If it's ok with whoever's counting, I am going to post again.
Here's a graph, showing spending. From this, you can draw your own conclusions as to which parties spend more when in office.
Meaningless without context of how the global economy was doing or the conditions of the national economy outside of the government's control. Also the fact that Labour preferred to spend £40bn over 10 years than £10bn over 2 for the exact same investment.
Disability living allowance to be cut via 'reformation', the £26000 benefit cap to be cut to £23000 told to us BT Cameron this morning so we are beginning to see some signs of where the welfare cuts are coming.
Then Tomaz Schafanaker comes on the telly with the weather. I do like the BBC weather forecasters, they are more accurate than economic forecasters for a start.
If it's ok with whoever's counting, I am going to post again.
Here's a graph, showing spending. From this, you can draw your own conclusions as to which parties spend more when in office.
Meaningless without context of how the global economy was doing or the conditions of the national economy outside of the government's control. Also the fact that Labour preferred to spend £40bn over 10 years than £10bn over 2 for the exact same investment.
So suddenly it's a "global" issue whereas when it suits your point of view it was Gordon Brown and Labour that crashed the British economy.
What is making it up is pretending that the people in power during Britains worst financial disaster of modern times are blameless, even when the current leader of the party theat landed us right in it himself says they got it wrong.
Honestly you couldn't make it up how much some of you make it up.
What is making it up is pretending that the people in power during Britains worst financial disaster of modern times are blameless, even when the current leader of the party theat landed us right in it himself says they got it wrong.
Honestly you couldn't make it up how much some of you make it up.
But you still make it up more than any other poster.
What is making it up is pretending that the people in power during Britains worst financial disaster of modern times are blameless, even when the current leader of the party theat landed us right in it himself says they got it wrong.
Honestly you couldn't make it up how much some of you make it up.
But you still make it up more than any other poster.
LOL. Which bit of my post would you care to challenge with you made up accusation?
Disability living allowance to be cut via 'reformation', the £26000 benefit cap to be cut to £23000 told to us BT Cameron this morning so we are beginning to see some signs of where the welfare cuts are coming.
If DLA gets cut they'll be uproar! Capping families even lower is pure evil, there are families out there literally with the choice to either eat or freeze or be homeless, the caps are not variable for the location or size of the families or their circumstances it isn't fair. How about he cuts the number of MPs by a third like he promised he would and take money from the other end, or put more money into businesses creating more jobs and getting more people off of benefits, attacking families that are already struggling is just bullying and do we really want a bully running our country?
Then Tomaz Schafanaker comes on the telly with the weather. I do like the BBC weather forecasters, they are more accurate than economic forecasters for a start.
Thomasz is pretty good. I'm glad he didn't get into too much trouble with the Beeb for accurately describing bits of Scotland as "nowheresville".
What is making it up is pretending that the people in power during Britains worst financial disaster of modern times are blameless, even when the current leader of the party theat landed us right in it himself says they got it wrong.
Honestly you couldn't make it up how much some of you make it up.
I do agree with this point. Kind of. Labour shoulder a lot of blame for their reaction to the financial crisis. The government were very slow to act when the crisis hit (although the bank of England shoulder a hell of a lot of the blame for that). They then, despite realising that their tax take was going to drop markedly due to the crisis, did not reign in spending. Essentially two and a half years of relative inaction undid the previous good work on the economy.
However the seeds of that crisis were sown in the deregulation of the 80's and the financial companies misunderstanding their own financial products. I do also wonder whether if the government had reigned in spending when the crisis hit would they have actually made things worse? The crisis was one of confidence in other financial players and their exposure to sub prime crap. If the government had battened down the hatches saying, effectively, we don't trust any of you, would it have actually made things worse? I honestly don't know, but I think that it was ultimately a problem too big for any one government to resolve in a short period of time.
What is making it up is pretending that the people in power during Britains worst financial disaster of modern times are blameless, even when the current leader of the party theat landed us right in it himself says they got it wrong.
Honestly you couldn't make it up how much some of you make it up.
I do agree with this point. Kind of. Labour shoulder a lot of blame for their reaction to the financial crisis. The government were very slow to act when the crisis hit (although the bank of England shoulder a hell of a lot of the blame for that).
Not really. The BoE had been desperately trying but failing to get Brown and Darling to stop dithering and actually do something for some while before they actually took any notice. Brown and his minnion were like rabbits in the headlights.
What is making it up is pretending that the people in power during Britains worst financial disaster of modern times are blameless, even when the current leader of the party theat landed us right in it himself says they got it wrong.
Honestly you couldn't make it up how much some of you make it up.
