted thy would have spent the same? :o
thats the real smoke and mirrors, that and the fact everyone seems to forget it was a global financial collapse precipitated by unregulated casino bankers playing fast and loose with someone elses money >:(
I'm also wondering when in history cutting public spending has led us out of a recession? anyone? ::)
i agreed we needed to cut our cloth, but now I genuinely feel that this Tory government (you can call it a Lib/Tory alliance but funnily enough the Libs promises were swept away(student fees, cutting too early) whilst the Tories held on to many of theirs(universal benefits for example)) is making cuts based on ideology rather than good fiscal policy, they've had their eye on decimating the public sector for decades - this financial disaster is the perfect excuse :o
never
trust
a
tory ;)
"unemployment is a price worth paying".....we'll see
-
Biggest load of nonsencical b****x I have read for a long time. :y ::) :D
your understanding of the real issues involved apparently knows no depths. :)
-
looks like 2013 - 2015 is where the big cuts in public sector spending start biting :o
what increasingly annoys me is this mantra about "the mess Labour left us in" funnily enough I do recall Cameron pledged to match Labours spending pound for pound so what mess are we in that the Tories would have avoided - they admitted thy would have spent the same? :o
thats the real smoke and mirrors, that and the fact everyone seems to forget it was a global financial collapse precipitated by unregulated casino bankers playing fast and loose with someone elses money >:(
I'm also wondering when in history cutting public spending has led us out of a recession? anyone? ::)
i agreed we needed to cut our cloth, but now I genuinely feel that this Tory government (you can call it a Lib/Tory alliance but funnily enough the Libs promises were swept away(student fees, cutting too early) whilst the Tories held on to many of theirs(universal benefits for example)) is making cuts based on ideology rather than good fiscal policy, they've had their eye on decimating the public sector for decades - this financial disaster is the perfect excuse :o
never
trust
a
tory ;)
"unemployment is a price worth paying".....we'll see
Irrespective of whether a Conservative government would have matched Labour's spending plans or not is moot - as they didn't - however Labour still has left the country on its arse whatever way you look at it.
thats the real smoke and mirrors, that and the fact everyone seems to forget it was a global financial collapse precipitated by unregulated casino bankers playing fast and loose with someone elses money
It is of course reasonable to state that, however the Labour administration in the form of the then Chancellor (later Premier) did absolutely blank all about it and sallied forth with spending and state enhancement while the flames of excess began to lick around the collective feet of us all while being ignorant to them or wilfully careless about it.
It's about the time Labour's bloated state was dismantled although I’m not depending on this present bunch doing much about it.
And, while we're ripping the pish out of the Bankers, please don't forget the excess of Whitehall, the welfare culture and the legions of those who enjoyed the credit revolution by spending beyond their means by using credit cards and cheap loans
-
Biggest load of nonsencical b****x I have read for a long time. :y ::) :D
your understanding of the real issues involved apparently knows no depths. :)
what would like to have explained? :y
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
-
thought so - roll your eyes, keep schtum and people think you're a genius......good plan :y
-
looks like 2013 - 2015 is where the big cuts in public sector spending start biting :o
No, they're not cuts, they're reductions in rate of increase. Quite different, except to a leftie, that is. ;) ;D ;D
-
looks like 2013 - 2015 is where the big cuts in public sector spending start biting :o
No, they're not cuts, they're reductions in rate of increase. Quite different, except to a leftie, that is. ;) ;D ;D
I would love DC to start calling the cuts reductions in the rate of increase. ;)
"Cuts Prime Minister? No, no, no.....they're merely reductions in rates of increase....surely you see that?"
"Ah yes....of course Sir Humphrey." :y :y
-
looks like 2013 - 2015 is where the big cuts in public sector spending start biting :o
No, they're not cuts, they're reductions in rate of increase. Quite different, except to a leftie, that is. ;) ;D ;D
I would love DC to start calling the cuts reductions in the rate of increase. ;)
"Cuts Prime Minister? No, no, no.....they're merely reductions in rates of increase....surely you see that?"
"Ah yes....of course Sir Humphrey." :y :y
I'm not defending DC, I think he is useless, but the point IS that these are not cuts. Check out the link from HM Treasury I gave at the start.
2010-11 696.8 696.8 0.0
2011-12 699.8 701.8 +2.0
2012-13 711.0 713.0 +2.0
2013-14 737.5 724.2 -13.3
2014-15 757.5 739.8 -17.7
The first column (in £bn) is the June Budget, the second is the Spending Review amount and the third is the change.
Even you can surely see that the total spend increases from £698.8bn this year to £739.8bn in 2014/15. That is not a cut, but a reduction in the increase proposed in the June budget.
Maybe maths is not your strong point. ::) ::)
-
looks like 2013 - 2015 is where the big cuts in public sector spending start biting :o
No, they're not cuts, they're reductions in rate of increase. Quite different, except to a leftie, that is. ;) ;D ;D
I would love DC to start calling the cuts reductions in the rate of increase. ;)
"Cuts Prime Minister? No, no, no.....they're merely reductions in rates of increase....surely you see that?"
"Ah yes....of course Sir Humphrey." :y :y
I'm not defending DC, I think he is useless, but the point IS that these are not cuts. Check out the link from HM Treasury I gave at the start.
2010-11 696.8 696.8 0.0
2011-12 699.8 701.8 +2.0
2012-13 711.0 713.0 +2.0
2013-14 737.5 724.2 -13.3
2014-15 757.5 739.8 -17.7
The first column (in £bn) is the June Budget, the second is the Spending Review amount and the third is the change.
Even you can surely see that the total spend increases from £698.8bn this year to £739.8bn in 2014/15. That is not a cut, but a reduction in the increase proposed in the June budget.
Maybe maths is not your strong point. ::) ::)
that's arithmetic.
and semantics.
;)
-
looks like 2013 - 2015 is where the big cuts in public sector spending start biting :o
No, they're not cuts, they're reductions in rate of increase. Quite different, except to a leftie, that is. ;) ;D ;D
I would love DC to start calling the cuts reductions in the rate of increase. ;)
"Cuts Prime Minister? No, no, no.....they're merely reductions in rates of increase....surely you see that?"
"Ah yes....of course Sir Humphrey." :y :y
I'm not defending DC, I think he is useless, but the point IS that these are not cuts. Check out the link from HM Treasury I gave at the start.
2010-11 696.8 696.8 0.0
2011-12 699.8 701.8 +2.0
2012-13 711.0 713.0 +2.0
2013-14 737.5 724.2 -13.3
2014-15 757.5 739.8 -17.7
The first column (in £bn) is the June Budget, the second is the Spending Review amount and the third is the change.
