Thanks to the Conservatives

[StefanWolves]

We are no longer a military power, well done Cameron you ****.

[Nixt]

Do you want to expand on that? Are you referring to the scrapping of the HMS Ark Royal plans? If you are it would be a good idea to specify rather than make seemingly random comments.

[Josh]

Do you want to expand on that? Are you referring to the scrapping of the HMS Ark Royal plans? If you are it would be a good idea to specify rather than make seemingly random comments.

I have to agree, I'm not from Australia, however I am curious and want to participate in the discussion but I have no idea what you're on about.

[immense]

war is bad.

[Agnostic Bear]

War is necessary.

[immense]

nothing is necessary.

[Agnostic Bear]

Breathing is necessary for survival.

[Hecktix]

I have to think this may be the Conservative compromise for where the Lib Dems compromise on tuition fees, so to be fair, I wouldn't blame the tories.

[xxMATTGxx]

I think it's the fact that the HMS Ark Royal (newest and most up to date in terms of technology) out of the rest of three carriers I believe or maybe two is getting scrapped which includes the harrier jets as well. Which If the BBC is correct it means the UK will not have the ability to launch fighter jets from the sea, let's hope nothing bad happens from now until 2019.

Although on the plus side, the two new carriers are still going ahead. But that is probably only down to the fact that it would cost more to actual scrap them.

[immense]

Breathing is necessary for survival.

For survival, yes. Good observation.

[Nixt]

The decision to cut the Armed Forces in any form is a bad one, that's for sure. Reallocation or deployment of resources makes more sense but cutting personnel and equipment is ludicrous when the army, for example, is suffering a severe shortage of soldiers in infantry regiments for example. When I first joined, the army was officially classed as a 'militia' because the number of soldiers in its command was below that of the world standard.

I fail to see how this is going to work for them politically. For a start, since the Iraq invasion up until present day popular media has been advocating increased funding for the armed forces particularly on the front line. Now they are cutting key front line support arms and removing hundreds of dedicated personnel.

[immense]

we're an island and we don't need a big army.

[Hecktix]

we're an island and we don't need a big army.

Good to have resources at sea mind, which is what's being cut here..

[immense]

then the people in this country shouldn't have voted in the current government. wait, the sun told them to do so. it's awfully depressing.

[xxMATTGxx]

we're an island and we don't need a big army.

An Island that should have a top navy being able to defend our country which includes overseas territory within a minutes notice which is being cut.. so bye bye defense.

[immense]

you're all so typically male.

[Nixt]

we're an island and we don't need a big army.

Not so. Our forces are massively overstretched as it is when it comes to overseas deployments. Not so much now we have withdrawn from Iraq, but when you have operational deployments in Cyprus, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Gibraltar and the Falklands as well as numerous other places around the world offering varying numbers of soldiers. In the event of a large scale war resulting from ongoing diplomatic unease with eastern countries we would be in a difficult position. The fact we are an island gives us a strategic advantage but in this day and age that advantage isn't massive and it plays no bearing on the fact that, should war break out, we would be facing a shortage of soldiers.

[Agnostic Bear]

For survival, yes. Good observation.

War is necessary for survival. If the middle east was allowed to grow they would inevitably attack western culture and start a 3rd world war. Admittedly it'd be over pretty fast due to America, but it would still be a very big problem, just like it is already due to immigration.

But hey I suppose you support that, don't you?

[Neversoft]

What ever happened to this once great empire. Oh wait, the war... right.

[immense]

War is necessary for survival. If the middle east was allowed to grow they would inevitably attack western culture and start a 3rd world war. Admittedly it'd be over pretty fast due to America, but it would still be a very big problem, just like it is already due to immigration.

But hey I suppose you support that, don't you?
l m a o .

yeah, everybody who is from the middle east wants to attack western culture. how right you are.

[Inseriousity.]

Similar to 'the terrorists are coming', 'the East is going to attack us' is overexaggerated. We'll survive.

[immense]

Similar to 'the terrorists are coming', 'the East is going to attack us' is overexaggerated. We'll survive.

someone else with sense.

[Fez]

While I'm not scared of Eastern aggressiveness or any of the ilk, I still doubt this was a good decision. In the end, in the public's eyes, it's a demented indicator of things to come. Tuition fees rising and now cutting the military, I doubt this government will be revered as doing any good. I'm not saying it is good but the working class/middle class hold such sensibilities that they won't interpret these things as good things. We need to get out of the red and into the blue (see what I did there?) and these are necessary paving stones for the future.

