Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 19:00:41 GMT
A bit like ignoring the impact of the crash of 2008? f**k me, does hypocrisy know no limits? What are you talking about now? It doesn't matter what happened in 2008 or 2007, the FACT (and we all know you keep harping on about facts) is that in 2010 the deficit (you know, the difference between government spending and government income) was 153.5 billion quid! The government had to borrow that amount to meet their spending commitments. When the Tories took over did you think they could just magic away that amount of borrowing every year? Feck me, you're not very bright are you. It doesn't matter how the borrowing got to that level, but that is where it was. Shall I type slowly for you.....just basic stuff eh.... Let's ignore the existing debt and just use the following as an example. 153.5 borrowed. In the first year spending is cut by 10 billion...."austerity", you all scream. The next year 143.5 is borrowed....total so far 291 billion debt. The next year another 10 billion is cut. So now 133.5 billion is borrowed taking the total to 424.5 billion debt.... The next year anther 10 billion is cut. Borrowing is 123.5 billion, taking the total debt to 568.5 billion....... So you see the debt keeps growing, and will continue to grow until the borrowing is reduced to zero or below. The fact that the Tories have reduced borrowing to around 32 billion should be applauded. Even with 32 billion borrowing, the debt is still climbing, but fools like you just scream, "look at the debt under the Tories! It's now 1.8 trillion!" Well, it's not surprising when you take an adult look at things is it. The starting point, inherited from Labour, was horrendous. Yet you always claim that the debt under the Tories has grown, and yes it has, but you have to take into account the starting point. What did you do in the City? Did you repair the coffee machines in the offices or something? Good try..but a fail. You cannot make definitive comparisons by choosing a start point that fits your argument. You chose a ten year period. So the comparison with Labour was 1997 to 2007. Compared with the Tories, 2010 to 2009. The start point for the Tories was after a financial disaster, the impact of which they inherited. This was not a Labour Party induced disaster. The start point for Labour in 1997 was a decimated public sector. This was a Tory induced position. Labour corrected this and and still at the end of 2007 had a debt to gdp ratio of 47% ( the same as they inherited) and an annual deficit of £9billion. The Tories have not corrected the deficit to the same %, have doubled the national debt, and, again, decimated public services. As a voter, I might have more sympathy if they had not, in 2010, promised to eliminate the deficit by 2014 and actually start to pay down national debt. They failed dramatically. Your final attempt at sixth form humour is a fail. Which is not surprising as your education attainment failed to reach that level (on the basis that you failed the 11+, which you may have overcome) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 19:00:49 GMT
Straight off the bat wouldn’t you expect a higher minimum wage due to inflation over 10 years anyway?. It would be interesting to see how that £2 compares with the standard inflation as per the CPI And that Tory unemployment figure doesn’t include people on zero hours contracts (that the Tories introduced) who might not be doing any work. Also aren’t we more in debt now than we were under Labour despite 10 years of austerity (seemingly) ‘just for fun’? ‘Lies, damn lies and statistics’, as they say... The Tories did not introduce zero hour contracts. My first ten years in Germany I worked on what you would call a zero hours contract, and I was more than happy to do so. What do you class as a zero hours contract or do you just use the phrase without really understanding the issue? I stand corrected about the Tories introducing them and according to this whilst 66% in one survey are not happy about being on them even without zero hours contracts employment itself is at record levels so I take that one on the chin: fullfact.org/economy/employment-since-2010-zhcs/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 19:22:45 GMT
What are you talking about now? It doesn't matter what happened in 2008 or 2007, the FACT (and we all know you keep harping on about facts) is that in 2010 the deficit (you know, the difference between government spending and government income) was 153.5 billion quid! The government had to borrow that amount to meet their spending commitments. When the Tories took over did you think they could just magic away that amount of borrowing every year? Feck me, you're not very bright are you. It doesn't matter how the borrowing got to that level, but that is where it was. Shall I type slowly for you.....just basic stuff eh.... Let's ignore the existing debt and just use the following as an example. 153.5 borrowed. In the first year spending is cut by 10 billion...."austerity", you all scream. The next year 143.5 is borrowed....total so far 291 billion debt. The next year another 10 billion is cut. So now 133.5 billion is borrowed taking the total to 424.5 billion debt.... The next year anther 10 billion is cut. Borrowing is 123.5 billion, taking the total debt to 568.5 billion....... So you see the debt keeps growing, and will continue to grow until the borrowing is reduced to zero or below. The fact that the Tories have reduced borrowing to around 32 billion should be applauded. Even with 32 billion borrowing, the debt is still climbing, but fools like you just scream, "look at the debt under the Tories! It's now 1.8 trillion!" Well, it's not surprising when you take an adult look at things is it. The starting point, inherited from Labour, was horrendous. Yet you always claim that the debt under the Tories has grown, and yes it has, but you have to take into account the starting point. What did you do in the City? Did you repair the coffee machines in the