I do agree with this point. Kind of. Labour shoulder a lot of blame for their reaction to the financial crisis. The government were very slow to act when the crisis hit (although the bank of England shoulder a hell of a lot of the blame for that).
Not really. The BoE had been desperately trying but failing to get Brown and Darling to stop dithering and actually do something for some while before they actually took any notice. Brown and his minnion were like rabbits in the headlights.
I disagree. When the banks started struggling in August 2007 the European central bank and the federal reserve stepped in quite quickly to try and stabilise things. The BoE in contrast had some meetings, decided that by trying to resolve things early on would encourage further risk taking and did nothing.
If it's ok with whoever's counting, I am going to post again.
Here's a graph, showing spending. From this, you can draw your own conclusions as to which parties spend more when in office.
Meaningless without context of how the global economy was doing or the conditions of the national economy outside of the government's control. Also the fact that Labour preferred to spend £40bn over 10 years than £10bn over 2 for the exact same investment.
So suddenly it's a "global" issue whereas when it suits your point of view it was Gordon Brown and Labour that crashed the British economy.
You couldn't make it up.
I never said Labour crashed the economy, maybe you should try reading some of my posts before making up nonsense like this.
The problem I've always thought UKIP might have is the dirt that is waiting to be dished out about them should they get anywhere near office.Farage strikes me as a man who has a cupboard of skeletons queuing up to get out. I had this confirmed the other day when speaking with a friend who moves in local council circles. Apparently one of their candidates, who I shan't mention, has an injunction out on keeping a lid on a very serious allegation. I know all politicians are the same, but they seem to have a particularly slimy undercurrent.
The problem I've always thought UKIP might have is the dirt that is waiting to be dished out about them should they get anywhere near office.Farage strikes me as a man who has a cupboard of skeletons queuing up to get out. I had this confirmed the other day when speaking with a friend who moves in local council circles. Apparently one of their candidates, who I shan't mention, has an injunction out on keeping a lid on a very serious allegation. I know all politicians are the same, but they seem to have a particularly slimy undercurrent.
Seeing as you haven't named the councillor, can we ask what the subject of the injunction is?
The problem I've always thought UKIP might have is the dirt that is waiting to be dished out about them should they get anywhere near office.Farage strikes me as a man who has a cupboard of skeletons queuing up to get out. I had this confirmed the other day when speaking with a friend who moves in local council circles. Apparently one of their candidates, who I shan't mention, has an injunction out on keeping a lid on a very serious allegation. I know all politicians are the same, but they seem to have a particularly slimy undercurrent.
Seeing as you haven't named the councillor, can we ask what the subject of the injunction is?
I'd rather not. Let's just say that if it comes out and is proved true then you'll more than likely see them doing a stretch in the clink rather than the cabinet.
If it's ok with whoever's counting, I am going to post again.
Here's a graph, showing spending. From this, you can draw your own conclusions as to which parties spend more when in office.
Also the fact that Labour preferred to spend £40bn over 10 years than £10bn over 2 for the exact same investment.
What does this mean and what is the source?
It was an example, but basically to give the impression that they were financially prudent, they moved stuff around between the capital and current accounts but overpaid massively on the long term rates. PFI is an example of this. Basically in the short term it looks like a great deal but in the long run it costs far more than it would have originally cost to pay for it upfront. To put it in simple terms, would you prefer to pay for a £10,000 car with 3 payments of £4,000 over 3 years or 10 payments of £2,500 over 10 years?
If it's ok with whoever's counting, I am going to post again.
Here's a graph, showing spending. From this, you can draw your own conclusions as to which parties spend more when in office.
Also the fact that Labour preferred to spend £40bn over 10 years than £10bn over 2 for the exact same investment.
What does this mean and what is the source?
It was an example, but basically to give the impression that they were financially prudent, they moved stuff around between the capital and current accounts but overpaid massively on the long term rates. PFI is an example of this. Basically in the short term it looks like a great deal but in the long run it costs far more than it would have originally cost to pay for it upfront. To put it in simple terms, would you prefer to pay for a £10,000 car with 3 payments of £4,000 over 3 years or 10 payments of £2,500 over 10 years?
What's the mileage and is there a full service history?
From the BBC (and not made up by me) Insane and greedy The Question Time audience did not seem altogether satisfied with the mea culpa that Ed Miliband did make, namely that Labour's mistake was to put in place inadequate oversight of the banks to prevent them behaving recklessly and mullering the economy. And the audience's unease may not be irrational. Of course the crisis would have been less acute if the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England had taken earlier prophylactic action to prevent the banks lending and investing in their insane and greedy way. Wilful and wrong But Labour wasn't just asleep at the wheel when it came to City regulation. Arguably it was drunk at the wheel - in that it loved the City boom, for generating huge tax revenues that it then lavished on public services. So the failure to keep the City properly in check was in a sense wilful and therefore doubly wrong.