[FlyingJesus]

If we ever did get attacked here somehow I don't see what use having planes on a boat will do, seems like it might be a better idea to have them here ready for defensive purposes, or if we really need to have them out in other countries I'm fairly sure we're still capable of building an airbase, it's not only the Polish who can do manual labour

[Pyroka]

While I'm not scared of Eastern aggressiveness or any of the ilk, I still doubt this was a good decision. In the end, in the public's eyes, it's a demented indicator of things to come. Tuition fees rising and now cutting the military, I doubt this government will be revered as doing any good. I'm not saying it is good but the working class/middle class hold such sensibilities that they won't interpret these things as good things. We need to get out of the red and into the blue (see what I did there?) and these are necessary paving stones for the future.

They'll be known for trying to wipe out the national debt. They've got a hard job, they're not gonna be popular and quite frankly they've got massive ******** since both of them will likely be voted out in favour of Labour now, because things wern't as bad with Labour in terms of debt... but thats only because they hid it all for this government. I guess its the way you wanna look at it, I think they're doing a mint job trying to wipe out the debt.

[FlyingJesus]

You live in Scotland I thought it was illegal for your sort to support the Conservatives

[StefanWolves]

Jut heard about all the cuts. All I'm saying is if countries like Argentina wanted to re take islands such as the Falklands we wouldn't be able to diddly **** about it.

[Agnostic Bear]

l m a o .

yeah, everybody who is from the middle east wants to attack western culture. how right you are.

You keep clinging to that belief whilst the rest of the world wakes up. Germany has already started. They don't want to integrate with us, they just want free land and resources.

[Starburst..x]

Can I just ask, during the election weren't the conservatives slating the labour party for not providing enough support in the ways of military ships, planes, boats and weaponary and now the tories themselves are cutting this sort of thing themselves?

Clappity clap tories what else are we going to bring down now?

[dbgtz]

I dont honestly think were needing a large military at this moment, worlds not in bad shape in terms of war, minus afghanistan and terrorists, but still we dont really need a sea boat for it. If war was to start I honestly think we'd get loads in a matter of months so we can go kick ass.

[Jordy]

What ever happened to this once great empire. Oh wait, the war... right.It disappeared, perhaps we should bring our armed forces in line with this. We have the second/third most military expenditure, it just doesn't make sense anymore.


If we ever did get attacked here somehow I don't see what use having planes on a boat will do, seems like it might be a better idea to have them here ready for defensive purposes, or if we really need to have them out in other countries I'm fairly sure we're still capable of building an airbase, it's not only the Polish who can do manual labourThat's exactly what I was thinking. What is absolutely vital is defending Britain (Trident + RAF Jets) and supporting our current mission in Afghanistan (Troop numbers, vehicles + Chinooks) not an Aircraft carrier which really isn't that useful in either of those. It's far better that an ageing aircraft carrier is cut than the alternative of something like Trident, RAF Jets, Chinooks, Troop numbers etc.


Can I just ask, during the election weren't the conservatives slating the labour party for not providing enough support in the ways of military ships, planes, boats and weaponary and now the tories themselves are cutting this sort of thing themselves?

Clappity clap tories what else are we going to bring down now?The Tories attacked Labour lots on the poor equipment they had in Afghanstan, the lack of Helicopters, SNATCH Land Rovers and poor body armour in particular rather than things such as Aircraft Carriers.

You'll find out tomorrow what else is going down in the spending review announcements. So when you hear of "Tory cuts!" don't be surprised. Oh and also remember it's a coalition government, so if you intend on carrying on about how savage the Tories are, don't forget about the Lib Dems k? :)


Jut heard about all the cuts. All I'm saying is if countries like Argentina wanted to re take islands such as the Falklands we wouldn't be able to diddly **** about it.So one aircraft carrier is the difference between defending them and surrendering them? Nahhhh.


