Tory Conference OR "We are so going to screw you next year!"

Torys = Look, the countrys bankrupt, we need to arrange an IVA


Labour = Honest! Everythings wonderful and some nice loan shark will always lend us more money
 
FORMER_FYRDMAN said:
Bazzinho1977 said:
There is a fairly simple choice. Two ways out of the current predicament.

1) Public spending. Increased public borrowing. Limits the impact on aggregate demand, stops unemployment ballooning, human misery. At the same time tighter controls over the banking sector and other key markets. If anybody wants to tell me that markets are always self-righting they have been living in a cave for the last 3 years. Of course we then have to pay off the debt later, but is national debt really a bad thing? - Yes, but at what point? What levels of national debt can we live with? Quite high actually. Nobody wants to see us go under for fear of ruining the City of London - which would really screw the world eceonomy. Hopefully the recovery strengthens the state owned banks and we see a return that we can use to pay off our national debt. But this is a 5-10 year plan, and no mistakes.

2) Spending cuts, rein in public borrowing. This will destroy the fragile recovery we are on now. Don't doubt it for a second. Unemployment will go through the roof, with an attendant increase in benefits costs (ever wonder why the benefits bill was higher under Maggie than ever before?). But, if the banks we own survive we will have a couple of assets and low debt so can then possibly spend some of the money trying to rebuild our society. Oh, and if they do survive, they will be sold to the very cnuts who helped get us into this mess because Brown and Bliar didn't bother regulating them properly - the banks.


Viscerally, I would go for avoiding the debt and screwing everybody else over because I have a fear of debt. But in reality, I would probably go for public spending out of the recession.

The problem I have is that none of the parties are now suggesting option 1 because the tories / monetarists have the ascendancy. So I get three choices of option 2 - all saying the same thing but in slightly different accents. Oh deep fcuking joy.
Baz,

There is a reason why those countries which adhere to your preferred economic model make up the economic basket cases of the global village.

Unless you are talking about large scale infrastructure investment serviced by the private sector, you will simply create a money pit.

Further, if you let your debt get out of control, your credit rating is reduced, making that debt significantly more expensive to service.

The idea that the Public Sector can drive an economy was enthusiastically championed by John Prescott which tells you how smart it is. If a bloated Public Sector and printing money could drive an economy, Zimbabwe would be in the G8.

The Private Sector is the only way out of this and that means reducing business taxes and rates. That's what pays for the Public Sector so the Public Sector is going to get cut. Don't believe that there's an alternative, softer option, because there isn't. Global finance doesn't work that way and it's probably only the prospect of a change in government next year that's stayed action against us so far.
Oh mate, really?

Our credit rating in the recent history of this country? AAA
Our credit rating now when we are completely broken and borrowing £272m a day (and rising)? AAA

Guess what happened when debt hit £8.5 bn? The times said that we would lose our credit rating. Didn't happen

Guess what happened when debt hit £11bn in a month? The Mail said that we would lose our credit rating. Didn't happen

Guess what happened when debt hit £16.1 bn in a month? - Yes, you get the idea - right wing newspapers said we were going to lose our credit rating. Guess what? Didn't happen.

In fact, S&P and Moodys have both said that we will keep our credit rating. Perhaps there is more to fundamentals that simply level of debt. Ratings agency care about whether you will be able to long term pay off the debt.

Now, there HAS to be limits to this - and that is fairly obvious. But immediate swinging cuts without a soft landing as the private sector starts to pick up WILL lead to a deeper and longer recession. For example early 1980s, early 1990s. The historical evidence is there mate. But based on this country and our eceonomy and our fundamentals. We are a very different country to Zimbabwe, so don't try the analogy crap with me when we both know it is like comparing wheelchairs with dinosaurs.

Really - you need to stop smoking the bonepipe of the tory paper economists and look at historical evidence - before you choke on their one sided manshot.
 
Bazzinho1977 said:
There is a fairly simple choice. Two ways out of the current predicament.