Even you can surely see that the total spend increases from £698.8bn this year to £739.8bn in 2014/15. That is not a cut, but a reduction in the increase proposed in the June budget.
Maybe maths is not your strong point. ::) ::)
that's arithmetic.
and semantics.
;)
There are lies..............and damned lies...............and government statistics >:(
-
I don't care. I've got enough money to get by, so everyone else can break off. :y
-
For those of you too young to remember, every, I repeat every, Labour Government since WW2 has left office with the country's economy in dire straits. This simply cannot be a coincidence. Oh, and by the way, the 'Government' does not have any money of its own, it's yours, and all Public spending comes out of your pockets.
End of rant, oh, and no I didn't vote Tory.
-
For those of you too young to remember, every, I repeat every, Labour Government since WW2 has left office with the country's economy in dire straits. This simply cannot be a coincidence. Oh, and by the way, the 'Government' does not have any money of its own, it's yours, and all Public spending comes out of your pockets.
End of rant, oh, and no I didn't vote Tory.
I agree with everything you have said, except I did vote Tory. Some may say it is a wasted vote in Newcastle, but I must vote for who I Believe in.
-
looks like 2013 - 2015 is where the big cuts in public sector spending start biting :o
what increasingly annoys me is this mantra about "the mess Labour left us in" funnily enough I do recall Cameron pledged to match Labours spending pound for pound so what mess are we in that the Tories would have avoided - they admitted thy would have spent the same? :o
thats the real smoke and mirrors, that and the fact everyone seems to forget it was a global financial collapse precipitated by unregulated casino bankers playing fast and loose with someone elses money >:(
I'm also wondering when in history cutting public spending has led us out of a recession? anyone? ::)
i agreed we needed to cut our cloth, but now I genuinely feel that this Tory government (you can call it a Lib/Tory alliance but funnily enough the Libs promises were swept away(student fees, cutting too early) whilst the Tories held on to many of theirs(universal benefits for example)) is making cuts based on ideology rather than good fiscal policy, they've had their eye on decimating the public sector for decades - this financial disaster is the perfect excuse :o
never
trust
a
tory ;)
"unemployment is a price worth paying".....we'll see
Norman "Badger"Lamont?.......I think
-
looks like 2013 - 2015 is where the big cuts in public sector spending start biting :o
what increasingly annoys me is this mantra about "the mess Labour left us in" funnily enough I do recall Cameron pledged to match Labours spending pound for pound so what mess are we in that the Tories would have avoided - they admitted thy would have spent the same? :o
thats the real smoke and mirrors, that and the fact everyone seems to forget it was a global financial collapse precipitated by unregulated casino bankers playing fast and loose with someone elses money >:(
I'm also wondering when in history cutting public spending has led us out of a recession? anyone? ::)
i agreed we needed to cut our cloth, but now I genuinely feel that this Tory government (you can call it a Lib/Tory alliance but funnily enough the Libs promises were swept away(student fees, cutting too early) whilst the Tories held on to many of theirs(universal benefits for example)) is making cuts based on ideology rather than good fiscal policy, they've had their eye on decimating the public sector for decades - this financial disaster is the perfect excuse :o
never
trust
a
tory ;)
"unemployment is a price worth paying".....we'll see
Norman "Badger"Lamont?.......I think
wasn't he a weasel? ;)
-
You're both wrong. He was/is a idiot. ;)
-
You're both wrong. He was/is a idiot. ;)
and yet he speaks so highly of you STMO :y
-
looks like 2013 - 2015 is where the big cuts in public sector spending start biting :o
what increasingly annoys me is this mantra about "the mess Labour left us in" funnily enough I do recall Cameron pledged to match Labours spending pound for pound so what mess are we in that the Tories would have avoided - they admitted thy would have spent the same? :o
thats the real smoke and mirrors, that and the fact everyone seems to forget it was a global financial collapse precipitated by unregulated casino bankers playing fast and loose with someone elses money >:(
I'm also wondering when in history cutting public spending has led us out of a recession? anyone? ::)
i agreed we needed to cut our cloth, but now I genuinely feel that this Tory government (you can call it a Lib/Tory alliance but funnily enough the Libs promises were swept away(student fees, cutting too early) whilst the Tories held on to many of theirs(universal benefits for example)) is making cuts based on ideology rather than good fiscal policy, they've had their eye on decimating the public sector for decades - this financial disaster is the perfect excuse :o
never
trust
a
tory ;)
"unemployment is a price worth paying".....we'll see
There is nothing like an objective comment to improve a debate................................................................................................................................................................................ and that is nothing like an objective comment. :-?
-
they've had their eye on decimating the public sector for decades - this financial disaster is the perfect excuse :o
We don't have, sadly, a conservative government, but at least this lot - whoever they may be - still see the sense of reducing the bloated public sector, many parts of which (though not all) are parasitical: living off the sweat and tears of the workers in the private sector. >:(
Remember, the government takes money off us largely without our consent, then spends it in ways which are largely without our consent. ;)
-
Lets get a few things straight ....
The Government has no money of its own .. it merely redistributes what it takes from us ... so those who say "The goverment should pay" actually mean - "you should pay for me"
All the bleating about loss of jobs reducing the "tax take" and costing money is absolute rubbish .. reality ... a government employee on £30,000 a year will pay about £10,000 a year in tax ... so costing the taxpayer a net £20,000 a year. If that person is unemployed they will cost around £10,000 in benefits. A net saving to the taxpayer (you and me) of £10,000. It is also likely that many of those will actually find work, so not drawing that £10,000 and still paying some tax ... so making even more savings for the taxpayer (you and me)
-
There is nothing like an objective comment to improve a debate................................................................................................................................................................................ and that is nothing like an objective comment. :-?
you're right it is objective - so I'll rephrase it as a subjective comment based on the evidence gathered by every industry, every job and every community that was ever destroyed by the Tories.........oh - wait:
Never
Trust
A
Tory.
well what do you know? - it still fits 8-)
i trust this clears up the matter? :y
-
There is nothing like an objective comment to improve a debate................................................................................................................................................................................ and that is nothing like an objective comment. :-?
you're right it is objective - so I'll rephrase it as a subjective comment based on the evidence gathered by every industry, every job and every community that was ever destroyed by the Tories.........oh - wait:
Never
Trust
A
Tory.
well what do you know? - it still fits 8-)
i trust this clears up the matter? :y
I don't think it does BJ as one's personal ideology often clouds the judgement when trying to decide just what party did what for the country.
