March for the Alternative - London - Today [Archive]

Hecktix

26-03-2011, 12:15 PM

I'm right wing and I don't agree with most of what the conservative party has done so far. I guess that makes me an idiot too.

A lot of right wingers don't, you certainly aren't alone. There are just a few Conservative fanboys who agree with what the tories have done - most people who actually know what they are talking about and have right-wing views don't agree with what's happening. The Conservatives are cutting things like the NHS, Education and other public sector services however then there's announcements like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12852926 - which just absolutely takes the piss.

I wish all those marching today good luck and I hope it's a peaceful protest, this Government is awful and their cuts are tearing this country apart - they have taken this standpoint of "pay back debt as quickly as possible no matter what the consequences are" - when in reality the repayments need to be much more stable and should be done with less cuts to the people who need it most.

jam666

26-03-2011, 03:51 PM

Actually I'd say there are hardly any right-wing members other than me, Dan & Agnostic Bear...certainly in the current affairs forum it seems that the forum is actually very left-wing.

And the thing that gets me is the people marching have no idea of economics or business otherwise they'd realise that the pay cuts are the only way. Bring in Labour and they'll print MORE money, making the £ worthless and sending us into hyperinflation.

Dont forget me :).

This march in westminster is absolutely disgraceful and EVERYONE who is there should hang their heads in shame. This is usual of the left and socialist who think marching will achieve anything.. but it wont. They squark and squirm how "everyone agrees with them" but we do NOT.

The unions died in the 80's and quite frankly need to perish into the pits of oblivion as they serve no purpose what-so-ever except to protest against things that need to be done.

Im a Conservative but I don't agree with everything that David Cameron has said or done...

* He didn't give us an EU refferendum
* No reform on british bill of rights
* Inheritence tax chages scrapped

and these are just a few of the things I disagree with..... infact I'd say cuts need to be over 20% for example across the board and nothing less will do.

As for college or uni lecturers they need to get off their high horse and take a cold hard look at them selves. The only reason they are complaining is because their pensions are being brought into line with what the private sector has had for years and just because they wont get their gold plated pensions or pay rises here and there they strike for nothing but purely greed.

Most people are forgetting who caused this mess and the answer is the LABOUR party... You ask most left wing supporters what the alternative is to the cuts and they cant even come up with an answer which renders their silly little protest USELESS!.

In may you know who to vote for and it certainly isnt labour, lib dems or any other left social party including the greens.

Vote Conservative / UKIP.

Jordy

26-03-2011, 04:11 PM

What on earth is their alternative?! They couldn't of come up with a more hypocritical and comical name for their march quite frankly.

From what I've seen they're offering two alternatives to the cuts;
1) Spend our way out of debt. Quite obviously this isn't possible, we cannot go on like this and services must be cut back.
2) Tax the banks and bankers. Completely ridiculous idea, the UK is a service economy (80% employed within it, making up 73% of GDP) and we are incredibly reliant on our finance sector. London (along with NY) is the world finance hub and it's our main export. If we begin taxing banks heavily they'll simply move abroad and we get zilch from them then. Without our finance sector, this country would probably be nothing and hardly worth living in.

We had "good times" under Brown as chancellor because he was experiencing the positive effects of the previous Conservative governments attempt to open the UK up to foreign business and making London a world hub. He also borrowed ridiculous amounts of money and increased public sector spending everywhere. We absolutely cannot afford to live like this. Yes it's nice to see enormous investment and spending everywhere but we simply cannot afford it and it was never our money to spend in the first place.

It's essentially like someone earning £20k a year, taking a £1 Million loan from a bank and then refusing to repay it because they've become accustom to living a wealthy lifestyle.

The whole thing is infuriating and nearly impossible to solve. People will try to offer solutions but drastically cutting public spending is the only way, soon enough the cuts will catch up with us and sadly the thing is, once the deficit is cut (Anytime from 2016 onwards), we'll still be in over a lifetime of debt. Pretty grim really, you can thank Gordon Brown's time as Chancellor for this, a man so wonderful he was promoted to Prime Minister and couldn't win an election.

