Quite an interesting perspective from the point of view of the city / banks.
I run the account for a major high street bank at our agency, and their advertising / marketing budgets have been put on hold until after the election. Same thing happens every 5 years, but the caution is far more pronounced this time around.
In short - senior figures there (along with their colleagues from across the industry) are utterly terrified at the thought of Labour winning power. In short - they are predicting the economy to crash if they get in to number 10, especially with the prospect of it being done with the SNP in tow.
It's quite prudent for a bank to reel in its advertising during and election campaign regardless of who is standing and who is likely to win. The reason isn't that "they are terrified" of this result, that result or anything else, it's because advertising and promotions are only one part of the marketing mix. A key part of that mix is the product offering. Product offerings for banks are not as stable as for for many other businesses. If you are selling cars, beer, shampoo etc. you generally get a quite a long run in on any market changes and so there is less likelihood that your product offering would need to change at short notice. That isn't quite the same in banking as changes in the political arena (not necessarily bad changes, but neutral and even good ones - in fact especially good ones) could lead, directly or indirectly, to changes in your product offering. Rather than waste your money advertising one product now, and then have to pay out again to re-advertise a re-vamped product, it makes far more sense to ride out the couple of months of the campaign, keep your powder dry and then do your promotions when you've a better understanding of what landscape is.
Maybe it's nothing to do with being terrified of Labour getting in.
I just jumped on a senior figure saying to me "We are terrified of Labour getting in" and assumed
agree with this .. still gonna vote to give Ed a go though .. he may look like a nerd but I suspect that he's a nasty little piece of work who can and will get things done by hook or by crook .. Cameron seems to have run out of both ideas and enthusiasm
Does accusing your opponent of being directly responsible for murdering thousands of refugees count as negative campaigning?
This is what Miliband said.
“In Libya Labour supported military action to avoid the slaughter Gaddafi threatened in Benghazi. But since the action, the failure of post-conflict planning has become obvious. David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya’s political culture and institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own.
“What we have seen in Libya is that when tensions over power and resource began to emerge, they simply reinforced deep-seated ideological and ethnic fault lines in the country, meaning the hopes of the revolutionary uprisings quickly began to unravel. The tragedy is that this could have been anticipated. It should have been avoided. And Britain could have played its part in ensuring the international community stood by the people of Libya in practice rather than standing behind the unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle.”
So he is having a dig at foreign policy, rightly in this case. This is a manufactured argument.
Change the names and the countries and it could equally apply to Iraq and Afghanistan where we also didn't think about what would happen next.
Carefully chose words, so carefully chosen they make no sense at all.
Cameron and the International community should have "stood by the people" and not stood behind the "unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle" - Translation please if it is not meaningless waffle.
The implication is that Cameron and the international community should have anticipated the rise in ISIS and the growth of refugees across Africa and the Middle East and foreseen that Libya would provide the means of trafficking people in leaky boats across the Mediterranean and this should have shaped international actions in Libya.
How does this speech help solve the problem Ed? I assume it was to help the refugees Ed because you have denied your words were for political point scoring.
Ed is probably seething that he could't say Cameron caused the mess by going into Libya because his own party supported it, so he has produced this contrived nonsense..
And people like Labour because Labour say things people like to hear.
The United Kingdom has huge wealth. The concept of anyone in 2015, working or otherwise, having to rely on food banks donated by the private sector/individuals to feed their families is a total and utter disgrace. A typical grade 6 Nurse would earn about £25k - is that how much we value nurses? That's just an example - we really need to look closely at the value of work.
Maybe we need another Poor Law - after all the last one was a long time ago in 1834. To quote the inimitable Alistair Sim playing Scrooge - 'are there no prisons, are there no workhouses'.
Band 6
Point 21 26,041 Point 22 27,090 Point 23 28,180 Point 24 29,043 Point 25 30,057 Point 26 31,072 Point 27 32,086 Point 28 33,227 Point 29 34,876
And these figures are before unsocial/weekend/night shift enhancements and any London or other 'big city' weighting .. in reality, your 'average Band 6 Nurse' with several years in grade, working a few shifts would be on around £32 to 35 grand plus London weighting, if applicable
So going by the income percentiles on www.gov.uk, that means they earn more than c70-75% of the population. So yes they should be valued, and the pay is not that dire.
