Deregulating the banks was criminal - but the Tories wanted more deregulation. You can't highlight the first point without acknowleding the second. The economy was doing well before the GLOBAL crash - which is why Labour was re-elected.
So Labour stuffed it right up, but according to you that's fine because the tories would have done the same? How is that an endorsement for Labour? Whats the slogan? ''We are shit but the other lot would probably have been too''?
Impressed with Clegg there. No pandering to the audience like Cameron and Milliband and dismissed ridiculous questions with the contempt they deserved.
Did like the way he dealt with the bloke who asked about what he was planning to do after the election.
The woman that talked about the note - well it was a joke. Might not have been a funny joke. We have all done that haven't we. Go to the Jokes thread to see countless examples. But it was a joke and the way it is being used to the extent it has has been unsavoury - like the tell tales at school. The points have to be real, not one blokes bad joke!!!
The point about spending was important. The economy was booming so we could afford to invest in Education and the NHS. The NHS was transformed during this time. It is like getting a pay rise and buying a Merc. Then there was a GLOBAL crash - and we have to reluctantly tighten our belts. But nothing wrong with being reluctant. We had more money coming in FFS - dont people understand that!!! How can Ed apologise for investing in Education and the NHS though, when we were in a position too?
The proportion of spending was pretty standard for post war governments. The global crash was caused by sub prime mortgages not by Labour's spending.
It is a Tory falsehood and an example of an oft repeated lie that if repeated enough becomes lodged in peoples heads as a truth.
If it is an oft repeated lie, perhaps you should have a word with Mr Milliband? Honestly what is obscuring your view of this?
''Ed Miliband admits Labour were wrong over debt and need for cuts Opposition leader also concedes that last government did not do enough to regulate banks and acted too late to balance economy''
Deregulating the banks was criminal - but the Tories wanted more deregulation. You can't highlight the first point without acknowleding the second. The economy was doing well before the GLOBAL crash - which is why Labour was re-elected.
So Labour stuffed it right up, but according to you that's fine because the tories would have done the same? How is that an endorsement for Labour? Whats the slogan? ''We are shit but the other lot would probably have been too''?
No, but if you admit and acknowledge it shows you have learned the lessons. If you blame somebody for doing what you would have done yourself, it shows you haven't. Changes need to happen so the crash or something like it doesn't happen again.
Impressed with Clegg there. No pandering to the audience like Cameron and Milliband and dismissed ridiculous questions with the contempt they deserved.
Did like the way he dealt with the bloke who asked about what he was planning to do after the election.
Deregulating the banks was criminal - but the Tories wanted more deregulation. You can't highlight the first point without acknowleding the second. The economy was doing well before the GLOBAL crash - which is why Labour was re-elected.
The economy was doing well in spite of Labour's policies, not because of them, just like how the economy crashed due to global factors, not due to Labour. Despite Labour's attempts to crowd out the private sector, the truth is the global economy was doing well and British business was capitalising on it.
It is incredibly strange that Labour's apologists seem to keep stressing the fact it was a global crash - no one is blaming Labour for the global crash. There are literally dozens of legitimate claims to Labour's economic incompetence.
Lots of people don't even mention the GLOBAL crash - and talk like it was Labour's thought I'm afraid. And you say the economy was doing well in spite of Labour's policies - the policies they had been implementing since 1997!!!! But at least you acknowledge it - Cameron doesn't.
Lots of people don't even mention the GLOBAL crash - and talk like it was Labour's thought I'm afraid. And you say the economy was doing well in spite of Labour's policies - the policies they had been implementing since 1997!!!! But at least you acknowledge it - Cameron doesn't.
So you want to blame all of the economic issues between 1997-2010 on a global crash that occurred in 2007 but you want to apportion all economic success between 1997-2010 on Labour's policies, despite the fact the global economy was growing and that Labour basically stuck to the Tory spending plans between 1997-2001.
I thought Cameron was impressive and gave his best performance so far.
I thought Clegg was very good as well.
I thought Miliband gave his worst performance of the campaign. He appeared a little wooden & scripted and there was a real gasp from the audience when he denied that Labour had overspent, when last in government.
I think the blond employer and middle aged chap with spectacles, made him look somewhat foolish and definitely flustered.
He capped a fine performance by tripping off the platform at the end.
God help us all if Miliband, Balls & the SNP are running the country in 7 days time.
How can anyone listening to Natalie Bennett for more than 5 seconds? She sounds like a dog with throat cancer gargling marbles.
To quote Nick Clegg. Charming.
Nothing against her policies or politics, I just have no idea how she became the leader of the 5th largest party in England with a voice like that, it completely undermines her. If I was the only person sat down at an event she was speaking at, I wouldn't hesitate to leave whilst she was still talking.
The non dom rule is relevant for 5,000 people who choose to pay the fee.