1) Public spending. Increased public borrowing. Limits the impact on aggregate demand, stops unemployment ballooning, human misery. At the same time tighter controls over the banking sector and other key markets. If anybody wants to tell me that markets are always self-righting they have been living in a cave for the last 3 years. Of course we then have to pay off the debt later, but is national debt really a bad thing? - Yes, but at what point? What levels of national debt can we live with? Quite high actually. Nobody wants to see us go under for fear of ruining the City of London - which would really screw the world eceonomy. Hopefully the recovery strengthens the state owned banks and we see a return that we can use to pay off our national debt. But this is a 5-10 year plan, and no mistakes.

2) Spending cuts, rein in public borrowing. This will destroy the fragile recovery we are on now. Don't doubt it for a second. Unemployment will go through the roof, with an attendant increase in benefits costs (ever wonder why the benefits bill was higher under Maggie than ever before?). But, if the banks we own survive we will have a couple of assets and low debt so can then possibly spend some of the money trying to rebuild our society. Oh, and if they do survive, they will be sold to the very cnuts who helped get us into this mess because Brown and Bliar didn't bother regulating them properly - the banks.


Viscerally, I would go for avoiding the debt and screwing everybody else over because I have a fear of debt. But in reality, I would probably go for public spending out of the recession.

The problem I have is that none of the parties are now suggesting option 1 because the tories / monetarists have the ascendancy. So I get three choices of option 2 - all saying the same thing but in slightly different accents. Oh deep fcuking joy.
You forgot the Conservative's usual choice:

3. Cut public sending and sell anything that isn't nailed down under the cover of trying to cut the budget deficit and national debt, all while borrowing more and more money in order to fund unsustainably low tax rates for a chosen few and (as you have already pointed out) mass unemployment. Then when you get thrown out of power, mount a comeback on the argument that only you can save the nation from the people who attempted, however forlornly, to try and sort out the mess you left. Garnish with a clever slogan that sticks in peoples heads, something like 'Broken Britain' (never stopping to think who broke it) and voila, it starts all over again.
 
parapauk said:
Bazzinho1977 said:
There is a fairly simple choice. Two ways out of the current predicament.

1) Public spending. Increased public borrowing. Limits the impact on aggregate demand, stops unemployment ballooning, human misery. At the same time tighter controls over the banking sector and other key markets. If anybody wants to tell me that markets are always self-righting they have been living in a cave for the last 3 years. Of course we then have to pay off the debt later, but is national debt really a bad thing? - Yes, but at what point? What levels of national debt can we live with? Quite high actually. Nobody wants to see us go under for fear of ruining the City of London - which would really screw the world eceonomy. Hopefully the recovery strengthens the state owned banks and we see a return that we can use to pay off our national debt. But this is a 5-10 year plan, and no mistakes.

2) Spending cuts, rein in public borrowing. This will destroy the fragile recovery we are on now. Don't doubt it for a second. Unemployment will go through the roof, with an attendant increase in benefits costs (ever wonder why the benefits bill was higher under Maggie than ever before?). But, if the banks we own survive we will have a couple of assets and low debt so can then possibly spend some of the money trying to rebuild our society. Oh, and if they do survive, they will be sold to the very cnuts who helped get us into this mess because Brown and Bliar didn't bother regulating them properly - the banks.


Viscerally, I would go for avoiding the debt and screwing everybody else over because I have a fear of debt. But in reality, I would probably go for public spending out of the recession.

The problem I have is that none of the parties are now suggesting option 1 because the tories / monetarists have the ascendancy. So I get three choices of option 2 - all saying the same thing but in slightly different accents. Oh deep fcuking joy.
You forgot the Conservative's usual choice:

3. Cut public sending and sell anything that isn't nailed down under the cover of trying to cut the budget deficit and national debt, all while borrowing more and more money in order to fund unsustainably low tax rates for a chosen few and (as you have already pointed out) mass unemployment. Then when you get thrown out of power, mount a comeback on the argument that only you can save the nation from the people who attempted, however forlornly, to try and sort out the mess you left. Garnish with a clever slogan that sticks in peoples heads, something like 'Broken Britain' (never stopping to think who broke it) and voila, it starts all over again.

Never fear! New Liebours apologist in Chief is here! :roll:




You mean like Gordon fully intendeds to do?
 
Oil_Slick said:
parapauk said:
Bazzinho1977 said:
There is a fairly simple choice. Two ways out of the current predicament.