It is when you see that tube drivers earn more than c80% of the population that you realise things can go at bit wonky.
tube/train drivers are in charge of potentially lethal vehicles that carry hundreds, perhaps thousands of people on a regular basis .. anyway, rule one in life is that one doesn't get paid what one 'is worth', one is paid the best that one can negotiate .. I have met no-one who when offered big bucks said: 'I cannot accept this, I am not worthy'
I suppose when you can hold a whole city to ransom it makes it easier to negotiate ones position.
exactly .. for good or bad, the way it is .. legislation should be enacted to prevent this blackmail .. has the position improved since Bob Crow's demise ?
Well we haven't had a strike for a while so that's progress. Expect one pretty pronto if the Tories stay in government.
Let's see if things change if Labour get in power - awaiting to see how they deal with the unions in comparison to the Tories.
The good thing nowadays is that Unions are few and quite strong, rather like in Germany, one union for one workplace/industry .. The days when the 'Grease Squirters Mates Union' would go on strike at a major factory meaning that all the other union members were out of work until the problem was resolved are over, the silly little 'Trades Guilds' are gone .. I have worked with UNISON in the NHS .. generally they have good ideas, are well briefed and co-operative so long as the employers don't take the piss too much. It's all (as the Moody Blues had it) a question of balance and compromise However, the situation when someone like Communist Bob Crow and his chaps and lasses can bring a city to a halt at a few days notice needs sorting. Labour, especially as Miliband is a creature of the unions, is in a far better position to influence and agree with the unions than any other party
Does accusing your opponent of being directly responsible for murdering thousands of refugees count as negative campaigning?
This is what Miliband said.
“In Libya Labour supported military action to avoid the slaughter Gaddafi threatened in Benghazi. But since the action, the failure of post-conflict planning has become obvious. David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya’s political culture and institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own.
“What we have seen in Libya is that when tensions over power and resource began to emerge, they simply reinforced deep-seated ideological and ethnic fault lines in the country, meaning the hopes of the revolutionary uprisings quickly began to unravel. The tragedy is that this could have been anticipated. It should have been avoided. And Britain could have played its part in ensuring the international community stood by the people of Libya in practice rather than standing behind the unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle.”
So he is having a dig at foreign policy, rightly in this case. This is a manufactured argument.
Change the names and the countries and it could equally apply to Iraq and Afghanistan where we also didn't think about what would happen next.
Carefully chose words, so carefully chosen they make no sense at all.
Cameron and the International community should have "stood by the people" and not stood behind the "unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle" - Translation please if it is not meaningless waffle.
The implication is that Cameron and the international community should have anticipated the rise in ISIS and the growth of refugees across Africa and the Middle East and foreseen that Libya would provide the means of trafficking people in leaky boats across the Mediterranean and this should have shaped international actions in Libya.
How does this speech help solve the problem Ed? I assume it was to help the refugees Ed because you have denied your words were for political point scoring.
Ed is probably seething that he could't say Cameron caused the mess by going into Libya because his own party supported it, so he has produced this contrived nonsense..
And people like Labour because Labour say things people like to hear.
Two weeks before an election. Everything is political point scoring!
What he said may have been wishy washy but he didn't say "Cameron you are directly responsible for murdering thousands of refugees", which was of course the original accusation.
I started off quite hawkish with regards to foreign intervention but have been proved utterly wrong on many counts.
There's also shy Tory syndrome - a proven phenomenon that anywhere up to 3% of respondents to a poll say they're undecided but intend to and will vote Tory on the day.
You do realise that, by definition, that "phenomenon" cannot be "proven", right?
Actually it can be proven in a statistically meaningful way but since you most likely have not even a basic grasp of statistic mathematics I won't waste time explaining it to you. Since I actually have a degree-level understanding of statistic analysis and calculation, I know it isn't impossible to prove this.
If I could be bothered, I would ask you to explain how it already *had* been proven, as per your initial comment ("a proven phenomenon").
And if you had, I would have politely explained it to you. But you didn't. In fact, you were going to ask but you then decided to override your common sense and post a snarky comment based on your personal feelings towards me.
You continuously expose yourself as a rude, petulant, ignorant troll who contributes little to the thread in the form of polite debate and instead you attack the character of those whose political beliefs differ from yours.It says volumes that the same people who liked your post are the same people who are also prone to posting petulant, fact-free rants when their prejudices are questioned.
I also see little point ever presenting you with citations whenever you demand them, since the last time I fulfilled your request, you threw a tantrum that the citations weren't valid. The thing is that is all you do, whenever someone posts something that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you cry 'that's untrue' or 'you can't back that up'. You even slandered a fellow poster of being a rape apologist then weaseled your way out of giving him a proper apology. My recommendation to everyone on this thread is if Chizz decides to question the truth of anything you post, ignore him, since he will clearly never accept what you say as the truth even when presented with comprehensive proof.
