This is what seems to be the problem for the government, they dont have a handle on just how money is generated, you cant pay civil servants out of other civil servants tax revenue, the bulk of the money has to come from somewhere, and I dont think our communist overlords understand this.
The all encompassing BNP thread - keep all crap in here.
- Thread starter Stolly
- Start date
This is what seems to be the problem for the government, they dont have a handle on just how money is generated, you cant pay civil servants out of other civil servants tax revenue, the bulk of the money has to come from somewhere, and I dont think our communist overlords understand this.
That is what all governments do during a recession though...
Yes, but as already pointed out, Brown was doing this long before the recession, hence the problem. It's also worth noting that using borrowing to create extra civil service jobs does nothing, short or long term, to promote prosperity.
If you want to spend your way out of recession, then infrastructure projects and private sector support are the way forward, neither of which Brown is really doing. Expanding our motorway network (it's outdated as it was predominately designed for the industrial north to transport goods south, which is not where the bulk of traffic moves now), new nuclear powerstations, new railways (a dedicated freight liner system for Ro-Ro trains would be a fantastic investment for a variety of reasons) and so on are the sort of things that actually stimulate the economy, not paying more civil servants.
This is exactly the point, you invest to create revenue creating jobs.
What Gordon is doing is throwing money at training for jobs that dont exist, more quangos, more free money for people out of work waiting for jobs that will never come, and more money at the NHS (as if that needs anymore wasted on it).
Where are the road building projects? the vast swathes of council housing required? Power stations, land reclamation projects, urban regeneration projects..................
Oh thats right, he doesnt know what he is doing, how could i forget.
I'd add some longer-term research with potential practical applications to the list.
For example, St Andrews university has a research team currently developing a new type of battery. It's not purely blue sky research - they have working prototypes. Compared to lithium-ion batteries, the battery they're working on should be much cheaper to make, use a smaller amount of relatively scarce materials, have a charge to weight ratio between 5 and 10 times higher and be able to be charged several times faster. It's the charge to weight ratio that's the key factor, because it makes high-capacity battery swapping at petrol stations practical, which is a huge step towards making electric cars practical. There's a huge market for the battery, which the team is developing with a budget of just £1.5M. A sum which is trifling for the government could speed up research by adding people and facilities to the project, thus generating some jobs immediately and improving the chances of the project creating a product significantly better than its competition, which could result in more jobs and a lot of profit in years to come.
The UK is still notorious for inventive ideas that are underfunded or unfunded and which people from other countries turn into profitable products. Government investment could change that. Many such ideas fail to make anything useful, but it's worth funding a lot of them because the ones that do result in something useful can more than recoup the research costs for all of them.
The central database scheme (the "ID card" scheme that actually has very little to do with ID cards) is likely to cost £15 Billion to set up and at least £500M a year to run, probably more. That money wasted on that could fund many hundreds of research projects, every one a potential goldmine.
For example, St Andrews university has a research team currently developing a new type of battery. It's not purely blue sky research - they have working prototypes. Compared to lithium-ion batteries, the battery they're working on should be much cheaper to make, use a smaller amount of relatively scarce materials, have a charge to weight ratio between 5 and 10 times higher and be able to be charged several times faster. It's the charge to weight ratio that's the key factor, because it makes high-capacity battery swapping at petrol stations practical, which is a huge step towards making electric cars practical. There's a huge market for the battery, which the team is developing with a budget of just £1.5M. A sum which is trifling for the government could speed up research by adding people and facilities to the project, thus generating some jobs immediately and improving the chances of the project creating a product significantly better than its competition, which could result in more jobs and a lot of profit in years to come.
The UK is still notorious for inventive ideas that are underfunded or unfunded and which people from other countries turn into profitable products. Government investment could change that. Many such ideas fail to make anything useful, but it's worth funding a lot of them because the ones that do result in something useful can more than recoup the research costs for all of them.
The central database scheme (the "ID card" scheme that actually has very little to do with ID cards) is likely to cost £15 Billion to set up and at least £500M a year to run, probably more. That money wasted on that could fund many hundreds of research projects, every one a potential goldmine.
Let's see how the Tories do next year
Badly, of course. If you start off buried in someone else's dung, you're going to start off stinking. No party has a magic wand to fix everything.
I've voted Conservative for the first time in my life primarily because my personal political stance is mostly liberal and I think the Conservatives are currently the most liberal party (which is a bit weird), but I also think they will be less bad than Labour when it comes to the economy.
Some people dont realise this, I work as a collections advisor within a finance division for a major catologue company and so deal constantly with people who cant afford to pay their bills, as with all creditors once it gets to a certain point we usually get a 3rd party dealing and a copy of the customers income and expenditure and a lot of the time it beggars beyond belief, the amounts some people owe are beyond shocking, you then take a look at their buying history and its usually for everything including the kitchen sink. They may get into this state 5 or 6 times in there lives and just never learn... Though you would not expect this from someone who is in charge of the economy/country
European elections 2009: The British National Party wins first ever seat
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...tish-National-Party-wins-first-ever-seat.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...tish-National-Party-wins-first-ever-seat.html
Racism
Was listening to the BNP guy on TV; and while I hate to admit it ... he did make a good point
He was asked whether the BNP party was racist because it would only have white members; and his reply was "are the Black Police Association racist?"
That does raise an interesting thing; why is it perfectly fine to have a Black Association with only Black members - but if you have a "White Association" with only white members you are called racist?
Was listening to the BNP guy on TV; and while I hate to admit it ... he did make a good point
He was asked whether the BNP party was racist because it would only have white members; and his reply was "are the Black Police Association racist?"
That does raise an interesting thing; why is it perfectly fine to have a Black Association with only Black members - but if you have a "White Association" with only white members you are called racist?
There is no racial restriction on membership of the black police association.
This was NOT a post about the BNP @ whatever mod decided to move my thread into this thread; it was to talk about a different point that happened to come to me listening to the BNP dude
Why is there no "white policeman association" then?
What would they do?
Griffin is comparing apples with oranges. The BNP is not merely a "white association"; it's a racist political party.
The NBPA is a representation/lobby group for minority interests. Whites don't need a lobby group because our interests are overwhelmingly represented.
The BPA was formed originally in response to discrimination against black officers. What purpose would a white policeman association serve?
Anyway, you're confusing the group they work in support of with people who are allowed to be members. The BPA works to ensure black police officers get the same treatment as white ones, but anyone can join, you do not have to be black to be a member and support their aims.
This is in direct contrast to the BNP, which directly restricts membership bsaed on race.
This was NOT a post about the BNP @ whatever mod decided to move my thread into this thread; it was to talk about a different point that happened to come to me listening to the BNP dude
It was BNP related crap, hence it belongs in the BNP crap thread...
From the BPA website
BPA said:
Seems fair enough, until
BPA said:
How many times was the word 'black' mentioned in that paragraph.
BPA said:
Ahhh, black staff. But of course, black doesn't mean black, does it. It means anyone but white. Yup?
BPA said:
For an organisation that claims "black" doesn't mean "black" it talks a lot about "black staff", "levels of black police officers".
I have never seen anything like it. Of course it is talking about black people. That disclaimer (anyone can join) is only there as a legality, so they don't get sued of the face of the planet.
It is a black only organisation, concentrating on race, namely blacks. Sure a white person can join, but that point is moot when all they go on about is black this and black that on the rest of their website. It is insulting to claim otherwise just because they allow a white person to join.