-
There is nothing like an objective comment to improve a debate................................................................................................................................................................................ and that is nothing like an objective comment. :-?
you're right it is objective - so I'll rephrase it as a subjective comment based on the evidence gathered by every industry, every job and every community that was ever destroyed by the Tories.........oh - wait:
Never
Trust
A
Tory.
well what do you know? - it still fits 8-)
i trust this clears up the matter? :y
I don't think it does BJ as one's personal ideology often clouds the judgement when trying to decide just what party did what for the country.
but your personal ideology is formed by your experiences surely?
anyway - I'll judge by action and deed until someone comes up with a better way :y
-
There is nothing like an objective comment to improve a debate................................................................................................................................................................................ and that is nothing like an objective comment. :-?
you're right it is objective - so I'll rephrase it as a subjective comment based on the evidence gathered by every industry, every job and every community that was ever destroyed by the Tories.........oh - wait:
Never
Trust
A
Tory.
well what do you know? - it still fits 8-)
i trust this clears up the matter? :y
I don't think it does BJ as one's personal ideology often clouds the judgement when trying to decide just what party did what for the country.
but your personal ideology is formed by your experiences surely?
anyway - I'll judge by action and deed until someone comes up with a better way :y
Amongst other things BJ, however I would suggest that on past experience - especially over the recent past - all political parties are unworthy of distrust.
-
"anyone who wants to be a politician, should automatically be banned from ever being one"
or words to that effect
Billy Connolly
I think the problem with politicians in general Zulu, are these days they need to be young, ambitious and squeaky clean, which precludes anyone whos lived and enjoyed life or taken risks or made difficult decisions.....all you get these days is career politicians and policy wonks being promoted from within and hence have built little character or morals :(
-
There is nothing like an objective comment to improve a debate................................................................................................................................................................................ and that is nothing like an objective comment. :-?
you're right it is objective - so I'll rephrase it as a subjective comment based on the evidence gathered by every industry, every job and every community that was ever destroyed by the Tories.........oh - wait:
Never
Trust
A
Tory.
well what do you know? - it still fits 8-)
i trust this clears up the matter? :y
Obviously it does- in your opinion. ;)
-
There is nothing like an objective comment to improve a debate................................................................................................................................................................................ and that is nothing like an objective comment. :-?
you're right it is objective - so I'll rephrase it as a subjective comment based on the evidence gathered by every industry, every job and every community that was ever destroyed by the Tories.........oh - wait:
Never
Trust
A
Tory.
well what do you know? - it still fits 8-)
i trust this clears up the matter? :y
Obviously it does- in your opinion. ;)
its the only opinion i trust ;) :y
-
they've had their eye on decimating the public sector for decades - this financial disaster is the perfect excuse :o
Totally agree with the comment :y
We don't have, sadly, a conservative government, but at least this lot - whoever they may be - still see the sense of reducing the bloated public sector, many parts of which (though not all) are parasitical: living off the sweat and tears of the workers in the private sector. >:(
Bloated public sector, mmm.....yes mainly in top heavy management structures, and high costs in employing external consultants, when the knowledge already exists within.
I have worked in the public sector for almost 18 years, and have wnet rhough re-structures 3 times in the past 4 years, always resulting in staff being lost or made redundant. Local government's were always tasked (at least in england and Wales) with making 5% cuts year on year (for at least the past 5 yrs).
Now 27% cuts, and me having to pay an extra 3% pension contrubution, which equates roughly to around £30 a month.
The result of the current cuts for the section I work in will mean, reduction in improving homes for existing residents on a programme that was always under funded from the start even seven years ago (eg Decent Homes)
And will never meet the target set by labour of 2012, result vastly reduced scope of works, which is still unachievable even if the target was extebded to 2014.
-
There is nothing like an objective comment to improve a debate................................................................................................................................................................................ and that is nothing like an objective comment. :-?
you're right it is objective - so I'll rephrase it as a subjective comment based on the evidence gathered by every industry, every job and every community that was ever destroyed by the Tories.........oh - wait:
Never
Trust
A
Tory.
well what do you know? - it still fits 8-)
i trust this clears up the matter? :y
Obviously it does- in your opinion. ;)
its the only opinion i trust ;) :y
It must be wonderful being right ALL the time. What age do I have to reach when that happens? :-?
-
There is nothing like an objective comment to improve a debate................................................................................................................................................................................ and that is nothing like an objective comment. :-?
you're right it is objective - so I'll rephrase it as a subjective comment based on the evidence gathered by every industry, every job and every community that was ever destroyed by the Tories.........oh - wait:
Never
Trust
A
Tory.
well what do you know? - it still fits 8-)
i trust this clears up the matter? :y
Obviously it does- in your opinion. ;)
its the only opinion i trust ;) :y
It must be wonderful being right ALL the time. What age do I have to reach when that happens? :-?
actually I find it a burden ;)
-
Lets get a few things straight ....
The Government has no money of its own .. it merely redistributes what it takes from us ... so those who say "The goverment should pay" actually mean - "you should pay for me"
All the bleating about loss of jobs reducing the "tax take" and costing money is absolute rubbish .. reality ... a government employee on £30,000 a year will pay about £10,000 a year in tax ... so costing the taxpayer a net £20,000 a year. If that person is unemployed they will cost around £10,000 in benefits. A net saving to the taxpayer (you and me) of £10,000. It is also likely that many of those will actually find work, so not drawing that £10,000 and still paying some tax ... so making even more savings for the taxpayer (you and me)
75% of government employees earn less than £15,000. So, after tax, cost in take home wage about £10k. If they lose their jobs and sign on, getting around £10 in benefits (probably more ... in my case, roughly £6k housing, 1k council tax, 3.5 k job seekers, plus the freebies. I would actually be better off unemployed!). But we'll say no net loss or gain financially. But we no longer have the benefit of the services that person did in the public services. Therefore the country as a whole is worse off.
-
Half the problem is the govenment keep telling the local authorities they need gay out reach workers, and equalities co ordinators, do you blame the councils for doing what they are told and employing them?
-
I agree with some of what has been said by HC and Mike Dundee and others,and fully sympathise with individuals who are going to lose their jobs, but the fact is that Liebore created between 750,000 and 1,000,000 extra jobs in the public sector during their reign. This imo was undoubtedly due to political ideology - the bigger the state the better, if the government employs their electors they have a better chance of being re-elected etc. etc. Standard left wing thinking.
This simply is not sustainable in the long term. We dont have to look back very far into history to see what happens to countries which are run on this basis.
