Brown's 'Prescott' moment?
Comments
-
Purveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
millymoose wrote:We have had unprecedented growth and tax receipts throughout this Labour administration - up to the global recession - but instead of saving something Broon has only managed to make more and more people reliant on the state handing out tax credits etc etc and has been responsible for a huge explosion in public spending and government debt meaning there was nothing in the tank for when the economy hit the buffers!
52% of UK GDP is now as a result of the government and we now have a situation where we have to economise meaning a further shrinking of our economy.
As Dennis Healy might have said - 'what a silly billy'
But redistribution of wealth was always the main policy for NL, and in that they succeeded, 50+% increase in public spending, and an overall reduction in poverty levels from Thatchers era.
None of it is patronisingly "silly billy" as you put it, gain it's about policy and whether you believe in tax and spend or not. I guess for those people that take the time to understand what each party is proposing will make that choice based upon one's income and whether you fundamentally believe you should share some of it, a tiny bit of it, or none at all. Most of the political issues of the moment including migrant workers and our involvement in the EU is captured within those considerations - how much of your cash do you want to give up?0 -
Oh god...more people voting for Eton educated smug twat Cameron and his hunt with the hounds, run with the fox bollitics.
At least 6 months down the line I can say with glee 'told you so...'
Clegg, Cameron and Brown. Is that the best we can produce?
Could be worse I suppose. Could be BNP-in-disguise UKIP as a front runner.Whyte 905 (2009)
Trek 1.5 (2009)
Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Comp (2007)0 -
SteveR_100Milers wrote:But redistribution of wealth was always the main policy for NL, and in that they succeeded, 50+% increase in public spending, and an overall reduction in poverty levels from Thatchers era.
None of it is patronisingly "silly billy" as you put it, gain it's about policy and whether you believe in tax and spend or not. I guess for those people that take the time to understand what each party is proposing will make that choice based upon one's income and whether you fundamentally believe you should share some of it, a tiny bit of it, or none at all. Most of the political issues of the moment including migrant workers and our involvement in the EU is captured within those considerations - how much of your cash do you want to give up?
But 50% increase in spending without the corresponding increase in taxes is madness.
For a while there was an increase in revenue, but it was mostly based on the same debt
mountain and asset bubbles that's this country will be paying off for decades.
It'd be great to have a perfect NHS and all our kids taught in classes of 10 kids, but we
can't afford it. Pretending we can and mounting up debts to make sure the younger
generation won't have anything near what we have is greedy and irresponsible.
On wealth redistribution, it's great that so many families have been lifted out of poverty,
but Labour haven't exactly gone after the rich. The tax on 'investments' (which in most
cases is no more than a gamble on house prices) is barely taxed, while middle income
earners and bled dry.
I won't pretend the tories would have been any better, but the fact is Brown was in charge
(chancellor) that whole time. He took credit in the boom (also telling us there was no boom
and bust) so must take some criticism in the bust.
One last point. Most of the 'global' problems came from London. AIG, Lehmans etc. Most
of their downfall stemmed from unregulated trading in London .
0 -
Interesting lateral view by the Govenor of the Bank of England: "Whoever wins this election will be out of power for a generation, such is pain they will have to inflict."
So weren't not out of the recession, it's just the quiet before the storm at the moment.0 -
Le Commentateur wrote:So weren't not out of the recession, it's just the quiet before the storm at the moment.
No.
If you print and spend about 20% of GDP to get growth of 0.2%, you're hiding the pain
now in exchange for much bigger pain later.0 -
I think it was very sneaky of Sky to leak. It was private and should have remained so. I'd love to know if Cameron was caught doing the same would they release it?0
-
-
Gazzaputt wrote:I think it was very sneaky of Sky to leak. It was private and should have remained so. I'd love to know if Cameron was caught doing the same would they release it?
Sky are milking it for all they can. They hate Brown.
It's a bit unfair, but this is the government who monitor nearly everything we do now (public
or private). "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear"0 -
pottssteve wrote:At least he didn't punch her!
History suggests that he'd have got away with it if he had done.
I notice that he's reported to have left his mike on again today only the (BBC this time) camera crew spotted the mistake before he could say anything amusing or inflamatory!
Bob0 -
beverick wrote:pottssteve wrote:At least he didn't punch her!
History suggests that he'd have got away with it if he had done.
I notice that he's reported to have left his mike on again today only the (BBC this time) camera crew spotted the mistake before he could say anything amusing or inflamatory!
Bob
And Prescott getting away with it was correct. It was self defence.
Plus the guy was a whinging farmer with a mullet. Fair game in my eyes.Whyte 905 (2009)
Trek 1.5 (2009)
Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Comp (2007)0 -
Giant Jon wrote:
And Chris James, obviously I must be abnormal for not lying about my points of view. Unfortunately I believe in honesty, and find it incredibly frustrating when people lie to me. Which seems to be most of the time these days.
Fair enough, do you have any friends?