Oh the irony... I liked a few of Chizz's posts.... You checked who likes his posts....wow.... What a self obsessed bore you really are.....
And just space to squeeze in one basic economics point about the deficit: As long as we have growth and a small amount of inflation, then the government can run a deficit because a sound UK economy will always create a market for lenders to buy government debt. Talking down the UK economy is not what a Prime Minister should be doing! Unless the overall debt: GDP ratio goes sailing above 100% or the underlying deficit climbs way above 3% per annum, (and stays there) then there is no crisis. Basically as old debt matures it can be replaced with new debt... Forever! The idea that a deficit is "bad" and that the overall debt must be paid down is simply a neocon myth used to campaign to reduce government spending, and reduce social expenditure designed to keep peeps out of the gutter. The fact that this is the message while simultaneously cutting corporation tax by 1/3 is disingenuous at best.
.
A good post from Seth SR but I would urge caution with this point of view. Financing debt relies on an imbalance between nations, those with a net surplus and those with a net deficit which tends to be developed nations borrowing from newly developing nations. There is only so much wealth being created in the World and the more developing nations develop, the less will be the imbalance between nations and the less capital will be available to be lent to nations who spend more than they earn.
It's no different for companies that suddenly have a burst of new business and need to invest to meet demand, but the Bank refuses to lend, they go bust and everyone says "but the company was doing so well...". Same with countries, you can over commit to spending and no matter how confident you are in growth and low inflation, that confidence may not be shared by those you are expecting to lend you the cash. A big danger is assuming tomorrow will look like today.
The illusion of the magic money tree is starting to be challenged, but when it suits, all the politicians talk as if it exists.
There will always be a national debt, it provides the liquidity for transferring wealth from one generation to the next. The size of the debt as a proportion of GDP is relatively stable for most nations but at different levels. Ours is in the low 30s and Germany is in the mid 60s. The implication being that the youth of Germany were happy to finance the spending by Germany to unite the old East and West, which is why it is so high.
Whether the national debt should be reduced is more important to the generations that follow than the current generation. Arguably the young generation should engage more in the decision, because we don't care as long as we get what we want now.
Engagement by the younger generation might mean less attraction for borrowing if they don't like the idea of their parents or the State spending, in advance, the wealth they will be creating. It might lead to education focussing on how to best prepare for working in the real world to create wealth and less about how good you are at passing exams.
So absolute debt, and increasing or reducing it, can be a distraction for older voters, but it shouldn't be a distraction for the youth of today if they want to be involved in what really affects their future.
I thank you sir for the clarity. In my lengthy contribution I was attempting to juxtapose debt with services for the next generation. If they are paying for their own higher education and the retirement age rises then why should they have to pay for those currently aged 40-60 too?
Either a major party will kop on to this ( and it won't be the blue one because of their demographic being older than the East stand!) or a new political force will emerge. Imagine UKYP (y for youth) but instead of blaming immigrants they will blame the over 65s. If the governments of the day across Europe ignore youth unemployment then a political force will be unleashed. And it might not be as democratic as the older generation like.
I've read several books about the crash and and every one (apart from one on mortgage derivatives) cites the future demographic as a major challenge - a friend of mine has put a date of 2030 on this and also suggested that the balance between the US and China might shift by then in terms of appetite for US government debt. He felt that as with all empires, US hegemony may come to an end... And the finale might not be pretty. A challenge for our children and our children's children! Enough of all that, have Rotherham kept all their points?!
There's also shy Tory syndrome - a proven phenomenon that anywhere up to 3% of respondents to a poll say they're undecided but intend to and will vote Tory on the day.
You do realise that, by definition, that "phenomenon" cannot be "proven", right?
Actually it can be proven in a statistically meaningful way but since you most likely have not even a basic grasp of statistic mathematics I won't waste time explaining it to you. Since I actually have a degree-level understanding of statistic analysis and calculation, I know it isn't impossible to prove this.
If I could be bothered, I would ask you to explain how it already *had* been proven, as per your initial comment ("a proven phenomenon").
And if you had, I would have politely explained it to you. But you didn't. In fact, you were going to ask but you then decided to override your common sense and post a snarky comment based on your personal feelings towards me.
You continuously expose yourself as a rude, petulant, ignorant troll who contributes little to the thread in the form of polite debate and instead you attack the character of those whose political beliefs differ from yours.It says volumes that the same people who liked your post are the same people who are also prone to posting petulant, fact-free rants when their prejudices are questioned.