It is not good for the country as a whole and would inevitably store up huge problems for the longer term. We would leave an enormous pile of unpaid bills and a very inefficient country for the next generation.The sad thing is that it is almost inevitable that in many cases, many people who should have kept their jobs wont and vice versa. It always seems to be the case. :(
Its difficult imo to see an argument against reducing the size of the state - by a very considerable amount, and steering the country generally in the direction of creating an atmosphere where business can flourish, entrepenuers are encouraged, children are educated properly and hopefully find a way of becoming once again a nation which manufactures goods which are sought after in the wider world. This in the long term would hopefully allow the economy to reach a point where it isnt completely reliable on the financial sector, as is currently the case.
Had we continued on the trajectory which we had been on for the last 13 or so years, we would eventually have become something resembling a third world country. The only thing which could have prevented that would have been the boom in the city continuing indefinitely and that was never going to happen. Brown told people who were too young and inexperienced that it would happen, but he was lying and he knew it. These young people took him at his word and mortaged themselves to the hilt, and imo the lies he told those people were very very cruel indeed. >:( >:(
It is an undeniable fact that every time Labour get hold of the reins of the economy they wreck it. They spend money the country hasnt got, and when they eventually get caught out, there is pain to come afterwards to repair the damage.
Brown got away with it for longer than his predecessors, because the city had an unprecedented boom which allowed him to cover his tracks for several years. But when it caught up with him and his colleagues their actions showed how much they genuinely care about this counrty. They had a scorched earth mentality. They continued to write cheques for enormous sums of money in the full knowledge that the money wasnt available to honour them. Apparently Ed Balls even gave a large grant to Norwich City football club, just because he was a fan. >:( >:(
The only purpose of this kind of behaviour was to try to leave behind utter chaos for the incoming government, leaving little choice but to cut even faster and deeper in the hope that they would become unpopular very quickly.
Responsible governance ? love their country?..... I would lock them all up and throw away the key.
-
Can't argue at all there, Albs. But would say that the "state" has been bloated by basically useless "non-jobs" and manager's of managers ad infinitum, created to either bean count, hit pointless targets or govern the "PC-ness" of the state, as mentioned previously, and to comply with pointless over governing.
However, you can be pretty certain that it won't be these non-jobs that end up on the scrap heap. And the reduced public services will still be top heavy. After all, it will be those at the top implimenting the cuts (or am I being cynical).
-
good argument Albs, but where do the "1,000,000 non-job holders" shop, bank, get their haircut, service their cars, eat, drink, go to the pictures, buy insurance, go on holiday? and how does getting rid of 400000 taxpaying consumers help our economy exactly - presumably not all of them will be re-employed?
Not to mention the cutbacks in services....I imagine the private sector will be all too happy to step in and take over all the long term non-profit making essential services that benefit society overall? Hands up who sees that happening? ::)
You have your view, but I think we're headed for disaster - at least liebores ideology created jobs :y
-
good argument Albs, but where do the "1,000,000 non-job holders" shop, bank, get their haircut, service their cars, eat, drink, go to the pictures, buy insurance, go on holiday? and how does getting rid of 400000 taxpaying consumers help our economy exactly - presumably not all of them will be re-employed?
Not to mention the cutbacks in services....I imagine the private sector will be all too happy to step in and take over all the long term non-profit making essential services that benefit society overall? Hands up who sees that happening? ::)
You have your view, but I think we're headed for disaster - at least liebores ideology created jobs :y
Which the rest of us pay for. :(
-
good argument Albs, but where do the "1,000,000 non-job holders" shop, bank, get their haircut, service their cars, eat, drink, go to the pictures, buy insurance, go on holiday? and how does getting rid of 400000 taxpaying consumers help our economy exactly - presumably not all of them will be re-employed?
Not to mention the cutbacks in services....I imagine the private sector will be all too happy to step in and take over all the long term non-profit making essential services that benefit society overall? Hands up who sees that happening? ::)
You have your view, but I think we're headed for disaster - at least liebores ideology created jobs :y
Which the rest of us pay for. :(
so its an argument about where our taxes go that worries you? and seriously, public sector workers are the worst thing a government could pay for? :o :o
which public sector workers exactly? nurses? firemen? police? bin men? social workers? tax inspectors? librarians? housing officers? benefit officers? counselling services? or the thousands of voluntary workers who couldnt do their job without government help?
the tories have neatly spun this into the public sectors fault for the failure of bankers - i applaud them - absolute genius :y
sweet jesus.
-
good argument Albs, but where do the "1,000,000 non-job holders" shop, bank, get their haircut, service their cars, eat, drink, go to the pictures, buy insurance, go on holiday? and how does getting rid of 400000 taxpaying consumers help our economy exactly - presumably not all of them will be re-employed?
Not to mention the cutbacks in services....I imagine the private sector will be all too happy to step in and take over all the long term non-profit making essential services that benefit society overall? Hands up who sees that happening? ::)
You have your view, but I think we're headed for disaster - at least liebores ideology created jobs :y
By coincidence, I've just been reading an excellent blog post on this, in which the author states "There has been much talk recently about whether or not the private sector can “take up the slack” of job cuts. Implicit in this is the idea that the private sector is the icing and not the cake, the cart and not the horse."
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=7996
I urge you to read it (it's humorous in parts, too!). :y
Incidentally, you write that nu liebore's policy created jobs. May I note (a repetition, I admit) that in UK defence procurement, it takes 23.700 people to spend £10bn annually. In Israel, it takes 400 people to spends £9 billion. :o
Jobs? Nah, non-jobs in Britain's bloated public sector. :(
-
good argument Albs, but where do the "1,000,000 non-job holders" shop, bank, get their haircut, service their cars, eat, drink, go to the pictures, buy insurance, go on holiday? and how does getting rid of 400000 taxpaying consumers help our economy exactly - presumably not all of them will be re-employed?
Not to mention the cutbacks in services....I imagine the private sector will be all too happy to step in and take over all the long term non-profit making essential services that benefit society overall? Hands up who sees that happening? ::)
You have your view, but I think we're headed for disaster - at least liebores ideology created jobs :y
Privatisation of Government facilities costs more, children's homes, foster care, social workers, who were once directly employed by local government are now employed by agencies who pay more money to the workers :y but at greater expense the the LA and therefore the taxpayer... >:( >:(
-
good argument Albs, but where do the "1,000,000 non-job holders" shop, bank, get their haircut, service their cars, eat, drink, go to the pictures, buy insurance, go on holiday? and how does getting rid of 400000 taxpaying consumers help our economy exactly - presumably not all of them will be re-employed?
Not to mention the cutbacks in services....I imagine the private sector will be all too happy to step in and take over all the long term non-profit making essential services that benefit society overall? Hands up who sees that happening? ::)
You have your view, but I think we're headed for disaster - at least liebores ideology created jobs :y
By coincidence, I've just been reading an excellent blog post on this, in which the author states "There has been much talk recently about whether or not the private sector can “take up the slack” of job cuts. Implicit in this is the idea that the private sector is the icing and not the cake, the cart and not the horse."