Not so. Our forces are massively overstretched as it is when it comes to overseas deployments. Not so much now we have withdrawn from Iraq, but when you have operational deployments in Cyprus, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Gibraltar and the Falklands as well as numerous other places around the world offering varying numbers of soldiers. In the event of a large scale war resulting from ongoing diplomatic unease with eastern countries we would be in a difficult position. The fact we are an island gives us a strategic advantage but in this day and age that advantage isn't massive and it plays no bearing on the fact that, should war break out, we would be facing a shortage of soldiers.As I'm sure you're well aware, within 24 hours most the troops all over the world could be re-positioned anywhere else in the world. Should anything kick off we would withdraw from Afghanistan almost instantly. As I've said, the cuts have been careful to allow Britain to still have defences and continue the fighting in Afghanistan. Surely you agree it's better that an old aircraft carrier gets decommissioned rather than something like Trident being scrapped or the Chinook order cancelled.

[xxMATTGxx]

Jut heard about all the cuts. All I'm saying is if countries like Argentina wanted to re take islands such as the Falklands we wouldn't be able to diddly **** about it.

I'm sure they brought the Falklands up again some months back if anyone remembers the thread we had on it. Well they just scrapped the harriers which were our only aircraft to be able to use aircraft carriers and we will have nothing like it for around 10 years or so. I'm not currently sure what kind of equipment we have over there if that would be case of Argentina wanting it back within months time. I guess we could send in some submarines and Type 45 destroyers to solve that.

[Jordy]

I'm sure they brought the Falklands up again some months back if anyone remembers the thread we had on it. Well they just scrapped the harriers which were our only aircraft to be able to use aircraft carriers and we will have nothing like it for around 10 years or so. I'm not currently sure what kind of equipment we have over there if that would be case of Argentina wanting it back within months time. I guess we could send in some submarines and Type 45 destroyers to solve that.1300 troops, RAF Typhoons and a Navy boat are always stationed there, and that's not to say more couldn't be sent within days and the continual trident deterrent.

[immense]

Jut heard about all the cuts. All I'm saying is if countries like Argentina wanted to re take islands such as the Falklands we wouldn't be able to diddly **** about it.

Not sure anyone would care.


You keep clinging to that belief whilst the rest of the world wakes up. Germany has already started. They don't want to integrate with us, they just want free land and resources.

Ignorance.

Just had to pick out these silly posts. Tories are scum.

[-:Undertaker:-]

we're an island and we don't need a big army.

Yes we do, we have various oversea territories which need protecting (namely Gibralter and the Falkland Islands).

As for these cuts to the military, stupid - I know. However first the blame lies foremost with the Labour Party who got us into crippling debt in the first place (the recession was worldwide, debt is a seperate issue which Labour failed to control). Secondly one must ask; why is the EU/foreign aid ringfenced rather than the military?

The idea that our military doesn't need to be massive is invalid - our military is already rather small compared to the former percentage of GDP we previously spent on the armed forces. The military budget (especially that of the Navy) needs to be greatly increased if anything - especially as we are fighting the war that is Afghanistan of which none of our politicians can give a reason to why we are fighting there.

[Nixt]

As I'm sure you're well aware, within 24 hours most the troops all over the world could be re-positioned anywhere else in the world. Should anything kick off we would withdraw from Afghanistan almost instantly. As I've said, the cuts have been careful to allow Britain to still have defences and continue the fighting in Afghanistan. Surely you agree it's better that an old aircraft carrier gets decommissioned rather than something like Trident being scrapped or the Chinook order cancelled.

In the event anything did kick off, we could redeploy our soldiers very quickly, correct. However first response to any large scale war involves launching aircraft from sea in order to clear the way for ground deployment. If we were required to invade a country, for the sake of argument let's just say Iran, our immediate air support would be severely inhibited by the fact we aren't able to launch from the sea. It's not likely, no, but these cuts run deep and beyond just the decommissioning of an aircraft carrier.

The loss of 7,000 personnel in the army, for example, overstretches an already overstretched service even further. Our overseas commitments are vast and wide - and agree or disagree with them, the current government has an obligation to ensure that the army and the other services are in a position to maintain these commitments for as long as necessary. They've just made it a hell of a lot more difficult for everyone.

In the long term, the decisions he has made in this review make sense - the increase in the number of Chinook helicopters, the decision to continue with the building of the two new aircraft carriers and so forth. Short term though, he is making the UK from a military point of a view, a laughing stock without fundamental capabilities that today all modern nations have available.

[GommeInc]

Hmm, a better approach would be to hold a Labour, Tory and Lib Dem meeting in Parliament where every member must attend, as well as every Lord. Then, you do what Guy Fawkes planned and blow it up. Simples, you don't have the Labour Party who do not understand the value of money, you won't get the Tories who lie to get into office as well as their long lost brother the Lib Dems.