I also see little point ever presenting you with citations whenever you demand them, since the last time I fulfilled your request, you threw a tantrum that the citations weren't valid. The thing is that is all you do, whenever someone posts something that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you cry 'that's untrue' or 'you can't back that up'. You even slandered a fellow poster of being a rape apologist then weaseled your way out of giving him a proper apology. My recommendation to everyone on this thread is if Chizz decides to question the truth of anything you post, ignore him, since he will clearly never accept what you say as the truth even when presented with comprehensive proof.
Oh the irony... I liked a few of Chizz's posts.... You checked who likes his posts....wow.... What a self obsessed bore you really are.....
Birds of a feather...
Also I don't think you understand what irony is, which really doesn't surprise me.
Did I just hear red ed impart blame on the deaths of those migrants to Cameron, and the action on gaddafi,
To use loss of life to gain votes is totally unacceptable, Ill advised and a true sign of his character
The simple fact is that last year the EU member state leaders declined to heed the call of the Italians that the Med needs policing AND life saving capability. The irony is that I found myself agreeing with the UKIP spokesman on question time on three fronts last night: 1) a military (neo colonial?) effort is needed in North Africa 2) people need to be rescued if they are drowning in the med 3) 146 Syrian refugees out of a total of 3 million is pathetic. we found out that Cameron declined to participate in the UN mission and set up his own!
We cannot live in isolation and the EU borders to the south and East need to be managed.
I'm also unsure about whether it is correct to leverage the death of so many but the gloves are off in the final run in. We can go all the way back to the zinoviev letter if you like but how this issue plays out and the election result is all that matters.
Quite an interesting perspective from the point of view of the city / banks.
I run the account for a major high street bank at our agency, and their advertising / marketing budgets have been put on hold until after the election. Same thing happens every 5 years, but the caution is far more pronounced this time around.
In short - senior figures there (along with their colleagues from across the industry) are utterly terrified at the thought of Labour winning power. In short - they are predicting the economy to crash if they get in to number 10, especially with the prospect of it being done with the SNP in tow.
I'm sure business is worried about the prospect of Labour over Conservatives, but I think businesses just get on with it and price in (as much as they can) potential uncertainty over hung parliaments/coalitions etc. Chizz mentioned just after that there could be equal uncertainty re: Tory referendum on the EU. I read a good article a while back about the paralysis of decision making around the referendum on Scotland. Everything just slowed down, decisions were put off. Had Scotland left the Union it wouldn't have been pretty around the potential impact on commerce/finance. Us leaving the EU could be just the same.
You're obviously at the coal face so I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, just that I think business plan for this
There's also shy Tory syndrome - a proven phenomenon that anywhere up to 3% of respondents to a poll say they're undecided but intend to and will vote Tory on the day.
You do realise that, by definition, that "phenomenon" cannot be "proven", right?
Actually it can be proven in a statistically meaningful way but since you most likely have not even a basic grasp of statistic mathematics I won't waste time explaining it to you. Since I actually have a degree-level understanding of statistic analysis and calculation, I know it isn't impossible to prove this.
If I could be bothered, I would ask you to explain how it already *had* been proven, as per your initial comment ("a proven phenomenon").
And if you had, I would have politely explained it to you. But you didn't. In fact, you were going to ask but you then decided to override your common sense and post a snarky comment based on your personal feelings towards me.
You continuously expose yourself as a rude, petulant, ignorant troll who contributes little to the thread in the form of polite debate and instead you attack the character of those whose political beliefs differ from yours.It says volumes that the same people who liked your post are the same people who are also prone to posting petulant, fact-free rants when their prejudices are questioned.
I also see little point ever presenting you with citations whenever you demand them, since the last time I fulfilled your request, you threw a tantrum that the citations weren't valid. The thing is that is all you do, whenever someone posts something that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you cry 'that's untrue' or 'you can't back that up'. You even slandered a fellow poster of being a rape apologist then weaseled your way out of giving him a proper apology. My recommendation to everyone on this thread is if Chizz decides to question the truth of anything you post, ignore him, since he will clearly never accept what you say as the truth even when presented with comprehensive proof.
Oh the irony... I liked a few of Chizz's posts.... You checked who likes his posts....wow.... What a self obsessed bore you really are.....
Birds of a feather...
Also I don't think you understand what irony is, which really doesn't surprise me.
It's no wonder people fail to warm to you with a reply like that.