Does your girlfriend (if you have one) take it well when you inform her that, no she isn't as hot as one of your exes, and yes, her arse does look big in those trousers because she actually has a big arse?0 -
alfablue wrote:
Well Murdoch's media empire are fully on board with the Tories . . .Gazzaputt wrote:I think it was very sneaky of Sky to leak. It was private and should have remained so. I'd love to know if Cameron was caught doing the same would they release it?
Is Fox in the USA owned by Murdoch? I've just come back from Florida and their coverage of politics was so biased it was unbelievable - made the Telegraph and Mail look like a bunch of fencesitters! In particular the one guy who had a panel on at about 9.00pm each night and if any of them spoke in favour of a democratic proposal he would shout them down and tell them they were wrong. I can't imagine Paxman doing that! The guy was the biggest idiot I've seen on TV (and I've seen Jeremy Kyle!).0 -
TheStone wrote:SteveR_100Milers wrote:But redistribution of wealth was always the main policy for NL, and in that they succeeded, 50+% increase in public spending, and an overall reduction in poverty levels from Thatchers era.
None of it is patronisingly "silly billy" as you put it, gain it's about policy and whether you believe in tax and spend or not. I guess for those people that take the time to understand what each party is proposing will make that choice based upon one's income and whether you fundamentally believe you should share some of it, a tiny bit of it, or none at all. Most of the political issues of the moment including migrant workers and our involvement in the EU is captured within those considerations - how much of your cash do you want to give up?
But 50% increase in spending without the corresponding increase in taxes is madness.
For a while there was an increase in revenue, but it was mostly based on the same debt
mountain and asset bubbles that's this country will be paying off for decades.
It'd be great to have a perfect NHS and all our kids taught in classes of 10 kids, but we
can't afford it. Pretending we can and mounting up debts to make sure the younger
generation won't have anything near what we have is greedy and irresponsible.
On wealth redistribution, it's great that so many families have been lifted out of poverty,
but Labour haven't exactly gone after the rich. The tax on 'investments' (which in most
cases is no more than a gamble on house prices) is barely taxed, while middle income
earners and bled dry.
I won't pretend the tories would have been any better, but the fact is Brown was in charge
(chancellor) that whole time. He took credit in the boom (also telling us there was no boom
and bust) so must take some criticism in the bust.
One last point. Most of the 'global' problems came from London. AIG, Lehmans etc. Most
of their downfall stemmed from unregulated trading in London .
Indeed it is, hence all of the moaning about fuel duty, beer, fags, proposed NI increases et al . I'm not sure where you got your data from that NL hasn't increased taxation?0 -
-
Whoever decides that the government should take a cut of bank profits (independently audited) in proportion to the share owned would get a HUGE boost in votes. For instance.... the government owns 70 odd percent of RBS and so should take 70 odd percent of profits. This would allow public debt to be reduced greatly (bearing in mind that RBS turnover is bigger than UK GDP) very quickly0
-
agreed. there is far too wide earning spectrum in britain, i think it works best is you include everyone more.0
-
rake wrote:agreed. there is far too wide earning spectrum in britain, i think it works best is you include everyone more.
Quite right its not fair that unskilled lazy workshy fops earn less then world class hard working individuals. Whilst were at it, I play football and get paid some expenses but not enough to make a living, I think i should be played closer to Rooneys salary.
Perhaps he should be taxed to the point where he earns an arbitary top level of income.0 -
Well it seems we're heading for a lib-con coalition after last night's debate
brown and clegg in synchronised larry grayson tribute
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 004302692/0 -
carrock wrote:Well it seems we're heading for a lib-con coalition after last night's debate
brown and clegg in synchronised larry grayson tribute
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 004302692/
We won't get a lib-con coalition, there's too much of an idiological gap between them.
Lib-Lab may have been the most likley pairing (and I think the reason that the Lib Dems pushed Vince Cable in Feb/Mar as a possible Chancellor) but it would have relied on Labour being the largest party and I think GB's gaff on Wednesday killed any chance of that.
Bob0 -
0
-
beverick wrote:carrock wrote:Well it seems we're heading for a lib-con coalition after last night's debate
brown and clegg in synchronised larry grayson tribute
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 004302692/
We won't get a lib-con coalition, there's too much of an idiological gap between them.
Lib-Lab may have been the most likley pairing (and I think the reason that the Lib Dems pushed Vince Cable in Feb/Mar as a possible Chancellor) but it would have relied on Labour being the largest party and I think GB's gaff on Wednesday killed any chance of that.
Bob
If it is Labour/LiberalDem it'll be interesting to see whether ID Cards come in - Labour want to fingerprint-Iris scan everyone in Britain........ - (when you renew your passport) - LibDems want to get rid of ID Cards (and the associated print/scan when renewing passports) - going to be a strange sight when millions of Old age pensioners etc have to be printed and scanned (all in the name of safety.........). In general, the LibDems want to scale-back the Authoritarian Labour surveillance-state - Labour want to increase it - be interesting to see how it plays out.0