Being more realistic though, cutting away from the EU would be a better option, it serves no real purpose seeing as it appears to take rather than give, the money we spend on the EU could easily do everything here - tuitions, military and, the only thing I've seen EU funding being used for, roads and new buildings. Lets face it, the EU is only there to put countries in debt, not actually help with any costs :P

[Agnostic Bear]

Ignorance.

Just had to pick out these silly posts. Tories are scum.

An entire country saying that it doesn't work is ignorance. Why not go tell the Germans they're ignorant?

[jam666]

Jut heard about all the cuts. All I'm saying is if countries like Argentina wanted to re take islands such as the Falklands we wouldn't be able to diddly **** about it.

Im sorry, but what are they going to do?, send a fleet of fishing boats to capture the island with fishing nets?, the simple answer is No. Whilst we do need defending and need to defend places like falklands etc there is really only a very slim chance of argentina actually doing any damage.

As for the cuts, Do i agree with them all? No. Do they have to be done? YES ABSOLUTELY!. You can sit here and complain about this and that but at the end of the day we have a huge deficit and it needs to come down dramatically and this is through CUTS.

To those of you who say bring back labour etc well please stop and think for a minute. Who caused the defecit in the first place? LABOUR. Does labour have a plan to tackle the defecit? NO. Until they do dont even mention them as they are practically irrelevant in curing the problem when they caused it in the first place.

[immense]

An entire country saying that it doesn't work is ignorance. Why not go tell the Germans they're ignorant?

We do not live in Germany. England has one of the highest rates of assimilation in the world. I think that's fundamentally because none of our ancestors were actually born in England.

[Technologic]

Cuts need to be made and in reality only 4-5 ships are being lost, an extra astute class nuclear submarine has been ordered, the current need for aircraft carriers is low as there are still RAF bases in Kuwait and Cyprus. The only really stupid decision imo was the harrier fleet being cut.. Plus Argentina doesn't have the money to launch an attack on the falklands...

[StefanWolves]

Cuts need to be made and in reality only 4-5 ships are being lost, an extra astute class nuclear submarine has been ordered, the current need for aircraft carriers is low as there are still RAF bases in Kuwait and Cyprus. The only really stupid decision imo was the harrier fleet being cut.. Plus Argentina doesn't have the money to launch an attack on the falklands...
Its not just about the Falklands though. We have lots of overseas territory that foreign countries could take, now we don't have any aircraft to operate from our two remaining aircraft carrier, they may aswell be scrapped also (HMS Invincible, HMS Illustrious).

The only time we will have aircraft on aircraft carriers is when the new one's are commissioned in 2018/2020, and they will be fitted with F35 fighter jets(not vertical takeoff as first planned, they will now catapult launched (cause it's cheaper). But we can't go 10 years without aircraft on an aircraft carrier.

What has got under my skin furthermore is that they're talking about having French/foreign navy's aircraft on British aircraft carriers of present and future, which is just laughable.

[FlyingJesus]

Well there's no point in the French keeping them, they don't have any fighters

[StefanWolves]

I presume you mean fighter aircraft? if so, yes they do, even if it is limited.

[Nixt]

The French have one of the largest air forces out of most members of NATO. They have somewhere in the region of 300 fighter aircraft if I remember correctly.

[FlyingJesus]

brb completely missing a joke about French military

[Agnostic Bear]

We do not live in Germany. England has one of the highest rates of assimilation in the world. I think that's fundamentally because none of our ancestors were actually born in England.

Go to bradistan or the area on the other side of town from me, see if the people you're on about are 'assimilating'. The only place in the uk that any sort of immigrant assimilates is scotland.

[immense]

Go to bradistan or the area on the other side of town from me, see if the people you're on about are 'assimilating'. The only place in the uk that any sort of immigrant assimilates is scotland.

What do you suggest - no immigrants? :rolleyes:

[Agnostic Bear]

What do you suggest - no immigrants? :rolleyes:

No I suggest forcing them to learn English, forcing them to integrate with our culture. I'm not a beast. I'm just... you know, patriotic, and don't want to see this country go down the crapper, which is why I hope the Conservative government are re-elected in 2015.

[immense]

Defeats the point of a lot of immigration if you want them to spend years learning English. I don't care about other countries I don't think our immigration policy should ever be strict. Seeing as you're patriotic I'm sure you'll know that England / Britain is made up of numerous nationalities and always has been. It is what makes our country great and one of the things British people should be most proud of.

