So? What does that equate to?
Ed Milliband
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
So? What does that equate to?
We are deep within a recession, with no meaningful economic growth & a government void of any fiscal sense.
That's what you get if you put somebody with a 2nd in modern history in a position like that.
If the term "tanked" isn't applicable now, I don't know when it is.
Stop being pedantic.
One of the many reasons the "rich/toffs" are disliked.
As per the entire point I was responding to, have you even read the thread?.
such an incredibly poor understanding of the economy and why recessions happen - are you a labour mp?
I'm quite amazed you are able to determine how I think recessions happen without me even saying.
Oh great profit, let us suckle thy wisdom from thine pearly bosom.
Are you Jesus?.
To clarify,
It's been saying (along with countless economists) all along that to increase economic growth what was needed was sensible investment in infrastructure, even the government is starting to admit it was wrong.
Please could you explain exactly how I'm wrong in my judgement that "slash & burn" policies are detrimental to economic growth
Last edited:
Sorry i had to drop in.
So, the reason "rich/toffs" are disliked is because they consume more natural resources than the "non-rich/non-toffs"?
LOL
I just don't understand your view point, you seem troubled and confused and lack the understanding of our current economic status. Government "slash & burn policies"? Oh my.
You (clearly) don't understand much.
Picking at typo errors when you have nothing to say about the content.that's not how you spell prophet
Bravo, you lose the argument.
it would be pointless explaining it to you - the reason we are in this mess economically and the last governments role in this is so obvious if you can't see it i won't waste my fingers typing.
You think we are in this situation due to the last government?.
Please continue, this should be amusing.
*gets popcorn*.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,353
- Location
- Billericay, UK
Ed Milliband..........trade union puppet.
It used to be the Labour party were able to keep a clear line between them and the trade unions but these days Labour's finances are so bad their wholly reliant on the unions for finance. Saying that though as a Tory I don't mind Labour moving more to the left as it would mean the two main parties are more clearly defined but the politics/polices they follow and puts pay to arguments from folk who say 'all politicians are alike' (which is something I've never believed).
It used to be the Labour party were able to keep a clear line between them and the trade unions but these days Labour's finances are so bad their wholly reliant on the unions for finance. Saying that though as a Tory I don't mind Labour moving more to the left as it would mean the two main parties are more clearly defined but the politics/polices they follow and puts pay to arguments from folk who say 'all politicians are alike' (which is something I've never believed).
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
they are alike in being generally useless, untrustworthy & self serving.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
A school is a school, a better school is a better school, its still one school either way. A kid going to private school doesn't go to two schools at the same time, neither usually do private school generate as much complete waste as state schools. Number of kids who screw around in public vs private schools, number of teachers teaching troubled kids in special classes?
The amount of equipment we had in labs, and advanced books that went unused while I was in a free school was ridiculous. So I take exception with the idea that a rich person uses more resources, they likely use significantly less. Which has more waste, the NHS or the private health care system, etc, etc.
Unfortunately you like so many other deluded people seem to believe that each and every government comes in with a completely clean slate and that anything they do is something they've chosen to. We opened up immigration under Labour, its MUCH easier to open it up than then go and close it, likewise the economy was set up for tiny growth during the first recession and not least by the buying ourselves out of it. Every single last thing Labour did wrong in their decade long reign of retardation... was still in effect the day after the Tories took power, and the majority of it is still in effect today, because that is how government's work. You need a term simply to stop all the most woeful plans the previous government enacted, then you need years to let, in this case, the economy heal, THEN you could start from almost scratch and try and do some good. Make no mistake whoever was in charge in the past 2 years and the next 10 years has one mandate, LIMIT THE DAMAGE caused by the ignorance of Blair/Brown. It's not about a perfect health service, policing, world peace, benefits for all, fairness, safety, its about limiting how bad the recession will be, and massive spending cuts are the only possible answer.
Labour's deficit was massive, it was 2-3 terms in power affecting. One of the reasons for very little growth is we can't randomly afford to spend an extra billion we don't have FAKING the growth that Labour did to get us out of recession. We need REAL growth, not short term borrowed money, public job fake growth that Labour can create. Tory could do that and give Labour a trillion deficit that would cripple the country for a century, or they can do the sensible thing.
Problem with people like you is you think, spend now, think later, that is how we got into the first recession, buying our way out of that brought around an undeniable, predicted by every single economist/sensible person on earth, second recession that is longer and worse. If we borrow our way out of this one with fake growth we'll be in for a third, longer and worse recession.
WE can have 5 years of poor economy, get the deficit back on track and work hard for REAL growth, or spend money we don't have, get fake growth, riddle the country with even more debt, and have 20 years of a poor economy. No one in this country seems capable of understanding short term sacrifice for LONG TERM gain, we only understand, spend now, it will be better, screw later... which should in fact be the Labour campaign slogan.
Labour didn't start their term in power with a 160billion + deficit, they CREATED that and meant Tory started with a 160billion deficit THEY HAD TO REDUCE.
Labour keep saying things like they'd have reduced it slower, BUT THEY STILL WOULD HAVE REDUCED IT, drastically, they had to concede that in the last campaign. They admitted full well the deficit was completely unsustainable. However the party in charge always gets to say "yeah, but we'd do it better", even though Labour have failed to do so miserably.
Simple fact is, its EASY to spend through problems with a growing economy, and its easy to get votes by overspending on benefits and services the country can't afford. If Labour had been sensible, kept the deficit down BEFORE the economic downturn, if they didn't burn our gold reserves, if they didn't over spend for a decade and actually held money back we'd have a pretty strong economy now.
We are in a period of time for our country that has a range of possibilities with two limits, horrific recession or as tame a recession as possible.... when you realise that you realise the Tories are doing as well as anyone can. In dreamland there was no deficit, there is no world recession, trade is perfect and if we produced loads of crap every other country could afford to buy it and the two limits would be horrific recession or massive unparalleled growth.
The reality is good or bad recession, anyone who thinks large growth is possible in either this world economy, or with a massive deficit that is strangling our economy is literally delusional. Tories are doing terribly by the impossible goalposts that some people think are possibilities, in a time where a stagnant economy is the ONLY option, they are actually doing well. If Labour get in charge, they'll overspend on generating fake growth, and short term it will work, long term we'll have trouble borrowing money and eventually stumble into a terrible recession.
Last edited:
If you look at the figures since 1979, both parties have usually run a deficit:
The Tories between 1991 and 1996 were running a similar deficit to Labour between 2002 and 2007. It was only the bank bailouts and global financial crisis that skyrocketed borrowing.