Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
Nope, educate yourself please
Alex Salmond makes warning to new PM David Cameron
He doesn't half try to get noticed does he! What with TV debate complaints, pledges to form a rainbow coalition and now supporting Cameron when it's in Scotland's best interests.
I hope we see some things in England's best interests
He doesn't half try to get noticed does he! What with TV debate complaints, pledges to form a rainbow coalition and now supporting Cameron when it's in Scotland's best interests.
I hope we see some things in England's best interests
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Small man syndrome?
Agreed, but don't you think we are going backwards, with the working age, without doubt to go up atleast an extra year, IMO The 40's and even the 50's where times changed so much for the average man on the street. The NHS, one of the greatest achievements this country has managed to bring to fuition, yet it seems it is now bogged down with bureaucracy.
You know what, I lost mu point! Soz!
What cuts would you make bearing in mind that all 3 major parties have accepted the need for drastic cuts? Would you rather spend less on drugs and hospital equipment, reduce the number of staff or freeze pay? Freezing pay seems the best option to me.
Plenty of people in the private sector have had pay freezes or cuts in the past year or so, I don't see why the public sector should be an exception.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
The Government would do well to cut the amount that it's departments spend on consultants - that would save hundreds of millions of pounds per year.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
This.
It protects the poor from the vast increases in VAT and duty that are going to come about. It's a buffer move, not generosity.
I believe Clegg has based the level of his party's power in these negotiations on an average ratio between seats held and % of the vote, there was something about it on the Guardian site. Five cabinet seats out of around 22 would be about right (a little lower than that ratio, which is to be expected).
It's a reference to the leadership he provided when the banks were collapsing. He's widely credited abroad for his fast, decisive action and the example he set to other world leaders. Without Brown as our PM at that time who knows, the yanks might have let a bunch of other banks go down.
I get the impression that this Parliament will basically be a case of 'let's put the EU stuff to the side for a while and forget about it'. Makes sense really, there's no way either party would agree on the other's policies on Europe so they're better to sideline them for now.
That's the list of Cabinet MPs so far.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
They aren't, generally, providing a public service. A pay freeze leads to low morale which leads to a decline in the standard of services.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Lets not forget that overall, 35% of low wage is spent on tax, whereas only 31% of a high wage goes on tax
I love how people assume EVERY single rich person is somehow exploiting the system, while millions of people on benefits who do nothing, are paid for by the tax the rich people do pay.
If you were a millionaire, you'd be STUPID to not pay more tax than you have to, and considering where the tax goes, hiding Labours ineptitude, paying for a massively increasing number of people on benefits, paying for millions of jobs created out of thin air in the public sector just to hide the growing unemployment.
Frankly you'd have to be completely and utterly retarded to not use every loophole available to them.
But get this straight, NO loophole, and someone paying 31%(a BS number if I do say so myself) of say 5million a year, will simply go and pay 20% of his 5million a year TO SOME OTHER COUNTRY.
That 31% is still hundreds of times the "average" contribution. To pretend rich people are somehow getting away with murder is pathetic and Labour propaganda. Lets screw the rich to help the poor, EVERY single time they've screwed the rich, the rich have left, and the poor suffer 1000's of times more.
As for rich people and loopholes, personally, I think most of it is again BS< I know several people who make between 100-250k a year, NONE of them get out of paying tax. My dad who works like a slave for the NHS for almost 40 years, who has been screwed out of several promotions to make believe new jobs as Labour installs new people above him on obscene wages, now gets a little over 150K a year. He's paying close to 75k tax, a YEAR, and getting screwed left right and centre.
So should we really tax him EVEN MORE to make you happy. Or would it make sense that Labour don't make up a job to put above him, to a guy whose 20 years younger, whose worked in the NHS for 5 years, and is already on 250k a year, whose a sibling of a certain Labour MP.
Yes lets screw my dad more(who recently got bumped to 50% tax and they tried(or did they actually do it) remove the tax allowance which would(did?) cost him an extra 5k in tax a year, so we can spend it on made up jobs we don't need.
Labour are a complete joke and have not once left poor people better off by taxing rich people. They've only managed to put bigger companies out of business or drive them away from the UK, costing millions of jobs over the years, of which most are jobs for average people on average salaries.
The word consultant brings pain to my ears. The government wasted £1m on them when our local school merged to an academy
It was a rhetorical question.
This clearly went over your head.
I apologise for not being clear enough.
But then again you start threads of this quality
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17968334
I'm not suprised you didn't get it
Last edited:
Yes, I believe all parties' deficit reduction plans included statements to this effect however you seem to be underestimating the scale of the problem. They need to find billions of savings not hundreds of millions. People (I'm not talking about you) who believe that all the necessary savings can be made through efficiency gains and cutting waste are seriously deluded.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
You know the ONLY place I've heard that, is in Browns speeches, where he recognises himself as the saviour of the world.
He got us out of the recession, by buying his way out of it, which just worsens our debt long term, to almost unmanageable levels. We got into a recession because he's systematically lost private sector jobs and shifted people into public sector jobs, sucking tax revenue, rather than generating it.
Banks are a scapegoat for the recession, worldwide, had the USA/UK not lost such massive amounts of private sector, industrial and manfacturing jobs to China/Asia as a whole, neither country would have come close to a recession, both countries have bailed themselves out with debt they can't afford to repay, increasing interest payments to dangerous levels devaluing both currencies and theres a real question mark over if we can ever get to safer levels of debt.
We're at around a trillion in debt, and thanks to the massive and quick increase, and the now larger interest rate the higher amount of debt gathers, and the weakening pound, we're now forecast to be at 1.4trillion in debt in just 4 years. Can you imagine the situation if our debt increased by 40-45% every 4 years, in not to long, China will stop buying our debt and we'll be completely and utterly screwed.
We didn't tighten our belts and work through a long hard recession, we took out a new loan to pay off the first one, with a larger interest rate. Basically we delayed our pretty bad recession and most likely just made certain of a much worse, much longer recession not too long in the future, yay.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
You're completely right, but £100 million here and £100 million there soon adds up. We're in a hole, any and all options for reducing the deficit must be considered.
How many people do you think voted lib dem just because *them* people thought that some one else deserved a crack, other Conservative or Labour, and with PR, it would have looked a lot larger. even though they didn't hit the highs that they wanted to hit, It is a bit weird that all these online polls suggested Clegg, yet it was a typical Liberal turnout? I find that a touch weird.