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=7996
I urge you to read it (it's humorous in parts, too!). :y
Incidentally, you write that nu liebore's policy created jobs. May I note (a repetition, I admit) that in UK defence procurement, it takes 23.700 people to spend £10bn annually. In Israel, it takes 400 people to spends £9 billion. :o
Jobs? Nah, non-jobs in Britain's bloated public sector. :(
read that blog Nick - very good, but he seems to assume if an enterprise doesnt make money, then its not worth doing? :o
thats it? the bottom line? so no trains, no schools, no arms industry - none of them make any money? :o
why dont we privatise everything and see where we stand after 10 years - surely it'll save us a bundle :y
oh, and you can forget using the internet - it doesnt make money remember? ::)
-
good argument Albs, but where do the "1,000,000 non-job holders" shop, bank, get their haircut, service their cars, eat, drink, go to the pictures, buy insurance, go on holiday? and how does getting rid of 400000 taxpaying consumers help our economy exactly - presumably not all of them will be re-employed?
Not to mention the cutbacks in services....I imagine the private sector will be all too happy to step in and take over all the long term non-profit making essential services that benefit society overall? Hands up who sees that happening? ::)
You have your view, but I think we're headed for disaster - at least liebores ideology created jobs :y
By coincidence, I've just been reading an excellent blog post on this, in which the author states "There has been much talk recently about whether or not the private sector can “take up the slack” of job cuts. Implicit in this is the idea that the private sector is the icing and not the cake, the cart and not the horse."
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=7996
I urge you to read it (it's humorous in parts, too!). :y
Incidentally, you write that nu liebore's policy created jobs. May I note (a repetition, I admit) that in UK defence procurement, it takes 23.700 people to spend £10bn annually. In Israel, it takes 400 people to spends £9 billion. :o
Jobs? Nah, non-jobs in Britain's bloated public sector. :(
read that blog Nick - very good, but he seems to assume if an enterprise doesnt make money, then its not worth doing? :o
thats it? the bottom line? so no trains, no schools, no arms industry - none of them make any money? :o
why dont we privatise everything and see where we stand after 10 years - surely it'll save us a bundle :y
oh, and you can forget using the internet - it doesnt make money remember? ::)
No, I didn't get impression at all. The private sector is the engine of our economy. Without it, any government would sink.
As for privatisation, it is merely one item in the economic toolbox. There are some things that benefit from privatisation, others that do not. Each situation requires careful thought and I am not one of those who believes that privatisation is a miracle cure. There are certain infrastructure services which could never yield a profit, yet are vital to the well-being of the country and are therefore not candidates for privatisation. On the other hand, there are others that may flourish when operated by the private sector. Horses for courses, but at the end of the day, the government is wholly reliant on the private sector for its income. :y
-
Completely agree Nick. I am also not a right wing idealist who believes that everything has to be about profit, and I also believe thar certain seervices should remain in public ownership.
Banjax - The emotive job titles - nurses, firmen etc. doeasnt win the argument Im afraid. We all know full well that Labour created many hundreds of thousands of non jobs, and I have no doubt it was done for idealogical reasons - hence the PC elf& sayftee mentality which has spread like poison throughout this country in recent times.
Those jobs - often carried out by, on message chums of the party are the jobs which should now be abolished. The people who do them would Im sure benifit greatly from working in the private sector, something Im sure many of them have never done since gaining their degrees in social studies etc.
But I fear that Holy Count may well be right. The powers that be in the council offices etc, will probably make sure that the axe falls where it will do the most damage to the most vulnerable, so they can sit in their ivory towers saying "I told you so", and accusing anyone who wants to sort the mess out of being a heartless Thatcherite Tory blah blah.
These kind of people dont care about the underprivileged - their policies over the last decade or so have demonstrated that they want to keep the underpriviliged exactly where they are, and have them rely on the machinery of the bloated state to do everything for them.
There is an argument that it will cost more than it saves in the short term to reduce the bloated public sector, but there is no argument or historical evidence that I know of which says that the situation is sustainable in the long term.
Everyone knows that some of the banks played their part in creating this mess, but I think any intelligent person knows that it is nowhere near as simple as that.
Even the sub prime problem in the U.S. - which started the whole thing- can be traced back to political interference and pressure. And in this country I dont see how, with even a cursory glimpse at the evidence, any objective person could argue against the fact that a hell of a lot of the blame lies at the feet of Gordon Brown. ;)
-
Completely agree Nick. I am also not a right wing idealist who believes that everything has to be about profit, and I also believe thar certain seervices should remain in public ownership.
Banjax - The emotive job titles - nurses, firmen etc. doeasnt win the argument Im afraid. We all know full well that Labour created many hundreds of thousands of non jobs, and I have no doubt it was done for idealogical reasons - hence the PC elf& sayftee mentality which has spread like poison throughout this country in recent times.
Those jobs - often carried out by, on message chums of the party are the jobs which should now be abolished. The people who do them would Im sure benifit greatly from working in the private sector, something Im sure many of them have never done since gaining their degrees in social studies etc.
But I fear that Holy Count may well be right. The powers that be in the council offices etc, will probably make sure that the axe falls where it will do the most damage to the most vulnerable, so they can sit in their ivory towers saying "I told you so", and accusing anyone who wants to sort the mess out of being a heartless Thatcherite Tory blah blah.
These kind of people dont care about the underprivileged - their policies over the last decade or so have demonstrated that they want to keep the underpriviliged exactly where they are, and have them rely on the machinery of the bloated state to do everything for them.
There is an argument that it will cost more than it saves in the short term to reduce the bloated public sector, but there is no argument or historical evidence that I know of which says that the situation is sustainable in the long term.
Everyone knows that some of the banks played their part in creating this mess, but I think any intelligent person knows that it is nowhere near as simple as that.
Even the sub prime problem in the U.S. - which started the whole thing- can be traced back to political interference and pressure. And in this country I dont see how, with even a cursory glimpse at the evidence, any objective person could argue against the fact that a hell of a lot of the blame lies at the feet of Gordon Brown. ;)
Spot on, Albs. :y
-
Completely agree Nick. I am also not a right wing idealist who believes that everything has to be about profit, and I also believe thar certain seervices should remain in public ownership.
Banjax - The emotive job titles - nurses, firmen etc. doeasnt win the argument Im afraid. We all know full well that Labour created many hundreds of thousands of non jobs, and I have no doubt it was done for idealogical reasons - hence the PC elf& sayftee mentality which has spread like poison throughout this country in recent times.