1) Public spending. Increased public borrowing. Limits the impact on aggregate demand, stops unemployment ballooning, human misery. At the same time tighter controls over the banking sector and other key markets. If anybody wants to tell me that markets are always self-righting they have been living in a cave for the last 3 years. Of course we then have to pay off the debt later, but is national debt really a bad thing? - Yes, but at what point? What levels of national debt can we live with? Quite high actually. Nobody wants to see us go under for fear of ruining the City of London - which would really screw the world eceonomy. Hopefully the recovery strengthens the state owned banks and we see a return that we can use to pay off our national debt. But this is a 5-10 year plan, and no mistakes.

2) Spending cuts, rein in public borrowing. This will destroy the fragile recovery we are on now. Don't doubt it for a second. Unemployment will go through the roof, with an attendant increase in benefits costs (ever wonder why the benefits bill was higher under Maggie than ever before?). But, if the banks we own survive we will have a couple of assets and low debt so can then possibly spend some of the money trying to rebuild our society. Oh, and if they do survive, they will be sold to the very cnuts who helped get us into this mess because Brown and Bliar didn't bother regulating them properly - the banks.


Viscerally, I would go for avoiding the debt and screwing everybody else over because I have a fear of debt. But in reality, I would probably go for public spending out of the recession.

The problem I have is that none of the parties are now suggesting option 1 because the tories / monetarists have the ascendancy. So I get three choices of option 2 - all saying the same thing but in slightly different accents. Oh deep fcuking joy.
You forgot the Conservative's usual choice:

3. Cut public sending and sell anything that isn't nailed down under the cover of trying to cut the budget deficit and national debt, all while borrowing more and more money in order to fund unsustainably low tax rates for a chosen few and (as you have already pointed out) mass unemployment. Then when you get thrown out of power, mount a comeback on the argument that only you can save the nation from the people who attempted, however forlornly, to try and sort out the mess you left. Garnish with a clever slogan that sticks in peoples heads, something like 'Broken Britain' (never stopping to think who broke it) and voila, it starts all over again.

Never fear! New Liebours apologist in Chief is here! :roll:




You mean like Gordon fully intendeds to do?
They wont be selling the Gold reserves, now that gold is at an all time high because it was already sold off when it was at an all time low by our economic miracle worker.
 
Oil_Slick said:
[


Never fear! New Liebours apologist in Chief is here! :roll:

You mean like Gordon fully intendeds to do?
I like the way you stopped the bold at the point at which the reason why the money was being borrowed and things sold - never mind though, details were never your strong point.
 
parapauk said:
You forgot the Conservative's usual choice:

3. Cut public sending and sell anything that isn't nailed down under the cover of trying to cut the budget deficit and national debt, all while borrowing more and more money in order to fund unsustainably low tax rates for a chosen few and (as you have already pointed out) mass unemployment. Then when you get thrown out of power, mount a comeback on the argument that only you can save the nation from the people who attempted, however forlornly, to try and sort out the mess you left. Garnish with a clever slogan that sticks in peoples heads, something like 'Broken Britain' (never stopping to think who broke it) and voila, it starts all over again.
Mate - I am not party political. All of the parties are going to do that until time immemorial simply because we let them get away with it.

Mao Tse Tsung said "Keep them hungry, keep them stupid and give them someone to blame". Basically that is what the tories and labour have been doing for years now. The very people we need to sort this mess out properly (i.e. the people who can think the way out of this) are so busy fighting this phony war between the two parties that we will remain on this cycle.

Maybe start addressing the issues rather than just being angry at the "other lot" might get us somewhere.

Just a thought.
 
parapauk said:
Oil_Slick said:
[


Never fear! New Liebours apologist in Chief is here! :roll:

You mean like Gordon fully intendeds to do?
I like the way you stopped the bold at the point at which the reason why the money was being borrowed and things sold - never mind though, details were never your strong point.
Who introduced the last Income Tax cut to its present unsustainable, low level?
 
Bazzinho1977 said:
parapauk said:
You forgot the Conservative's usual choice:

3. Cut public sending and sell anything that isn't nailed down under the cover of trying to cut the budget deficit and national debt, all while borrowing more and more money in order to fund unsustainably low tax rates for a chosen few and (as you have already pointed out) mass unemployment. Then when you get thrown out of power, mount a comeback on the argument that only you can save the nation from the people who attempted, however forlornly, to try and sort out the mess you left. Garnish with a clever slogan that sticks in peoples heads, something like 'Broken Britain' (never stopping to think who broke it) and voila, it starts all over again.
Mate - I am not party political. All of the parties are going to do that until time immemorial simply because we let them get away with it.