There's also shy Tory syndrome - a proven phenomenon that anywhere up to 3% of respondents to a poll say they're undecided but intend to and will vote Tory on the day.
You do realise that, by definition, that "phenomenon" cannot be "proven", right?
Actually it can be proven in a statistically meaningful way but since you most likely have not even a basic grasp of statistic mathematics I won't waste time explaining it to you. Since I actually have a degree-level understanding of statistic analysis and calculation, I know it isn't impossible to prove this.
If I could be bothered, I would ask you to explain how it already *had* been proven, as per your initial comment ("a proven phenomenon").
And if you had, I would have politely explained it to you. But you didn't. In fact, you were going to ask but you then decided to override your common sense and post a snarky comment based on your personal feelings towards me.
You continuously expose yourself as a rude, petulant, ignorant troll who contributes little to the thread in the form of polite debate and instead you attack the character of those whose political beliefs differ from yours.It says volumes that the same people who liked your post are the same people who are also prone to posting petulant, fact-free rants when their prejudices are questioned.
I also see little point ever presenting you with citations whenever you demand them, since the last time I fulfilled your request, you threw a tantrum that the citations weren't valid. The thing is that is all you do, whenever someone posts something that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you cry 'that's untrue' or 'you can't back that up'. You even slandered a fellow poster of being a rape apologist then weaseled your way out of giving him a proper apology. My recommendation to everyone on this thread is if Chizz decides to question the truth of anything you post, ignore him, since he will clearly never accept what you say as the truth even when presented with comprehensive proof.
Oh the irony... I liked a few of Chizz's posts.... You checked who likes his posts....wow.... What a self obsessed bore you really are.....
Birds of a feather...
Also I don't think you understand what irony is, which really doesn't surprise me.
It's no wonder people fail to warm to you with a reply like that.
Only 6 or 7 people (including someone who has a weird obsession with my posts) who seem to get personally upset whenever someone posts anything critical of Labour, so to be perfectly honest I can live with that.
And just space to squeeze in one basic economics point about the deficit: As long as we have growth and a small amount of inflation, then the government can run a deficit because a sound UK economy will always create a market for lenders to buy government debt. Talking down the UK economy is not what a Prime Minister should be doing! Unless the overall debt: GDP ratio goes sailing above 100% or the underlying deficit climbs way above 3% per annum, (and stays there) then there is no crisis. Basically as old debt matures it can be replaced with new debt... Forever! The idea that a deficit is "bad" and that the overall debt must be paid down is simply a neocon myth used to campaign to reduce government spending, and reduce social expenditure designed to keep peeps out of the gutter. The fact that this is the message while simultaneously cutting corporation tax by 1/3 is disingenuous at best.
.
A good post from Seth SR but I would urge caution with this point of view. Financing debt relies on an imbalance between nations, those with a net surplus and those with a net deficit which tends to be developed nations borrowing from newly developing nations. There is only so much wealth being created in the World and the more developing nations develop, the less will be the imbalance between nations and the less capital will be available to be lent to nations who spend more than they earn.
It's no different for companies that suddenly have a burst of new business and need to invest to meet demand, but the Bank refuses to lend, they go bust and everyone says "but the company was doing so well...". Same with countries, you can over commit to spending and no matter how confident you are in growth and low inflation, that confidence may not be shared by those you are expecting to lend you the cash. A big danger is assuming tomorrow will look like today.
The illusion of the magic money tree is starting to be challenged, but when it suits, all the politicians talk as if it exists.
There will always be a national debt, it provides the liquidity for transferring wealth from one generation to the next. The size of the debt as a proportion of GDP is relatively stable for most nations but at different levels. Ours is in the low 30s and Germany is in the mid 60s. The implication being that the youth of Germany were happy to finance the spending by Germany to unite the old East and West, which is why it is so high.
Whether the national debt should be reduced is more important to the generations that follow than the current generation. Arguably the young generation should engage more in the decision, because we don't care as long as we get what we want now.
Engagement by the younger generation might mean less attraction for borrowing if they don't like the idea of their parents or the State spending, in advance, the wealth they will be creating. It might lead to education focussing on how to best prepare for working in the real world to create wealth and less about how good you are at passing exams.
So absolute debt, and increasing or reducing it, can be a distraction for older voters, but it shouldn't be a distraction for the youth of today if they want to be involved in what really affects their future.
I thank you sir for the clarity. In my lengthy contribution I was attempting to juxtapose debt with services for the next generation. If they are paying for their own higher education and the retirement age rises then why should they have to pay for those currently aged 40-60 too?