If it's ok with whoever's counting, I am going to post again.
Here's a graph, showing spending. From this, you can draw your own conclusions as to which parties spend more when in office.
Also the fact that Labour preferred to spend £40bn over 10 years than £10bn over 2 for the exact same investment.
What does this mean and what is the source?
It was an example, but basically to give the impression that they were financially prudent, they moved stuff around between the capital and current accounts but overpaid massively on the long term rates. PFI is an example of this. Basically in the short term it looks like a great deal but in the long run it costs far more than it would have originally cost to pay for it upfront. To put it in simple terms, would you prefer to pay for a £10,000 car with 3 payments of £4,000 over 3 years or 10 payments of £2,500 over 10 years?
From a personal consumer point of view (which I don't think is necessarily comparable to government spending) the answer to that question is that it depends on current interest rates and Time Value of money. There are circumstances when the second option would make more economic sense.
But what is the source that leads you to claim that Labour did this?
If it's ok with whoever's counting, I am going to post again.
Here's a graph, showing spending. From this, you can draw your own conclusions as to which parties spend more when in office.
Also the fact that Labour preferred to spend £40bn over 10 years than £10bn over 2 for the exact same investment.
What does this mean and what is the source?
It was an example, but basically to give the impression that they were financially prudent, they moved stuff around between the capital and current accounts but overpaid massively on the long term rates. PFI is an example of this. Basically in the short term it looks like a great deal but in the long run it costs far more than it would have originally cost to pay for it upfront. To put it in simple terms, would you prefer to pay for a £10,000 car with 3 payments of £4,000 over 3 years or 10 payments of £2,500 over 10 years?
From a personal consumer point of view (which I don't think is necessarily comparable to government spending) the answer to that question is that it depends on current interest rates and Time Value of money. There are circumstances when the second option would make more economic sense.
But what is the source that leads you to claim that Labour did this?
I have sent off my postal vote from Hong Kong but in reality it's a waste of postage as the same Tory mediocrity will be elected again despite doing nothing of note over several decades except tow the party line and write a dreary column in the local paper about his distaste for 'legal highs.' He seems to think these are the principal threat to the very fabric of Kent society but every time his smug face appears in the media it must boost sales.
I am ashamed to admit that I have voted for every mainstream party in my electoral career with little or no effect.
Finally tuned out of this banal campaign when I heard on Channel 4 news that Mr Cameron has a family estate in Scotland called "BLAIRMORE".
That just about sums it up for me.
Come the revolution.... and Occupy Central ...etc etc
The problem I've always thought UKIP might have is the dirt that is waiting to be dished out about them should they get anywhere near office.Farage strikes me as a man who has a cupboard of skeletons queuing up to get out. I had this confirmed the other day when speaking with a friend who moves in local council circles. Apparently one of their candidates, who I shan't mention, has an injunction out on keeping a lid on a very serious allegation. I know all politicians are the same, but they seem to have a particularly slimy undercurrent.
Seeing as you haven't named the councillor, can we ask what the subject of the injunction is?
I'd rather not. Let's just say that if it comes out and is proved true then you'll more than likely see them doing a stretch in the clink rather than the cabinet.
The problem I've always thought UKIP might have is the dirt that is waiting to be dished out about them should they get anywhere near office.Farage strikes me as a man who has a cupboard of skeletons queuing up to get out. I had this confirmed the other day when speaking with a friend who moves in local council circles. Apparently one of their candidates, who I shan't mention, has an injunction out on keeping a lid on a very serious allegation. I know all politicians are the same, but they seem to have a particularly slimy undercurrent.
Seeing as you haven't named the councillor, can we ask what the subject of the injunction is?
I'd rather not. Let's just say that if it comes out and is proved true then you'll more than likely see them doing a stretch in the clink rather than the cabinet.
The councillor? Or the Ukip leader?
If your source is a "friend" and you won't name names, or even say what he or she is accused of, this is even less use than a contribution to the transfer rumours thread! It comes across as a lame attempt to smear. I don't care which party it is, it's no way to go about things. No facts, no evidence, wow.
For the undecideds: the last time a Tory PM was ousted and replaced by a Labour PM, at a May General Election, Charlton went on to be promoted the following season.
Vote Labour: get Premiership football at The Valley.
If it's ok with whoever's counting, I am going to post again.