offices or something? Good try..but a fail. You cannot make definitive comparisons by choosing a start point that fits your argument. You chose a ten year period. So the comparison with Labour was 1997 to 2007. Compared with the Tories, 2010 to 2009. The start point for the Tories was after a financial disaster, the impact of which they inherited. This was not a Labour Party induced disaster. The start point for Labour in 1997 was a decimated public sector. This was a Tory induced position. Labour corrected this and and still at the end of 2007 had a debt to gdp ratio of 47% ( the same as they inherited) and an annual deficit of £9billion. The Tories have not corrected the deficit to the same %, have doubled the national debt, and, again, decimated public services. As a voter, I might have more sympathy if they had not, in 2010, promised to eliminate the deficit by 2014 and actually start to pay down national debt. They failed dramatically. Your final attempt at sixth form humour is a fail. Which is not surprising as your education attainment failed to reach that level (on the basis that you failed the 11+, which you may have overcome) I choose a period when the Labour government finished (2010) and the Tories took over. No comparison, just FACTS. You love facts don't you? The Tories inherited borrowing of 153.5 billion a year! FACTS old man FACTS. It doesn't matter how that figure got to where it did, but those are the FACTS. I have shown above how the debt grows while the deficit is coming down. It is a FACT that it was under the previous Labour government borrowing had reached 153 billion a year. In your childish game, the years 2007 to 2010 didn't happen? You are also forgetting that for the first four years (1997-2001) the Labour Government followed the previous Tory Government spending plans. In 1997, when Blair took over, the economy was actually in a very good position, or are you trying to re-write proven history? That is the reason that for the first four years Labour continued with the Tory spending plans. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 19:48:32 GMT
Good try..but a fail. You cannot make definitive comparisons by choosing a start point that fits your argument. You chose a ten year period. So the comparison with Labour was 1997 to 2007. Compared with the Tories, 2010 to 2009. The start point for the Tories was after a financial disaster, the impact of which they inherited. This was not a Labour Party induced disaster. The start point for Labour in 1997 was a decimated public sector. This was a Tory induced position. Labour corrected this and and still at the end of 2007 had a debt to gdp ratio of 47% ( the same as they inherited) and an annual deficit of £9billion. The Tories have not corrected the deficit to the same %, have doubled the national debt, and, again, decimated public services. As a voter, I might have more sympathy if they had not, in 2010, promised to eliminate the deficit by 2014 and actually start to pay down national debt. They failed dramatically. Your final attempt at sixth form humour is a fail. Which is not surprising as your education attainment failed to reach that level (on the basis that you failed the 11+, which you may have overcome) I choose a period when the Labour government finished (2010) and the Tories took over. No comparison, just FACTS. You love facts don't you? The Tories inherited borrowing of 153.5 billion a year! FACTS old man FACTS. It doesn't matter how that figure got to where it did, but those are the FACTS. I have shown above how the debt grows while the deficit is coming down. It is a FACT that it was under the previous Labour government borrowing had reached 153 billion a year. In your childish game, the years 2007 to 2010 didn't happen? You are also forgetting that for the first four years (1997-2001) the Labour Government followed the previous Tory Government spending plans. In 1997, when Blair took over, the economy was actually in a very good position, or are you trying to re-write proven history? That is the reason that for the first four years Labour continued with the Tory spending plans. Assertions assertions. But tomorrow is a new day. Whoever wins I hope they truly follow their agendas and in a couple of years people will truly comprehend the consequences. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 20:35:07 GMT
I choose a period when the Labour government finished (2010) and the Tories took over. No comparison, just FACTS. You love facts don't you? The Tories inherited borrowing of 153.5 billion a year! FACTS old man FACTS. It doesn't matter how that figure got to where it did, but those are the FACTS. I have shown above how the debt grows while the deficit is coming down. It is a FACT that it was under the previous Labour government borrowing had reached 153 billion a year. In your childish game, the years 2007 to 2010 didn't happen? You are also forgetting that for the first four years (1997-2001) the Labour Government followed the previous Tory Government spending plans. In 1997, when Blair took over, the economy was actually in a very good position, or are you trying to re-write proven history? That is the reason that for the first four years Labour continued with the Tory spending plans. Assertions assertions. But tomorrow is a new day. Whoever wins I hope they truly follow their agendas and in a couple of years people will truly comprehend the consequences. Don't like those facts then... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 20:42:08 GMT
Assertions assertions. But tomorrow is a new day. Whoever wins I hope they truly follow their agendas and in a couple of years people will truly comprehend the consequences. Don't like those facts then... Oink |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Dec 11, 2019 21:15:12 GMT
I thought the introduction of the minimum wage in 1998 was going to hamper industrial competitiveness, bankrupt small businesses and stifle initiative?
The Tories predictably said so at the time, but they seem all for it now.
Very odd.