[FlyingJesus]

The only place in the uk that any sort of immigrant assimilates is scotland.

South coast there are so few non-whites (and even fewer who weren't born in England) that they're all fairly well assimilated or they wouldn't be able to get by. In my experience the least willing to adapt are the Portuguese and Turkish rather than Middle/Far Eastern folk

[Agnostic Bear]

Defeats the point of a lot of immigration if you want them to spend years learning English.

Your view is almost infuriating, because sure, let's all just come to the UK, piss on our language and laugh at the natives. Multiculturalism does not work. The sooner you realise that the better.

You should not call yourself British. They should integrate and become British, not create their own cultures and live in isolation. We are not a people of isolation unlike what garbage you seem to be spouting.

One country, one language, one people, not a bunch of different cultures clashing over everything. Quick Jake, ruin our country even faster.

[immense]

I think you'll find in London and various other cities white people do pretty much isolate themselves. Invalid point. Next.

[matt$]

Just go down the pub and let the whole thing blow over.

[StefanWolves]

I agree totally

Your view is almost infuriating, because sure, let's all just come to the UK, piss on our language and laugh at the natives. Multiculturalism does not work. The sooner you realise that the better.

You should not call yourself British. They should integrate and become British, not create their own cultures and live in isolation. We are not a people of isolation unlike what garbage you seem to be spouting.

One country, one language, one people, not a bunch of different cultures clashing over everything. Quick Jake, ruin our country even faster.

[Nixt]

brb completely missing a joke about French military

I got your joke, I was responding to his point about the French air force being small. Shouldn't underestimate the French either!!


Just go down the pub and let the whole thing blow over.

Good plan

[hairpins]

plz kan yew vote labour next tyme instead of dem coservatives coz votin 4 lib dem means yew r votin 4 dem tories pmsl
… wudnt dare hun sorri

dey r nasti n r makin mi pay more 2 get les

[xxMATTGxx]

Its not just about the Falklands though. We have lots of overseas territory that foreign countries could take, now we don't have any aircraft to operate from our two remaining aircraft carrier, they may aswell be scrapped also (HMS Invincible, HMS Illustrious).

The only time we will have aircraft on aircraft carriers is when the new one's are commissioned in 2018/2020, and they will be fitted with F35 fighter jets(not vertical takeoff as first planned, they will now catapult launched (cause it's cheaper). But we can't go 10 years without aircraft on an aircraft carrier.

What has got under my skin furthermore is that they're talking about having French/foreign navy's aircraft on British aircraft carriers of present and future, which is just laughable.

I don't agree that we should have joint aircraft carriers with other countries so it becomes a "British & French Aircraft Carrier" all together but I think having the carries capable of having their aircraft able to land on the carriers as well as our own is a good solution. It would be beneficial for training and if a war does break out and we are going to war with the same countries we can share resources with ease.

[Agnostic Bear]

I think you'll find in London and various other cities white people do pretty much isolate themselves. Invalid point. Next.

We're British, it's our country, we're not isolating ourselves, they're just not adapting to our way of life. If they did they'd be accepted.

Invalid point. Next.

[immense]

So when they isolate themselves like us British people do they're adapting to our way of life?

What is the issue then? ;)

[Agnostic Bear]

So when they isolate themselves like us British people do they're adapting to our way of life?

What is the issue then? ;)

You not understanding.

We have a right to isolate ourselves from their culture, it's our country. They have no right to isolate themselves from our country and culture, if they want to do that they can get out.

[immense]

So immigrants aren't equal to British people?

[Agnostic Bear]

If they're willing to integrate and STOP. COLLABORATE & LISTEN then sure they are. But if they're not willing to, then no, they're not.

[immense]

So we shouldn't allow introverts into Britain? Fabulous reasoning.

[Agnostic Bear]

I fail to see how I said we shouldn't allow introverts into Britain. They isolate themselves from everything, not just another culture, they're not even on the same table as what I'm saying. Fabulous reasoning.

(Also I am an introvert)

[immense]

Introverts will generally not want to get involved and express themselves. You're saying those who don't get involved shouldn't be in our country yet if we were born here we're allowed to do as we please. Pick one or the other. Not sure you're quite grasping things.

[Agnostic Bear]

Introverts will generally not want to get involved and express themselves. You're saying those who don't get involved shouldn't be in our country yet if we were born here we're allowed to do as we please. Pick one or the other. Not sure you're quite grasping things.