Those jobs - often carried out by, on message chums of the party are the jobs which should now be abolished. The people who do them would Im sure benifit greatly from working in the private sector, something Im sure many of them have never done since gaining their degrees in social studies etc.
But I fear that Holy Count may well be right. The powers that be in the council offices etc, will probably make sure that the axe falls where it will do the most damage to the most vulnerable, so they can sit in their ivory towers saying "I told you so", and accusing anyone who wants to sort the mess out of being a heartless Thatcherite Tory blah blah.
These kind of people dont care about the underprivileged - their policies over the last decade or so have demonstrated that they want to keep the underpriviliged exactly where they are, and have them rely on the machinery of the bloated state to do everything for them.
There is an argument that it will cost more than it saves in the short term to reduce the bloated public sector, but there is no argument or historical evidence that I know of which says that the situation is sustainable in the long term.
Everyone knows that some of the banks played their part in creating this mess, but I think any intelligent person knows that it is nowhere near as simple as that.
Even the sub prime problem in the U.S. - which started the whole thing- can be traced back to political interference and pressure. And in this country I dont see how, with even a cursory glimpse at the evidence, any objective person could argue against the fact that a hell of a lot of the blame lies at the feet of Gordon Brown. ;)
Spot on, Albs. :y
Yes, I agree, Albs has got all that about spot on :y :y :y
-
Completely agree Nick. I am also not a right wing idealist who believes that everything has to be about profit, and I also believe thar certain seervices should remain in public ownership.
Banjax - The emotive job titles - nurses, firmen etc. doeasnt win the argument Im afraid. We all know full well that Labour created many hundreds of thousands of non jobs, and I have no doubt it was done for idealogical reasons - hence the PC elf& sayftee mentality which has spread like poison throughout this country in recent times.
Those jobs - often carried out by, on message chums of the party are the jobs which should now be abolished. The people who do them would Im sure benifit greatly from working in the private sector, something Im sure many of them have never done since gaining their degrees in social studies etc.
But I fear that Holy Count may well be right. The powers that be in the council offices etc, will probably make sure that the axe falls where it will do the most damage to the most vulnerable, so they can sit in their ivory towers saying "I told you so", and accusing anyone who wants to sort the mess out of being a heartless Thatcherite Tory blah blah.
These kind of people dont care about the underprivileged - their policies over the last decade or so have demonstrated that they want to keep the underpriviliged exactly where they are, and have them rely on the machinery of the bloated state to do everything for them.
There is an argument that it will cost more than it saves in the short term to reduce the bloated public sector, but there is no argument or historical evidence that I know of which says that the situation is sustainable in the long term.
Everyone knows that some of the banks played their part in creating this mess, but I think any intelligent person knows that it is nowhere near as simple as that.
Even the sub prime problem in the U.S. - which started the whole thing- can be traced back to political interference and pressure. And in this country I dont see how, with even a cursory glimpse at the evidence, any objective person could argue against the fact that a hell of a lot of the blame lies at the feet of Gordon Brown. ;)
Spot on, Albs. :y
Yes, I agree, Albs has got all that about spot on :y :y :y
I also agree with your statement Albs. :y :y
-
A local example of waste in the public sector:
A large van with 3 council employees parks at the green outside my house every morning. They sit for at least one hour, they then empty the bin next to where they are parked. They then drive to the other side of the green and do the same. I see them parked all around the local area.
One person could do there days output in 2 hours, what a waste >:( >:( >:(
-
A local example of waste in the public sector:
A large van with 3 council employees parks at the green outside my house every morning. They sit for at least one hour, they then empty the bin next to where they are parked. They then drive to the other side of the green and do the same. I see them parked all around the local area.
One person could do there days output in 2 hours, what a waste >:( >:( >:(
As a rate payer you have ever right, and I would encourage it, to complain officially to your council about such waste. In the current climate if they do not do anything about it, then make a fuss using the local media. This type of waste takes money away from services that people really need ;) ;)
-
Completely agree Nick. I am also not a right wing idealist who believes that everything has to be about profit, and I also believe thar certain seervices should remain in public ownership.
Banjax - The emotive job titles - nurses, firmen etc. doeasnt win the argument Im afraid. We all know full well that Labour created many hundreds of thousands of non jobs, and I have no doubt it was done for idealogical reasons - hence the PC elf& sayftee mentality which has spread like poison throughout this country in recent times.
Those jobs - often carried out by, on message chums of the party are the jobs which should now be abolished. The people who do them would Im sure benifit greatly from working in the private sector, something Im sure many of them have never done since gaining their degrees in social studies etc.
But I fear that Holy Count may well be right. The powers that be in the council offices etc, will probably make sure that the axe falls where it will do the most damage to the most vulnerable, so they can sit in their ivory towers saying "I told you so", and accusing anyone who wants to sort the mess out of being a heartless Thatcherite Tory blah blah.
These kind of people dont care about the underprivileged - their policies over the last decade or so have demonstrated that they want to keep the underpriviliged exactly where they are, and have them rely on the machinery of the bloated state to do everything for them.
There is an argument that it will cost more than it saves in the short term to reduce the bloated public sector, but there is no argument or historical evidence that I know of which says that the situation is sustainable in the long term.
Everyone knows that some of the banks played their part in creating this mess, but I think any intelligent person knows that it is nowhere near as simple as that.
Even the sub prime problem in the U.S. - which started the whole thing- can be traced back to political interference and pressure. And in this country I dont see how, with even a cursory glimpse at the evidence, any objective person could argue against the fact that a hell of a lot of the blame lies at the feet of Gordon Brown. ;)
You might have to explain that a bit more. As I saw it sub prime was an instrument invented by greedy bankers to offload risk and camaflage what was being done. While house prices and the economy boomed no one asked any questions. Are you saying that the regulators should have regulated MORE? I allowed myself a smile today too as apparently right now Vince Cable (Condems) is speaking to the CBI once again pleading with the banks (sorry deaf greedy bankers) to lend more money to small businesses. Haven't they done that yet after all this time.!! No lending = less new jobs.
-
Completely agree Nick. I am also not a right wing idealist who believes that everything has to be about profit, and I also believe thar certain seervices should remain in public ownership.
Banjax - The emotive job titles - nurses, firmen etc. doeasnt win the argument Im afraid. We all know full well that Labour created many hundreds of thousands of non jobs, and I have no doubt it was done for idealogical reasons - hence the PC elf& sayftee mentality which has spread like poison throughout this country in recent times.