Bit like the NHS and most other progressive policies since the war, really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 21:57:05 GMT
Assertions assertions. But tomorrow is a new day. Whoever wins I hope they truly follow their agendas and in a couple of years people will truly comprehend the consequences. Don't like those facts then... They are only facts when he states his own opinion. Other peoples facts are just assertions. |
|
|
|
Post by yetigas on Dec 11, 2019 21:59:13 GMT
So today Liar Johnson hides from the media in a fridge. He still refuses the Neil interview. What on earth could he have to hide? Are people still going to vote for a party led by this weak, uncaring, complete idiot? Surely the British people are smarter than that? Or vote for a party led by a terrorist sympathiser? Easy decision really. wow....you really are naive |
|
|
|
Post by popuppirate on Dec 11, 2019 22:06:46 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 22:09:14 GMT
Or vote for a party led by a terrorist sympathiser? Easy decision really. wow....you really are naive Are you denying his links to the IRA? You really are naive. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Dec 11, 2019 22:45:14 GMT
I wonder if da yoof of the UK will actually get out of bed tomorrow and vote?
It could make a huge difference to the result if they do.
Not in the case of my maverick son though, who is 25, a Leaver and a Tory. I must have neglected him as a child.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 0:06:50 GMT
I wonder if da yoof of the UK will actually get out of bed tomorrow and vote? It could make a huge difference to the result if they do. Not in the case of my maverick son though, who is 25, a Leaver and a Tory. I must have neglected him as a child. Jesus mate, that’s worse than him telling you he supports City! I’m sure it’s no reflection on you as a parent. |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Dec 12, 2019 0:22:58 GMT
I thought the introduction of the minimum wage in 1998 was going to hamper industrial competitiveness, bankrupt small businesses and stifle initiative? The Tories predictably said so at the time, but they seem all for it now. Very odd. Bit like the NHS and most other progressive policies since the war, really. None of it makes sense. These people would argue that having social policies costing to the level of France and Germany will bankrupt the country but embarking on an exercise that will wipe 6% off the economy is perfectly reasonable. Dont look for logic here. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Dec 12, 2019 7:57:25 GMT
I wonder if da yoof of the UK will actually get out of bed tomorrow and vote? It could make a huge difference to the result if they do. Not in the case of my maverick son though, who is 25, a Leaver and a Tory. I must have neglected him as a child. Don’t be too hard on yourself aghast he doesn’t have much choice and many are in the same position. I was a remainer but not a hard and fast anything party wise. However democracy is at risk at this election if you vote labour or LD as whether you like it or not, the vote to leave the EU won out and that needs to be respected Then there are the leaders. Forget about policy and promises for a moment and look at the candidates. You have a bumbling floppy haired liar vs a IRA supporting anti semetic who needs the votes from footstamping nationalist Scot hell bent on breaking up the UK with her crusade to take Scotland to stand alone and a minority party with the irony of supporting liberal democracy not supporting any democracy and far from being liberal. Out of those 4 which one would you rather have at the helm of the country? So what choice does he have? If he’s taking the view of voting for the best of a feckless bunch then being Tory is the right way up IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Parrot on Dec 12, 2019 9:19:58 GMT
Attendance will drop by 1 if Corbyn gets in as i will be Dam off from this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by althepirate on Dec 12, 2019 9:42:07 GMT
I wonder if da yoof of the UK will actually get out of bed tomorrow and vote? It could make a huge difference to the result if they do. Not in the case of my maverick son though, who is 25, a Leaver and a Tory. I must have neglected him as a child. Don’t be too hard on yourself aghast he doesn’t have much choice and many are in the same position. I was a remainer but not a hard and fast anything party wise. However democracy is at risk at this election if you vote labour or LD as whether you like it or not, the vote to leave the EU won out and that needs to be respected Then there are the leaders. Forget about policy and promises for a moment and look at the candidates. You have a bumbling floppy haired liar vs a IRA supporting anti semetic who needs the votes from footstamping nationalist Scot hell bent on breaking up the UK with her crusade to take Scotland to stand alone and a minority party with the irony of supporting liberal democracy not supporting any democracy and far from being liberal. Out of those 4 which one would you rather have at the helm of the country? So what choice does he have? If he’s taking the view of voting for the best of a feckless bunch then being Tory is the right way up IMO. Well the best summing up I've heard, move over Laura |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Dec 12, 2019 10:14:30 GMT
Attendance will drop by 1 if Corbyn gets in as i will be f**king off from this country. bit hysterical |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 10:22:52 GMT
Attendance will drop by 1 if Corbyn gets in as i will be f**king off from this country. bit hysterical Anyway, he will not find a country that will grant him residence. Panama perhaps. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 10:54:43 GMT
I thought the introduction of the minimum wage in 1998 was going to hamper industrial competitiveness, bankrupt small businesses and stifle initiative? The Tories predictably said so at the time, but they seem all for it now. Very odd. Bit like the NHS and most other progressive policies since the war, really. None of it makes sense. These people would argue that having social policies costing to the level of France and Germany will bankrupt the country but embarking on an exercise that will wipe 6% off the economy is perfectly reasonable. Dont look for logic here. This 6% you mention. Is that the same 6% we were going to lose straight after a Leave vote, as forecast by the Treasury and BoE? Or is this a 'new' forecast. Logic you say, yet you are taking numbers that have been made up as gospel. You claim that Brexit will harm the economy, yet you support the policies of Labour? Logic you say? |
|