Here's a graph, showing spending. From this, you can draw your own conclusions as to which parties spend more when in office.
Meaningless without context of how the global economy was doing or the conditions of the national economy outside of the government's control. Also the fact that Labour preferred to spend £40bn over 10 years than £10bn over 2 for the exact same investment.
So suddenly it's a "global" issue whereas when it suits your point of view it was Gordon Brown and Labour that crashed the British economy.
You couldn't make it up.
I never said Labour crashed the economy, maybe you should try reading some of my posts before making up nonsense like this.
You've written so fecking many posts your suggestion is virtually impossible.
If it's ok with whoever's counting, I am going to post again.
Here's a graph, showing spending. From this, you can draw your own conclusions as to which parties spend more when in office.
Meaningless without context of how the global economy was doing or the conditions of the national economy outside of the government's control. Also the fact that Labour preferred to spend £40bn over 10 years than £10bn over 2 for the exact same investment.
So suddenly it's a "global" issue whereas when it suits your point of view it was Gordon Brown and Labour that crashed the British economy.
You couldn't make it up.
I never said Labour crashed the economy, maybe you should try reading some of my posts before making up nonsense like this.
You've written so fecking many posts your suggestion is virtually impossible.
I guess that's reasonable excuse to give you licence to make up what other posters have or haven't said.
Prediction time from me: Polls pointing to small Conservative majority in terms of seats, as they have been for weeks. Can't see this changing much unless something major happens so it should be interesting. I think we are going to have Miliband as prime minister in a minority government - either with Lib Dems (if tories have a decent number of extra seats) or Labour on its own. There wont be any deals with SNP other than the gamble that they won't do anything to help the conservatives (as they will lose a lot of support back home). They won't at first but when they have the slightest reason (excuse) to do damage to Labour they will take it. We will see a minority government which will last a couple of years tops. The positive for the conservatives is that I think they will go with Boris (any other option would be a disaster for them) and he will put them in a strong position when the government falls. Miliband probably knows this will happen but expects to do a good job and have his personal ratings increase in that time.
I think a minority government with Labour and Lib Dems in coalition could last a full term with a fair wind.
Comments
You couldn't make it up.
Honestly you couldn't make it up how much some of you make it up.
However the seeds of that crisis were sown in the deregulation of the 80's and the financial companies misunderstanding their own financial products. I do also wonder whether if the government had reigned in spending when the crisis hit would they have actually made things worse? The crisis was one of confidence in other financial players and their exposure to sub prime crap. If the government had battened down the hatches saying, effectively, we don't trust any of you, would it have actually made things worse? I honestly don't know, but I think that it was ultimately a problem too big for any one government to resolve in a short period of time.
I had this confirmed the other day when speaking with a friend who moves in local council circles. Apparently one of their candidates, who I shan't mention, has an injunction out on keeping a lid on a very serious allegation.
I know all politicians are the same, but they seem to have a particularly slimy undercurrent.
From the BBC (and not made up by me)
Insane and greedy
The Question Time audience did not seem altogether satisfied with the mea culpa that Ed Miliband did make, namely that Labour's mistake was to put in place inadequate oversight of the banks to prevent them behaving recklessly and mullering the economy.
And the audience's unease may not be irrational.
Of course the crisis would have been less acute if the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England had taken earlier prophylactic action to prevent the banks lending and investing in their insane and greedy way.
Wilful and wrong
But Labour wasn't just asleep at the wheel when it came to City regulation. Arguably it was drunk at the wheel - in that it loved the City boom, for generating huge tax revenues that it then lavished on public services.
So the failure to keep the City properly in check was in a sense wilful and therefore doubly wrong.
But what is the source that leads you to claim that Labour did this?
Even Dave Prentis of Unison, who normally couldn't give a tuppenny fig about the national debt, has expressed his concern at the liability.
I have sent off my postal vote from Hong Kong but in reality it's a waste of postage as the same Tory mediocrity will be elected again despite doing nothing of note over several decades except tow the party line and write a dreary column in the local paper about his distaste for 'legal highs.' He seems to think these are the principal threat to the very fabric of Kent society but every time his smug face appears in the media it must boost sales.
I am ashamed to admit that I have voted for every mainstream party in my electoral career with little or no effect.
Finally tuned out of this banal campaign when I heard on Channel 4 news that Mr Cameron has a family estate in Scotland called "BLAIRMORE".
That just about sums it up for me.
Come the revolution.... and Occupy Central ...etc etc
Vote Labour: get Premiership football at The Valley.
I think a minority government with Labour and Lib Dems in coalition could last a full term with a fair wind.
Voting Ukip