Mao Tse Tsung said "Keep them hungry, keep them stupid and give them someone to blame". Basically that is what the tories and labour have been doing for years now. The very people we need to sort this mess out properly (i.e. the people who can think the way out of this) are so busy fighting this phony war between the two parties that we will remain on this cycle.

Maybe start addressing the issues rather than just being angry at the "other lot" might get us somewhere.

Just a thought.
It's not a case of 'being angry' - it's an economically flawed pattern of behaviour that you yourself have, party politics or not, pointed out on this very page.
 
Bazzinho1977 said:
Mate - I am not party political. All of the parties are going to do that until time immemorial simply because we let them get away with it.

Mao Tse Tsung said "Keep them hungry, keep them stupid and give them someone to blame". Basically that is what the tories and labour have been doing for years now. The very people we need to sort this mess out properly (i.e. the people who can think the way out of this) are so busy fighting this phony war between the two parties that we will remain on this cycle.

Maybe start addressing the issues rather than just being angry at the "other lot" might get us somewhere.

Just a thought.
Never a truer word which is why we need a Government formed by a narrow majority that needs co-operation to get its policies through. I've never been a great fan of adversarial politics as I have never understood why a certain policy automatically becomes bad because the other side thought of it, far better to work together to develop good ideas. That having been said both sides need clear policies set out so that the electorate can make a choice as to whom they elect.
 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
I thought Osborne speech was great, but:

Pay freeze for public sector workers earning over £18,000 a year.

Last year's second home allowance expenses claim by heir to the Osborne & Little fortune George Osborne: £22,994

"We're all in this together"!


From Glen Oglaza.... :D
 
parapauk said:
Oil_Slick said:
[


Never fear! New Liebours apologist in Chief is here! :roll:

You mean like Gordon fully intendeds to do?
I like the way you stopped the bold at the point at which the reason why the money was being borrowed and things sold - never mind though, details were never your strong point.

Tell us paperpuke, why is New Liebour so beloved of the very rich and the glitterati, could it be that Liebour has done very well bey them over the ;ast 12 years?
 
Markintime said:
parapauk said:
Oil_Slick said:
[


Never fear! New Liebours apologist in Chief is here! :roll:

You mean like Gordon fully intendeds to do?
I like the way you stopped the bold at the point at which the reason why the money was being borrowed and things sold - never mind though, details were never your strong point.
Who introduced the last Income Tax cut to its present unsustainable, low level?
Thankfully they saw sense what the chips were down and have now put it back up again. The deeper problem though was the decision to rebalance the UK tax system away from income and towards consumption in the early 1980s, and so creating a ridiculously unstable tax base that means in times of crisis stupid amounts of money have to be borrowed which, in turn, got us into our current hole.
 
Markintime said:
They wont be selling the Gold reserves, now that gold is at an all time high because it was already sold off when it was at an all time low by our economic miracle worker.

True, but's widely rumoured that Liebour has earmarked £95 Billion worth of public assets to be sold off in the sale of the century to try and stave off bankrupty.

Going by Gordos sucess in flogging off the gold I think he'll probably only get £30 Billion for the lot
 
Markintime said:
Oil_Slick said:
parapauk said:
Bazzinho1977 said:
There is a fairly simple choice. Two ways out of the current predicament.

1) Public spending. Increased public borrowing. Limits the impact on aggregate demand, stops unemployment ballooning, human misery. At the same time tighter controls over the banking sector and other key markets. If anybody wants to tell me that markets are always self-righting they have been living in a cave for the last 3 years. Of course we then have to pay off the debt later, but is national debt really a bad thing? - Yes, but at what point? What levels of national debt can we live with? Quite high actually. Nobody wants to see us go under for fear of ruining the City of London - which would really screw the world eceonomy. Hopefully the recovery strengthens the state owned banks and we see a return that we can use to pay off our national debt. But this is a 5-10 year plan, and no mistakes.