Either a major party will kop on to this ( and it won't be the blue one because of their demographic being older than the East stand!) or a new political force will emerge. Imagine UKYP (y for youth) but instead of blaming immigrants they will blame the over 65s. If the governments of the day across Europe ignore youth unemployment then a political force will be unleashed. And it might not be as democratic as the older generation like.
I think this stuff should go on a different thread, but it's something I'm very interested in. I think pensions will be a massive issue in about 15-20 years' time, in a similar way to benefits fraud is a big issue right now, and likely with similar language. The effects would be even stronger if the UK did decide to leave the EU and seal the border, and will grow the more that state pensions are protected (eg triple-lock).
Ironically, the generation likely to feel the brunt of this will be people who are in their 40s now. I say ironically, because this is the first generation in 200 years or so to have real incomes lower than their parents' generation.
The accumulation of debt (using future generations' incomes to pay for stuff now) may be linked in to the above, but I think pensions are much easier to understand as an issue.
There's also shy Tory syndrome - a proven phenomenon that anywhere up to 3% of respondents to a poll say they're undecided but intend to and will vote Tory on the day.
You do realise that, by definition, that "phenomenon" cannot be "proven", right?
Actually it can be proven in a statistically meaningful way but since you most likely have not even a basic grasp of statistic mathematics I won't waste time explaining it to you. Since I actually have a degree-level understanding of statistic analysis and calculation, I know it isn't impossible to prove this.
If I could be bothered, I would ask you to explain how it already *had* been proven, as per your initial comment ("a proven phenomenon").
And if you had, I would have politely explained it to you. But you didn't. In fact, you were going to ask but you then decided to override your common sense and post a snarky comment based on your personal feelings towards me.
You continuously expose yourself as a rude, petulant, ignorant troll who contributes little to the thread in the form of polite debate and instead you attack the character of those whose political beliefs differ from yours.It says volumes that the same people who liked your post are the same people who are also prone to posting petulant, fact-free rants when their prejudices are questioned.
I also see little point ever presenting you with citations whenever you demand them, since the last time I fulfilled your request, you threw a tantrum that the citations weren't valid. The thing is that is all you do, whenever someone posts something that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you cry 'that's untrue' or 'you can't back that up'. You even slandered a fellow poster of being a rape apologist then weaseled your way out of giving him a proper apology. My recommendation to everyone on this thread is if Chizz decides to question the truth of anything you post, ignore him, since he will clearly never accept what you say as the truth even when presented with comprehensive proof.
Oh the irony... I liked a few of Chizz's posts.... You checked who likes his posts....wow.... What a self obsessed bore you really are.....
Birds of a feather...
Also I don't think you understand what irony is, which really doesn't surprise me.
Another Keyboard warrior sitting around in his pants........put some clothes on and go outside, theres a whole world out there you might just find some friends.
There's also shy Tory syndrome - a proven phenomenon that anywhere up to 3% of respondents to a poll say they're undecided but intend to and will vote Tory on the day.
You do realise that, by definition, that "phenomenon" cannot be "proven", right?
Actually it can be proven in a statistically meaningful way but since you most likely have not even a basic grasp of statistic mathematics I won't waste time explaining it to you. Since I actually have a degree-level understanding of statistic analysis and calculation, I know it isn't impossible to prove this.
If I could be bothered, I would ask you to explain how it already *had* been proven, as per your initial comment ("a proven phenomenon").
And if you had, I would have politely explained it to you. But you didn't. In fact, you were going to ask but you then decided to override your common sense and post a snarky comment based on your personal feelings towards me.
You continuously expose yourself as a rude, petulant, ignorant troll who contributes little to the thread in the form of polite debate and instead you attack the character of those whose political beliefs differ from yours.It says volumes that the same people who liked your post are the same people who are also prone to posting petulant, fact-free rants when their prejudices are questioned.
I also see little point ever presenting you with citations whenever you demand them, since the last time I fulfilled your request, you threw a tantrum that the citations weren't valid. The thing is that is all you do, whenever someone posts something that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you cry 'that's untrue' or 'you can't back that up'. You even slandered a fellow poster of being a rape apologist then weaseled your way out of giving him a proper apology. My recommendation to everyone on this thread is if Chizz decides to question the truth of anything you post, ignore him, since he will clearly never accept what you say as the truth even when presented with comprehensive proof.
Oh the irony... I liked a few of Chizz's posts.... You checked who likes his posts....wow.... What a self obsessed bore you really are.....
Birds of a feather...
Also I don't think you understand what irony is, which really doesn't surprise me.