Labour - focusing on the big issues.
You make it sound like it's a cross section of 5,000 average Britons...
The reality is that this band of 5,000 is the multi-billion pound media moguls, highly successful businessmen and ridiculously well-paid sportsmen.
All of whom pay little to no tax.
On their foreign income...they pay tax on their UK income.
Meanwhile they spend and invest fortunes in the UK.
Fact is I could not apply for non dom status as I was born in the UK, my family are English. So why is it fair others can claim and I can not ?
It's obvious. They are loaded with mates in high places.
If I was to set up a company in say India, which made x amount of money but then decide to come back to the UK to live. I am right in saying I would have to pay tax on the profits the Indian company made ? but the bloke who owns Chelsea would not ? Serious question.
Blonde employer asked a poor question. Churning up a bad joke - that is impossible to answer and to me wasn't the point of the debate. It was about debate not scoring cheap political points - that is for the politicians to do unfortunately, not the audience. On spending, the audience gasped a bit, but Miliband gave an honest answer and it shows. After a short period of budget surplus (due to spending restraint) after the election, the UK experienced a budget deficit of 2-3% of GDP between 2002-2007. By historical standards, this is relatively low. It still met the Maastricht criteria of keeping budget deficits to less than 3% of GDP. However, the budget situation was also improved by impressive tax revenues from the housing and financial boom. WHEN THE GLOBAL CREDIT CRUNCH HIT, tax revenues rapidly dwindled causing a marked deterioration in public finances. This is fact and it is criminally ignored by opponents.
However, the 2000s, wasn’t a classical inflationary boom (like for example, the Lawson boom of the 1980s). Inflation remained low. Outwardly, the economy appeared a model of low inflation stability. The deficit acceptable at 2% of GDP, hardly a cause for concern. The boom came through asset markets. Rising house prices, and a financial bubble. Greater restraint in government spending would have done little to temper this financial bubble. The causes of the financial boom were much more than simply higher government spending. Higher spending on the NHS was not the cause of the financial boom. Even if the government had restrained spending, there would still have been an asset bubble and credit crunch. There are lessons to be learned but the Tories wouldn't have prevented the crash.
Economics of the country is not like your household budget. Those that equate it to this are ignorant.
The non dom rule is relevant for 5,000 people who choose to pay the fee.
Labour - focusing on the big issues.
You make it sound like it's a cross section of 5,000 average Britons...
The reality is that this band of 5,000 is the multi-billion pound media moguls, highly successful businessmen and ridiculously well-paid sportsmen.
All of whom pay little to no tax.
On their foreign income...they pay tax on their UK income.
Meanwhile they spend and invest fortunes in the UK.
Fact is I could not apply for non dom status as I was born in the UK, my family are English. So why is it fair others can claim and I can not ?
It's obvious. They are loaded with mates in high places.
If I was to set up a company in say India, which made x amount of money but then decide to come back to the UK to live. I am right in saying I would have to pay tax on the profits the Indian company made ? but the bloke who owns Chelsea would not ? Serious question.
You'd have to pay Indian tax which may or may not be offset under a UK double tax agreement.
He'd have to pay Indian tax which may or may not be offset under a Russian double tax agreement (or wherever he is domiciled).
Blonde employer asked a poor question. Churning up a bad joke - that is impossible to answer and to me wasn't the point of the debate. It was about debate not scoring cheap political points - that is for the politicians to do unfortunately, not the audience. On spending, the audience gasped a bit, but Miliband gave an honest answer and it shows. After a short period of budget surplus (due to spending restraint) after the election, the UK experienced a budget deficit of 2-3% of GDP between 2002-2007. By historical standards, this is relatively low. It still met the Maastricht criteria of keeping budget deficits to less than 3% of GDP. However, the budget situation was also improved by impressive tax revenues from the housing and financial boom. WHEN THE GLOBAL CREDIT CRUNCH HIT, tax revenues rapidly dwindled causing a marked deterioration in public finances. This is fact.
However, the 2000s, wasn’t a classical inflationary boom (like for example, the Lawson boom of the 1980s). Inflation remained low. Outwardly, the economy appeared a model of low inflation stability. The deficit acceptable at 2% of GDP, hardly a cause for concern. The boom came through asset markets. Rising house prices, and a financial bubble. Greater restraint in government spending would have done little to temper this financial bubble. The causes of the financial boom were much more than simply higher government spending. Higher spending on the NHS was not the cause of the financial boom. Even if the government had restrained spending, there would still have been an asset bubble and credit crunch.
Economics of he country is not like your household budget. Those that equate it to this are ignorant.
Well I thought it an excellent question, showing up an inept government for what they were. You can polish it any way you like.
I thought Cameron was impressive and gave his best performance so far.
I thought Clegg was very good as well.