I'm grasping things a lot better than you are son. Introverts are somewhat special as they are usually gifted. They are an exception to the rule, normal people should have to adapt fully, introverts should only have to adapt partially if at all, as long as they help out in some way.

How long until you stop arguing? It's clear I'm in the right here. Both politically and you know, just right.

[immense]

It's quite clear you're not as you keep changing your argument. So we should do introvert tests on the border - if people are introverts they can come in regardless of if they can speak English? However, if you're not and can't speak English you can't come in?

The way you try and speak down to me is cute though. Means a lot to me that you see me as a threat.

[Agnostic Bear]

It's quite clear you're not as you keep changing your argument. So we should do introvert tests on the border - if people are introverts they can come in regardless of if they can speak English? However, if you're not and can't speak English you can't come in?

The way you try and speak down to me is cute though. Means a lot to me that you see me as a threat.

I'm pretty certain it's fairly easy to see straight off the bat if someone is an introvert so no real testing required.

Also you're not a threat to me, you're a plaything.

[immense]

Maybe we should allow people who can roll their tongues in too. Bizarre.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think you'll find in London and various other cities white people do pretty much isolate themselves. Invalid point. Next.

Err actually no, thats just not valid at all. If you look at areas in the United Kingdom (and even the United States which is experiencing problems) you will see that racial divides are becoming more apparent. Nobody forces immigrants to walk around in burkhas, settle in Bradford and refuse to learn English - those who we are talking about simply have no wish to integrate with us.


Defeats the point of a lot of immigration if you want them to spend years learning English. I don't care about other countries I don't think our immigration policy should ever be strict. Seeing as you're patriotic I'm sure you'll know that England / Britain is made up of numerous nationalities and always has been. It is what makes our country great and one of the things British people should be most proud of.

England has never experienced such an influx of immigrants, and more as of recent - ones who do not wish to integrate - let's cut to the chase rather than bash around the silly bush with "we've always been a country of immigration".

[Agnostic Bear]

Err actually no, thats just not valid at all. If you look at areas in the United Kingdom (and even the United States which is experiencing problems) you will see that racial divides are becoming more apparent. Nobody forces immigrants to walk around in burkhas, settle in Bradford and refuse to learn English - those who we are talking about simply have no wish to integrate with us.



England has never experienced such an influx of immigrants, and more as of recent - ones who do not wish to integrate - let's cut to the chase rather than bash around the silly bush with "we've always been a country of immigration".

Literally the first time i've ever agreed so hard with any member on the forum ever, this post is exactly what I'm getting at. Very glad someone is rational enough to see it.

Will rep at some point.

[Ajthedragon]

We're an island nation and need our navy. In all fairness they could have cut all of the cold-war tanks. Having said that, I don't think we have a choice. Cuts need to be made, and America would let one of its allies down. Worst come to worst, they would always help us. Sound like some kind of America-lover here. :l

[Jordy]

We're an island nation and need our navy. In all fairness they could have cut all of the cold-war tanks. Having said that, I don't think we have a choice. Cuts need to be made, and America would let one of its allies down. Worst come to worst, they would always help us. Sound like some kind of America-lover here. :lSomething like 40% of Cold War Tanks & Artillery are being cut :)

[immense]

1) If Labours spending was so out of control, why did the Tories promise to match their plans, pound for pound, all the way until Nov 2008? Where were the Tory protests?

2) Until the crash hit in Sept 2008, the structural deficit was 3% of GDP. Now the structural deficit is 8%, up because of dealing with the bank crisis and the subsequent slump.

3) Labour entered the financial crisis with low inflation, low interest rates,low unemployment and the lowest net debt of any large G7 country.

4) The Tories wanted even lighter regulation of our financial institutions, so you can imagine what it would have been like if the Tories had been in power when the crash came.

5) The colossal borrowing by Labour was needed to prevent the crash of 2008 engulfing the entire economy and going into a depression. Gordan Brown's decision about how to handle that crash was hailed as a triumph internationally and most countries in trouble followed his plans. At the same time most eminent economists supported what he did.

6) Of course Labour would have made cuts if they had been re-elected, but they wouldn't have been so deep or made over such a short period.

[-:Undertaker:-]

1) If Labours spending was so out of control, why did the Tories promise to match their plans, pound for pound, all the way until Nov 2008? Where were the Tory protests?