Another Keyboard warrior sitting around in his pants........put some clothes on and go outside, theres a whole world out there you might just find some friends.
And just space to squeeze in one basic economics point about the deficit: As long as we have growth and a small amount of inflation, then the government can run a deficit because a sound UK economy will always create a market for lenders to buy government debt. Talking down the UK economy is not what a Prime Minister should be doing! Unless the overall debt: GDP ratio goes sailing above 100% or the underlying deficit climbs way above 3% per annum, (and stays there) then there is no crisis. Basically as old debt matures it can be replaced with new debt... Forever! The idea that a deficit is "bad" and that the overall debt must be paid down is simply a neocon myth used to campaign to reduce government spending, and reduce social expenditure designed to keep peeps out of the gutter. The fact that this is the message while simultaneously cutting corporation tax by 1/3 is disingenuous at best.
.
A good post from Seth but I would urge caution with this point of view. Financing debt relies on an imbalance between nations, those with a net surplus and those with a net deficit which tends to be developed nations borrowing from newly developing nations. There is only so much wealth being created in the World and the more developing nations develop, the less will be the imbalance between nations and the less capital will be available to be lent to nations who spend more than they earn.
It's no different for companies that suddenly have a burst of new business and need to invest to meet demand, but the Bank refuses to lend, they go bust and everyone says "but the company was doing so well...". Same with countries, you can over commit to spending and no matter how confident you are in growth and low inflation, that confidence may not be shared by those you are expecting to lend you the cash. A big danger is assuming tomorrow will look like today.
The illusion of the magic money tree is starting to be challenged, but when it suits, all the politicians talk as if it exists.
There will always be a national debt, it provides the liquidity for transferring wealth from one generation to the next. The size of the debt as a proportion of GDP is relatively stable for most nations but at different levels. Ours is in the low 30s and Germany is in the mid 60s. The implication being that the youth of Germany were happy to finance the spending by Germany to unite the old East and West, which is why it is so high.
Whether the national debt should be reduced is more important to the generations that follow than the current generation. Arguably the young generation should engage more in the decision, because we don't care as long as we get what we want now.
Engagement by the younger generation might mean less attraction for borrowing if they don't like the idea of their parents or the State spending, in advance, the wealth they will be creating. It might lead to education focussing on how to best prepare for working in the real world to create wealth and less about how good you are at passing exams.
So absolute debt, and increasing or reducing it, can be a distraction for older voters, but it shouldn't be a distraction for the youth of today if they want to be involved in what really affects their future.
A good post indeed, but from seriouslyred not from me.
On a more general note, if a poster disagrees with another poster, it does not reveal who they support by using some kind of balancing equation. Someone like me is still undecided, and sadly I am likely to stack up what I don't like about each party, before moving on to anything that may indeed be likeable, and credible.
I suspect that more voters than ever are going to vote more idealistically than usual, and less voters are going to vote tactically. it probably wont effect the overall outcome, but a shift of perspective, more philosophical than practical is gradually happening in my view.
The day before the election, I reckon we should have a no holds barred, get it off your chest, political viewpoint thread. You can say what you want, stereotype to the max, offend to the hilt, and relieve that pent up tension. No flags allowed, and thread sunk post election day.
The day before the election, I reckon we should have a no holds barred, get it off your chest, political viewpoint thread. You can say what you want, stereotype to the max, offend to the hilt, and relieve that pent up tension. No flags allowed, and thread sunk post election day.
The day before the election, I reckon we should have a no holds barred, get it off your chest, political viewpoint thread. You can say what you want, stereotype to the max, offend to the hilt, and relieve that pent up tension. No flags allowed, and thread sunk post election day.
There's also shy Tory syndrome - a proven phenomenon that anywhere up to 3% of respondents to a poll say they're undecided but intend to and will vote Tory on the day.
You do realise that, by definition, that "phenomenon" cannot be "proven", right?
Actually it can be proven in a statistically meaningful way but since you most likely have not even a basic grasp of statistic mathematics I won't waste time explaining it to you. Since I actually have a degree-level understanding of statistic analysis and calculation, I know it isn't impossible to prove this.
If I could be bothered, I would ask you to explain how it already *had* been proven, as per your initial comment ("a proven phenomenon").
And if you had, I would have politely explained it to you. But you didn't. In fact, you were going to ask but you then decided to override your common sense and post a snarky comment based on your personal feelings towards me.