Those jobs - often carried out by, on message chums of the party are the jobs which should now be abolished. The people who do them would Im sure benifit greatly from working in the private sector, something Im sure many of them have never done since gaining their degrees in social studies etc.
But I fear that Holy Count may well be right. The powers that be in the council offices etc, will probably make sure that the axe falls where it will do the most damage to the most vulnerable, so they can sit in their ivory towers saying "I told you so", and accusing anyone who wants to sort the mess out of being a heartless Thatcherite Tory blah blah.
These kind of people dont care about the underprivileged - their policies over the last decade or so have demonstrated that they want to keep the underpriviliged exactly where they are, and have them rely on the machinery of the bloated state to do everything for them.
There is an argument that it will cost more than it saves in the short term to reduce the bloated public sector, but there is no argument or historical evidence that I know of which says that the situation is sustainable in the long term.
Everyone knows that some of the banks played their part in creating this mess, but I think any intelligent person knows that it is nowhere near as simple as that.
Even the sub prime problem in the U.S. - which started the whole thing- can be traced back to political interference and pressure. And in this country I dont see how, with even a cursory glimpse at the evidence, any objective person could argue against the fact that a hell of a lot of the blame lies at the feet of Gordon Brown. ;)
You might have to explain that a bit more.
On Albs' behalf, if I may. It stems back to the Carter and Clinton administrations when banks were lent on (if you get my drift) to provide mortgages to poorer communities in the the US. Everything went well, especially during the first years of mortgages as introductory rates. However, these debts were not exactly solid gold, but were amalgamated into SIVs, CDOs and other instruments, with the true nature of the risk somewhat buried. These instruments were traded widely and used as collateral in the 'system. Eventually, though, defaults became more widespread and it was felt that the instruments were toxic, though this was not necessarily the case. Certainly though, it was very difficult to work out who had the bad risk loans and who did not because they had been packaged and traded so widely. As a result, banks became highly suspicious of one another and the result was a banking crisis, as interbank liquidity dried up overnight.
Those who talk about greedy banks and so on being the cause really don't understand the complexities involved, so they take the easy option. Down with bankers etc, etc. ::)
-
Lets get a few things straight ....
The Government has no money of its own .. it merely redistributes what it takes from us ... so those who say "The goverment should pay" actually mean - "you should pay for me"
All the bleating about loss of jobs reducing the "tax take" and costing money is absolute rubbish .. reality ... a government employee on £30,000 a year will pay about £10,000 a year in tax ... so costing the taxpayer a net £20,000 a year. If that person is unemployed they will cost around £10,000 in benefits. A net saving to the taxpayer (you and me) of £10,000. It is also likely that many of those will actually find work, so not drawing that £10,000 and still paying some tax ... so making even more savings for the taxpayer (you and me)
Much greater savings in reality.
Average real cost is around 80-90K per annum when you add in all the overheads.
Hence, its a huge saving.
And remember, on average, 50% of your earnings go back to the government and a fifth of that pays for your 'free' health care
-
Completely agree Nick. I am also not a right wing idealist who believes that everything has to be about profit, and I also believe thar certain seervices should remain in public ownership.
Banjax - The emotive job titles - nurses, firmen etc. doeasnt win the argument Im afraid. We all know full well that Labour created many hundreds of thousands of non jobs, and I have no doubt it was done for idealogical reasons - hence the PC elf& sayftee mentality which has spread like poison throughout this country in recent times.
Those jobs - often carried out by, on message chums of the party are the jobs which should now be abolished. The people who do them would Im sure benifit greatly from working in the private sector, something Im sure many of them have never done since gaining their degrees in social studies etc.
But I fear that Holy Count may well be right. The powers that be in the council offices etc, will probably make sure that the axe falls where it will do the most damage to the most vulnerable, so they can sit in their ivory towers saying "I told you so", and accusing anyone who wants to sort the mess out of being a heartless Thatcherite Tory blah blah.
These kind of people dont care about the underprivileged - their policies over the last decade or so have demonstrated that they want to keep the underpriviliged exactly where they are, and have them rely on the machinery of the bloated state to do everything for them.
There is an argument that it will cost more than it saves in the short term to reduce the bloated public sector, but there is no argument or historical evidence that I know of which says that the situation is sustainable in the long term.
Everyone knows that some of the banks played their part in creating this mess, but I think any intelligent person knows that it is nowhere near as simple as that.
Even the sub prime problem in the U.S. - which started the whole thing- can be traced back to political interference and pressure. And in this country I dont see how, with even a cursory glimpse at the evidence, any objective person could argue against the fact that a hell of a lot of the blame lies at the feet of Gordon Brown. ;)
You might have to explain that a bit more.
On Albs' behalf, if I may. It stems back to the Carter and Clinton administrations when banks were lent on (if you get my drift) to provide mortgages to poorer communities in the the US. Everything went well, especially during the first years of mortgages as introductory rates. However, these debts were not exactly solid gold, but were amalgamated into SIVs, CDOs and other instruments, with the true nature of the risk somewhat buried. These instruments were traded widely and used as collateral in the 'system. Eventually, though, defaults became more widespread and it was felt that the instruments were toxic, though this was not necessarily the case. Certainly though, it was very difficult to work out who had the bad risk loans and who did not because they had been packaged and traded so widely. As a result, banks became highly suspicious of one another and the result was a banking crisis, as interbank liquidity dried up overnight.
Those who talk about greedy banks and so on being the cause really don't understand the complexities involved, so they take the easy option. Down with bankers etc, etc. ::)
hmmmm whilst true that the Clinton administration encouraged banks to cater to poorer income households, thats only one small part of the whole story.
with a loosening of regulation, the banks flooded through, throwing debt at people like confetti - barely interested in what that person could comfortably afford. what was the reason for such generosity? massive rises in house prices meant the banks couldnt lose, people who couldnt afford the mortgage payments lost the house to the bank who could sell for a nice fat profit!! trebles all round!!
of course as any fool knows, what goes up must come down :o
so by all means blame Clinton - hell, blame Brown too (he spent time in the states after all ;D) but lets not absolve the greed, short sightedness and stupidity of the banks :y
although to be fair, asking bankers not to be greedy is like putting a steak in front of a dog and asking it to only eat what it needs ;D
-
Apparantley the economies are booming in Europe (across the water) ::).........so everyone can move over and work in Poland, Spain, France, Germany etc., etc., :y....see problem solved for all of those going to be unemployed :y, so if you can't find a job after mmm.....8 weeks ask the social office to fund your fares over to mainland europe, will save the govt., a fortune in the long run ;D
-
Completely agree Nick. I am also not a right wing idealist who believes that everything has to be about profit, and I also believe thar certain seervices should remain in public ownership.