Because by know you should all realise that the three main parties are all the same just with slight differences they exaggerate to win the popular vote. The same applies to the United States.


2) Until the crash hit in Sept 2008, the structural deficit was 3% of GDP. Now the structural deficit is 8%, up because of dealing with the bank crisis and the subsequent slump.

The debt is always misleading as government figures are shifted around constantly, meaning things like joint-private and public venturas paid for by taxpayer money are hidden from the books. The total debt for the United Kingdom stands at £1tn to £2.5tn (again, it depends what figures you include) and has been rising consistantly under this last Labour government.

In terms of the nationalisation of the banks, a total and utter waste of money that was not needed. Infact it has made the situation worse both here, in the States and around the world because now nations have borrowed more money ontop of their already bloated government loans - which means that eventually all of this is going to have to be repaid and the way we are going - we are heading for a massive crisis concerning the monetary system which I will go onto below.

Both the Fed in the United States, the Bank of England/Royal Mint here and in the European Union, the European Central Bank - they have been printing worthless money with nothing to back it up for years now, and have 'bailed themselves out' with this money. The problem with this is, that the currencies are already so devalued that there is a big danger of this money simply collapsing because its not worth the money it is written on - you can't print yourself out of debt.

In terms of Europe and the European Union in particular, the crisis in Europe has little to do with the financial crisis of 2008 as the video below explains - the problem of big government spending what it does not have along with thousands and thousands of pages of regulation crushing business is what has kept us behind for so long and continues to drag us down all the time yet people such as yourself call for more of it. How many times do we have to go down the road of over-regulation which eventually leads to a situation such as the USSR, such as Cuba, such as China back in the 1960s/70s before people wake up.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2KztUNKj0o


3) Labour entered the financial crisis with low inflation, low interest rates,low unemployment and the lowest net debt of any large G7 country.

The debt has remained high throughout Labours reign and as I said before, this was pointed out well before the crisis even by the likes of myself on this very forum - in comparison to other countries; again it depends on where these figures come from and how government is organised. To mention unemployment, again you are looking at offical government figures which are very differing to offical unemployment figures - incapacity benefit to cite one famous example, is the most well known way in which government shifts figures around.


4) The Tories wanted even lighter regulation of our financial institutions, so you can imagine what it would have been like if the Tories had been in power when the crash came.

It was over-regulation which caused (or more so hindered) the crisis rather than the silly story many have been led to believe about little regulation. If you look at the Commonwealth countries such as Australia and Canada - they sailed through the crisis pretty well thanks to the right kind of regulation which is minimal and fluid rather than the type of regulation we see in Europe from the EU which is one set of rules for everyone regardless of circumstance. The same also applies for the United States.

The countries with as little regulation as possible have weathered this storm pretty well, examples include; Australia, Canada and Switzerland.


5) The colossal borrowing by Labour was needed to prevent the crash of 2008 engulfing the entire economy and going into a depression. Gordan Brown's decision about how to handle that crash was hailed as a triumph internationally and most countries in trouble followed his plans. At the same time most eminent economists supported what he did.

Anybody can borrow (or create) £2tn and say "hey look, the economy has doubled in size" - does not work. That money one day has to be paid back, and more so - the currency devalues itself de facto automatically because it is not backed by anything, it is worthless.

Who hailed Gordon Brown? the media? Obama? yes you are right in one sense - all of the bankrupt and broken economies did hail Gordon Brown - because he did what they were doing anyway, to stall doomsday and hold it up with more useless paper money and more loans thus storing up even more problems for the future. The borrowing by Labour did not prevent anything, it only made things worse just as they would have been even if the credit crunch had not occured - because again, this one day has to be paid back with the interest.

Look at Greece for one example, or even our own country in 1979 when we had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF.


6) Of course Labour would have made cuts if they had been re-elected, but they wouldn't have been so deep or made over such a short period.

From what I understand, Labour were planning on making the cuts in 2011 (less than 3 months away from now) and they were also going to make 25% cuts to certain departments. I also don't understand this argument about not making the cuts now because the longer you leave it, the worse it will become with debt interest and more debt piling onto the situation.

Remember during the election when tweddle dumb and tweddler dumber were arguing about the pitiful issue of £6bn, in Labours words 'being taken out of the economy' - again, this is economics of the mad house. Whenever a government takes a single penny out of the economy via taxtion, they are taking it out of the real economy (the private sector) and giving it to the cartel that is known as government.