I thought Miliband gave his worst performance of the campaign. He appeared a little wooden & scripted and there was a real gasp from the audience when he denied that Labour had overspent, when last in government.
I think the blond employer also made him look somewhat foolish.
He capped a fine performance by tripping off the platform at the end.
God help us all if Miliband, Balls & the SNP are running the country in 7 days time.
Just heard Nick Robinson BBC political editor, basically agree with my summary (not my last line of course).
I thought Cameron was impressive and gave his best performance so far.
I thought Clegg was very good as well.
I thought Miliband gave his worst performance of the campaign. He appeared a little wooden & scripted and there was a real gasp from the audience when he denied that Labour had overspent, when last in government.
I think the blond employer also made him look somewhat foolish.
He capped a fine performance by tripping off the platform at the end.
God help us all if Miliband, Balls & the SNP are running the country in 7 days time.
Just heard Nick Robinson BBC political editor, basically agree with my summary (not my last line of course).
He said Cameron ignored the key questions. Where is that in your summary.
Blonde employer asked a poor question. Churning up a bad joke - that is impossible to answer and to me wasn't the point of the debate. It was about debate not scoring cheap political points - that is for the politicians to do unfortunately, not the audience. On spending, the audience gasped a bit, but Miliband gave an honest answer and it shows. After a short period of budget surplus (due to spending restraint) after the election, the UK experienced a budget deficit of 2-3% of GDP between 2002-2007. By historical standards, this is relatively low. It still met the Maastricht criteria of keeping budget deficits to less than 3% of GDP. However, the budget situation was also improved by impressive tax revenues from the housing and financial boom. WHEN THE GLOBAL CREDIT CRUNCH HIT, tax revenues rapidly dwindled causing a marked deterioration in public finances. This is fact.
However, the 2000s, wasn’t a classical inflationary boom (like for example, the Lawson boom of the 1980s). Inflation remained low. Outwardly, the economy appeared a model of low inflation stability. The deficit acceptable at 2% of GDP, hardly a cause for concern. The boom came through asset markets. Rising house prices, and a financial bubble. Greater restraint in government spending would have done little to temper this financial bubble. The causes of the financial boom were much more than simply higher government spending. Higher spending on the NHS was not the cause of the financial boom. Even if the government had restrained spending, there would still have been an asset bubble and credit crunch.
Economics of he country is not like your household budget. Those that equate it to this are ignorant.
Well I thought it an excellent question, showing up an inept government for what they were. You can polish it any way you like.
The first bit of the question was fine, but the bit about the note was cheap. One bloke made a poor private joke FFS. She was telling Cameron it wasn't a joke, but we all know it was a joke. What was he supposed to say!!!Tories make sweeping statements and don't focus on detail. What in what I said was incorrect? That isn't polishing, that is explaining.
Comments
How is that an endorsement for Labour?
Whats the slogan?
''We are shit but the other lot would probably have been too''?
Honestly what is obscuring your view of this?
''Ed Miliband admits Labour were wrong over debt and need for cuts
Opposition leader also concedes that last government did not do enough to regulate banks and acted too late to balance economy''
It is incredibly strange that Labour's apologists seem to keep stressing the fact it was a global crash - no one is blaming Labour for the global crash. There are literally dozens of legitimate claims to Labour's economic incompetence.
I thought Clegg was very good as well.
I thought Miliband gave his worst performance of the campaign.
He appeared a little wooden & scripted and there was a real gasp from the audience when he denied that Labour had
overspent, when last in government.
I think the blond employer and middle aged chap with spectacles, made him look somewhat foolish and definitely flustered.
He capped a fine performance by tripping off the platform at the end.
God help us all if Miliband, Balls & the SNP are running the country in 7 days time.
In short it's a ruse for the UK to earn some fee income whilst remaining an attractive place for the highly mobile global rich.
Like many I don't instinctively like the way much of Central London feels these days but I understand the multiplier effect.
Probably won't take any though because it's against her ethics.
Just rub a dock leaf on it love.!
However, the 2000s, wasn’t a classical inflationary boom (like for example, the Lawson boom of the 1980s). Inflation remained low. Outwardly, the economy appeared a model of low inflation stability. The deficit acceptable at 2% of GDP, hardly a cause for concern. The boom came through asset markets. Rising house prices, and a financial bubble. Greater restraint in government spending would have done little to temper this financial bubble. The causes of the financial boom were much more than simply higher government spending. Higher spending on the NHS was not the cause of the financial boom. Even if the government had restrained spending, there would still have been an asset bubble and credit crunch. There are lessons to be learned but the Tories wouldn't have prevented the crash.
Economics of the country is not like your household budget. Those that equate it to this are ignorant.
He'd have to pay Indian tax which may or may not be offset under a Russian double tax agreement (or wherever he is domiciled).
Still fuming?