Banjax - The emotive job titles - nurses, firmen etc. doeasnt win the argument Im afraid. We all know full well that Labour created many hundreds of thousands of non jobs, and I have no doubt it was done for idealogical reasons - hence the PC elf& sayftee mentality which has spread like poison throughout this country in recent times.
Those jobs - often carried out by, on message chums of the party are the jobs which should now be abolished. The people who do them would Im sure benifit greatly from working in the private sector, something Im sure many of them have never done since gaining their degrees in social studies etc.
But I fear that Holy Count may well be right. The powers that be in the council offices etc, will probably make sure that the axe falls where it will do the most damage to the most vulnerable, so they can sit in their ivory towers saying "I told you so", and accusing anyone who wants to sort the mess out of being a heartless Thatcherite Tory blah blah.
These kind of people dont care about the underprivileged - their policies over the last decade or so have demonstrated that they want to keep the underpriviliged exactly where they are, and have them rely on the machinery of the bloated state to do everything for them.
There is an argument that it will cost more than it saves in the short term to reduce the bloated public sector, but there is no argument or historical evidence that I know of which says that the situation is sustainable in the long term.
Everyone knows that some of the banks played their part in creating this mess, but I think any intelligent person knows that it is nowhere near as simple as that.
Even the sub prime problem in the U.S. - which started the whole thing- can be traced back to political interference and pressure. And in this country I dont see how, with even a cursory glimpse at the evidence, any objective person could argue against the fact that a hell of a lot of the blame lies at the feet of Gordon Brown. ;)
You might have to explain that a bit more.
On Albs' behalf, if I may. It stems back to the Carter and Clinton administrations when banks were lent on (if you get my drift) to provide mortgages to poorer communities in the the US. Everything went well, especially during the first years of mortgages as introductory rates. However, these debts were not exactly solid gold, but were amalgamated into SIVs, CDOs and other instruments, with the true nature of the risk somewhat buried. These instruments were traded widely and used as collateral in the 'system. Eventually, though, defaults became more widespread and it was felt that the instruments were toxic, though this was not necessarily the case. Certainly though, it was very difficult to work out who had the bad risk loans and who did not because they had been packaged and traded so widely. As a result, banks became highly suspicious of one another and the result was a banking crisis, as interbank liquidity dried up overnight.
Those who talk about greedy banks and so on being the cause really don't understand the complexities involved, so they take the easy option. Down with bankers etc, etc. ::)
hmmmm whilst true that the Clinton administration encouraged banks to cater to poorer income households, thats only one small part of the whole story.
with a loosening of regulation, the banks flooded through, throwing debt at people like confetti - barely interested in what that person could comfortably afford. what was the reason for such generosity? massive rises in house prices meant the banks couldnt lose, people who couldnt afford the mortgage payments lost the house to the bank who could sell for a nice fat profit!! trebles all round!!
of course as any fool knows, what goes up must come down :o
so by all means blame Clinton - hell, blame Brown too (he spent time in the states after all ;D) but lets not absolve the greed, short sightedness and stupidity of the banks :y
although to be fair, asking bankers not to be greedy is like putting a steak in front of a dog and asking it to only eat what it needs ;D
Any fool knows what goes up must come down ??? Do you remember " I have abolished boom and bust"?.....I rest my case. ;)
-
good point Albs - maybe we'll learn the next time :y
-
Hopefully "we" as a country have finally learned the lesson we needed to learn BJ...
Never
Trust
a
socialist .........especially with money which isnt theirs. :y :y
-
Hopefully "we" as a country have finally learned the lesson we needed to learn BJ...
Never
Trust
a
socialist .........especially with money which isnt theirs. :y :y
have we ever had a socialist government? that new labour lot looked, sounded and behaved suspiciously like thatcherites :y
-
Hopefully "we" as a country have finally learned the lesson we needed to learn BJ...
Never
Trust
a
socialist .........especially with money which isnt theirs. :y :y
have we ever had a socialist government? that new labour lot looked, sounded and behaved suspiciously like thatcherites :y
We certainly have in the past and is was not a pretty sight, no more than New Labour.
It is not Socialism that is the real problem though, or perhaps any political ideologies, but with them all the individual greed for money, power, and corruption that results in what is pure at the outset being totally devalued in the eyes of the common man.
Get rid of mankind and you will solve the problem.
-
Hopefully "we" as a country have finally learned the lesson we needed to learn BJ...
Never
Trust
a
socialist .........especially with money which isnt theirs. :y :y
have we ever had a socialist government? that new labour lot looked, sounded and behaved suspiciously like thatcherites :y
We certainly have in the past and is was not a pretty sight, no more than New Labour.
It is not Socialism that is the real problem though, or perhaps any political ideologies, but with them all the individual greed for money, power, and corruption that results in what is pure at the outset being totally devalued in the eyes of the common man.
Get rid of mankind and you will solve the problem.
Well we can't go back now to the times when people earnt a decent living rather than a fast buck from privatisations or betting on the future price of pork bellies etc or even more sophisticated tools like sub prime etc. I do remember that era was ushered in during Thatchers reign. She wasn't a socialist.
I had a friend, in those days,who was a building society manager who gambled the branch float on privatisations and made an absolute fortune (enough to buy a hous by cash in London.
-
Hopefully "we" as a country have finally learned the lesson we needed to learn BJ...
Never
Trust
a
socialist .........especially with money which isnt theirs. :y :y
have we ever had a socialist government? that new labour lot looked, sounded and behaved suspiciously like thatcherites :y
We certainly have in the past and is was not a pretty sight, no more than New Labour.
It is not Socialism that is the real problem though, or perhaps any political ideologies, but with them all the individual greed for money, power, and corruption that results in what is pure at the outset being totally devalued in the eyes of the common man.
Get rid of mankind and you will solve the problem.
Lizzie reveals herself as a eugenisist. :o :o :o
-
Hopefully "we" as a country have finally learned the lesson we needed to learn BJ...
Never
Trust
a
socialist .........especially with money which isnt theirs. :y :y
have we ever had a socialist government? that new labour lot looked, sounded and behaved suspiciously like thatcherites :y
We certainly have in the past and is was not a pretty sight, no more than New Labour.
It is not Socialism that is the real problem though, or perhaps any political ideologies, but with them all the individual greed for money, power, and corruption that results in what is pure at the outset being totally devalued in the eyes of the common man.
Get rid of mankind and you will solve the problem.
Lizzie reveals herself as a eugenicisist. :o :o :o
Don't know if I am that Nick , but I certainly am a fully fledged Hobbesian without shame! :D ;) ;)