2) Spending cuts, rein in public borrowing. This will destroy the fragile recovery we are on now. Don't doubt it for a second. Unemployment will go through the roof, with an attendant increase in benefits costs (ever wonder why the benefits bill was higher under Maggie than ever before?). But, if the banks we own survive we will have a couple of assets and low debt so can then possibly spend some of the money trying to rebuild our society. Oh, and if they do survive, they will be sold to the very cnuts who helped get us into this mess because Brown and Bliar didn't bother regulating them properly - the banks.


Viscerally, I would go for avoiding the debt and screwing everybody else over because I have a fear of debt. But in reality, I would probably go for public spending out of the recession.

The problem I have is that none of the parties are now suggesting option 1 because the tories / monetarists have the ascendancy. So I get three choices of option 2 - all saying the same thing but in slightly different accents. Oh deep fcuking joy.
You forgot the Conservative's usual choice:

3. Cut public sending and sell anything that isn't nailed down under the cover of trying to cut the budget deficit and national debt, all while borrowing more and more money in order to fund unsustainably low tax rates for a chosen few and (as you have already pointed out) mass unemployment. Then when you get thrown out of power, mount a comeback on the argument that only you can save the nation from the people who attempted, however forlornly, to try and sort out the mess you left. Garnish with a clever slogan that sticks in peoples heads, something like 'Broken Britain' (never stopping to think who broke it) and voila, it starts all over again.

Never fear! New Liebours apologist in Chief is here! :roll:




You mean like Gordon fully intendeds to do?
They wont be selling the Gold reserves, now that gold is at an all time high because it was already sold off when it was at an all time low by our economic miracle worker.
 
Oil_Slick said:
parapauk said:
Oil_Slick said:
[


Never fear! New Liebours apologist in Chief is here! :roll:

You mean like Gordon fully intendeds to do?
I like the way you stopped the bold at the point at which the reason why the money was being borrowed and things sold - never mind though, details were never your strong point.

Tell us paperpuke, why is New Liebour so beloved of the very rich and the glitterati, could it be that Liebour has done very well bey them over the ;ast 12 years?
Indeed, far too well.
 
parapauk said:
Oil_Slick said:
parapauk said:
Oil_Slick said:
[


Never fear! New Liebours apologist in Chief is here! :roll:

You mean like Gordon fully intendeds to do?
I like the way you stopped the bold at the point at which the reason why the money was being borrowed and things sold - never mind though, details were never your strong point.

Tell us paperpuke, why is New Liebour so beloved of the very rich and the glitterati, could it be that Liebour has done very well bey them over the ;ast 12 years?
Indeed, far too well.

SO you support a party that by your own admission has been very helpful financially to the very wealthy ?


At last, you admit they are nothing but a bunch of Champagne Socialists.
 

mac1

LE
Markintime said:
I've never been a great fan of adversarial politics as I have never understood why a certain policy automatically becomes bad because the other side thought of it, far better to work together to develop good ideas
hmmmnn...good point - isn't it kind of like that in Europe with all these coalition parties like in the German election recently?

Then again, the political history of this country - the masses didn't get representation without a fight, so looking at it that way it's bound to be adversarial.
 
Oil_Slick said:
parapauk said:
Oil_Slick said:
parapauk said:
Oil_Slick said:
[


Never fear! New Liebours apologist in Chief is here! :roll:

You mean like Gordon fully intendeds to do?
I like the way you stopped the bold at the point at which the reason why the money was being borrowed and things sold - never mind though, details were never your strong point.

Tell us paperpuke, why is New Liebour so beloved of the very rich and the glitterati, could it be that Liebour has done very well bey them over the ;ast 12 years?
Indeed, far too well.

SO you support a party that by your own admission has been very helpful financially to the very wealthy ?


At last, you admit they are nothing but a bunch of Champagne Socialists.
Big jump there. The problem is that it is very easy to give the rich money in the form of tax cut, but very hard to take it away from them again. Some work has been done around the edges, but not enough. Regarding champagne socialism, I'm afraid the true measure of one is a rich person who supports XYZ social cause in public, then in private pays an accountant to avoid paying rax and stash's their money off-shore. Someone who is rich and believes in the social good and pays their dues without such hypocrisy is not a champagne socialist.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top