But even with all of this, you'll still support Labour - because for you and many others it's a matter of faith.

For more on a currency crisis thanks to this piling debt and printing of money which Gordon Brown calls 'quantitative easing', see Ron Paul;



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiwC1sZzNso

[immense]

not even going to read that lmao not because you're right but because i would have read 100 posts by you with the same message

[Conservative,]

Because by know you should all realise that the three main parties are all the same just with slight differences they exaggerate to win the popular vote. The same applies to the United States.



The debt is always misleading as government figures are shifted around constantly, meaning things like joint-private and public venturas paid for by taxpayer money are hidden from the books. The total debt for the United Kingdom stands at £1tn to £2.5tn (again, it depends what figures you include) and has been rising consistantly under this last Labour government.

In terms of the nationalisation of the banks, a total and utter waste of money that was not needed. Infact it has made the situation worse both here, in the States and around the world because now nations have borrowed more money ontop of their already bloated government loans - which means that eventually all of this is going to have to be repaid and the way we are going - we are heading for a massive crisis concerning the monetary system which I will go onto below.

Both the Fed in the United States, the Bank of England/Royal Mint here and in the European Union, the European Central Bank - they have been printing worthless money with nothing to back it up for years now, and have 'bailed themselves out' with this money. The problem with this is, that the currencies are already so devalued that there is a big danger of this money simply collapsing because its not worth the money it is written on - you can't print yourself out of debt.

In terms of Europe and the European Union in particular, the crisis in Europe has little to do with the financial crisis of 2008 as the video below explains - the problem of big government spending what it does not have along with thousands and thousands of pages of regulation crushing business is what has kept us behind for so long and continues to drag us down all the time yet people such as yourself call for more of it. How many times do we have to go down the road of over-regulation which eventually leads to a situation such as the USSR, such as Cuba, such as China back in the 1960s/70s before people wake up.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2KztUNKj0o



The debt has remained high throughout Labours reign and as I said before, this was pointed out well before the crisis even by the likes of myself on this very forum - in comparison to other countries; again it depends on where these figures come from and how government is organised. To mention unemployment, again you are looking at offical government figures which are very differing to offical unemployment figures - incapacity benefit to cite one famous example, is the most well known way in which government shifts figures around.



It was over-regulation which caused (or more so hindered) the crisis rather than the silly story many have been led to believe about little regulation. If you look at the Commonwealth countries such as Australia and Canada - they sailed through the crisis pretty well thanks to the right kind of regulation which is minimal and fluid rather than the type of regulation we see in Europe from the EU which is one set of rules for everyone regardless of circumstance. The same also applies for the United States.

The countries with as little regulation as possible have weathered this storm pretty well, examples include; Australia, Canada and Switzerland.



Anybody can borrow (or create) £2tn and say "hey look, the economy has doubled in size" - does not work. That money one day has to be paid back, and more so - the currency devalues itself de facto automatically because it is not backed by anything, it is worthless.

Who hailed Gordon Brown? the media? Obama? yes you are right in one sense - all of the bankrupt and broken economies did hail Gordon Brown - because he did what they were doing anyway, to stall doomsday and hold it up with more useless paper money and more loans thus storing up even more problems for the future. The borrowing by Labour did not prevent anything, it only made things worse just as they would have been even if the credit crunch had not occured - because again, this one day has to be paid back with the interest.

Look at Greece for one example, or even our own country in 1979 when we had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF.



From what I understand, Labour were planning on making the cuts in 2011 (less than 3 months away from now) and they were also going to make 25% cuts to certain departments. I also don't understand this argument about not making the cuts now because the longer you leave it, the worse it will become with debt interest and more debt piling onto the situation.

Remember during the election when tweddle dumb and tweddler dumber were arguing about the pitiful issue of £6bn, in Labours words 'being taken out of the economy' - again, this is economics of the mad house. Whenever a government takes a single penny out of the economy via taxtion, they are taking it out of the real economy (the private sector) and giving it to the cartel that is known as government.

But even with all of this, you'll still support Labour - because for you and many others it's a matter of faith.

For more on a currency crisis thanks to this piling debt and printing of money which Gordon Brown calls 'quantitative easing', see Ron Paul;



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiwC1sZzNso

Agree with everything you said. Hands down.

[-:Undertaker:-]

not even going to read that lmao not because you're right but because i would have read 100 posts by you with the same message

As I said, its a matter of faith for you.