You continuously expose yourself as a rude, petulant, ignorant troll who contributes little to the thread in the form of polite debate and instead you attack the character of those whose political beliefs differ from yours.It says volumes that the same people who liked your post are the same people who are also prone to posting petulant, fact-free rants when their prejudices are questioned.
I also see little point ever presenting you with citations whenever you demand them, since the last time I fulfilled your request, you threw a tantrum that the citations weren't valid. The thing is that is all you do, whenever someone posts something that doesn't fit your warped view of the world, you cry 'that's untrue' or 'you can't back that up'. You even slandered a fellow poster of being a rape apologist then weaseled your way out of giving him a proper apology. My recommendation to everyone on this thread is if Chizz decides to question the truth of anything you post, ignore him, since he will clearly never accept what you say as the truth even when presented with comprehensive proof.
Oh the irony... I liked a few of Chizz's posts.... You checked who likes his posts....wow.... What a self obsessed bore you really are.....
Birds of a feather...
Also I don't think you understand what irony is, which really doesn't surprise me.
Comments
I just jumped on a senior figure saying to me "We are terrified of Labour getting in" and assumed
But Ed Balls as Chancellor. I'd forgotten about him a bit, as he has been so well hidden, during the last few months.
Cameron and the International community should have "stood by the people" and not stood behind the "unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle" - Translation please if it is not meaningless waffle.
The implication is that Cameron and the international community should have anticipated the rise in ISIS and the growth of refugees across Africa and the Middle East and foreseen that Libya would provide the means of trafficking people in leaky boats across the Mediterranean and this should have shaped international actions in Libya.
How does this speech help solve the problem Ed? I assume it was to help the refugees Ed because you have denied your words were for political point scoring.
Ed is probably seething that he could't say Cameron caused the mess by going into Libya because his own party supported it, so he has produced this contrived nonsense..
And people like Labour because Labour say things people like to hear.
However, the situation when someone like Communist Bob Crow and his chaps and lasses can bring a city to a halt at a few days notice needs sorting. Labour, especially as Miliband is a creature of the unions, is in a far better position to influence and agree with the unions than any other party
What he said may have been wishy washy but he didn't say "Cameron you are directly responsible for murdering thousands of refugees", which was of course the original accusation.
I started off quite hawkish with regards to foreign intervention but have been proved utterly wrong on many counts.
I liked a few of Chizz's posts....
You checked who likes his posts....wow....
What a self obsessed bore you really are.....
Either a major party will kop on to this ( and it won't be the blue one because of their demographic being older than the East stand!) or a new political force will emerge. Imagine UKYP (y for youth) but instead of blaming immigrants they will blame the over 65s. If the governments of the day across Europe ignore youth unemployment then a political force will be unleashed. And it might not be as democratic as the older generation like.
I've read several books about the crash and and every one (apart from one on mortgage derivatives) cites the future demographic as a major challenge - a friend of mine has put a date of 2030 on this and also suggested that the balance between the US and China might shift by then in terms of appetite for US government debt. He felt that as with all empires, US hegemony may come to an end... And the finale might not be pretty.
A challenge for our children and our children's children!
Enough of all that, have Rotherham kept all their points?!
Also I don't think you understand what irony is, which really doesn't surprise me.
1) a military (neo colonial?) effort is needed in North Africa
2) people need to be rescued if they are drowning in the med
3) 146 Syrian refugees out of a total of 3 million is pathetic. we found out that Cameron declined to participate in the UN mission and set up his own!
We cannot live in isolation and the EU borders to the south and East need to be managed.
I'm also unsure about whether it is correct to leverage the death of so many but the gloves are off in the final run in. We can go all the way back to the zinoviev letter if you like but how this issue plays out and the election result is all that matters.
You're obviously at the coal face so I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, just that I think business plan for this
It's no wonder people fail to warm to you with a reply like that.
Ironically, the generation likely to feel the brunt of this will be people who are in their 40s now. I say ironically, because this is the first generation in 200 years or so to have real incomes lower than their parents' generation.
The accumulation of debt (using future generations' incomes to pay for stuff now) may be linked in to the above, but I think pensions are much easier to understand as an issue.
On a more general note, if a poster disagrees with another poster, it does not reveal who they support by using some kind of balancing equation. Someone like me is still undecided, and sadly I am likely to stack up what I don't like about each party, before moving on to anything that may indeed be likeable, and credible.
I suspect that more voters than ever are going to vote more idealistically than usual, and less voters are going to vote tactically. it probably wont effect the overall outcome, but a shift of perspective, more philosophical than practical is gradually happening in my view.
Be fecking hilarious as well.
Can't find smaller versions...