Chippiewill

26-03-2011, 04:16 PM

And the thing that gets me is the people marching have no idea of economics or business otherwise they'd realise that the pay cuts are the only way. Bring in Labour and they'll print MORE money, making the £ worthless and sending us into hyperinflation.
That's not the only way, the Americans got out of the previous recession (Back in the 40s) by printing money and encouraging spending and by getting people jobs. What the conservatives are doing is keeping us barely above the recession line.

Marbian

26-03-2011, 04:18 PM

No... Because I know they are doing it for a reason. They aren't doing it to **** us over, they are doing it to help the country get back onto it's feet. I'm sure they'd be pushed out of goverment if there doing it to make our country even worse.. seriously.

jam666

26-03-2011, 04:33 PM

That's not the only way, the Americans got out of the previous recession (Back in the 40s) by printing money and encouraging spending and by getting people jobs. What the conservatives are doing is keeping us barely above the recession line.

And look where america is now???.. its in a much, much, much worse position than the uk in terms of debt. Quite frankly america is a bubble thats about to burst.

You can quite easily say lets go crazy and print all the money we want.. BUT your living in a fantasy world as doing so would de-value the currency.

alexxxxx

26-03-2011, 05:26 PM

Fez

26-03-2011, 05:51 PM

I agree with the cuts, to a certain extent, they are necessary and they are brutal and (in a sense) the way Thatcher did it. She did what she had to do and public opinion spun out of control, it was only the Falklands war that stopped the Tories from losing control while they brought Britain into the heart of the modern world.

I think they're necessary, but they haven't been controlled as well. For example, the arts budget has been slashed whereas foreign aid has increased in size. A few weeks back we heard of the massive aid we were given to India, essentially a 'British investment', while every other leader went other there to shake hands and create money, we decided to just hand it to them.

@this whole "left wing", "right wing" argument, I am definitely right wing myself. It's sensible individualism at the end of the day and it's shocking hearing my History teachers promote socialism and Obama-lite 'CHANGE'. People are criticising Obama for putting in $1trn worth of cuts because it's not enough, the truth is it's not enough, it's barely a fraction of the debt. It's the same case over here, as Alex said above, the problem isn't with the 'hard working troops' but with the MoD paying for (what amounts to) waste.

I agree with what the cuts stand for and some of the attempts, but not all of them are sensible in my opinion.

Jordy

26-03-2011, 06:24 PM

I think most people accept that government cuts are necessary. There is just a big divide in how the cuts affect people. There is gross overspend and corruption in the MoD, but of course it's political suicide 'to cut back on our hard-working troops' - when the real issue is that they are paying £9 for lightbulbs and other waste.

Then there's the university cuts, putting a quota on international students, generally destructive as there will be poorer research, poorer graduates, worse in the long term.

The Government aren't doing enough to stimulate private investment with their cuts or spending in the private sector.I think the MoD is one department where the cuts are appropriate. The actual department itself seems to be the problem with ridiculous salaries, pensions and of course the whole £9 lightbulb thing - These do of course need resolving.

However there has been rather a lot of frontline cuts, for instance many of the RAFs planes and Navy's ships have been scrapped early and we now have no aircraft carriers. In 2018 when two come into service, we'll be sharing one with the French and selling the other off. Aircraft orders also seem to be on hold and minimised whilst Trident has also been put on hold. And of course an awful lot of soldiers have been/will be laid off, many who are on active duty right now.

I'm not saying that their cuts have gone too far but we make very good use of our military, not long back they were stretched on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're still in Afghanistan and now there's fumbling around in Libya too. So far the forces seem to be coping okay with the cuts but who knows what will happen in the future. History might be very critical of Cameron for his military cuts. If they went any further I suspect they'd be in a lot of trouble, but if they were any less it would be disproportional with other department cuts.

Chippiewill

26-03-2011, 07:41 PM

And look where america is now???.. its in a much, much, much worse position than the uk in terms of debt. Quite frankly america is a bubble thats about to burst.

You can quite easily say lets go crazy and print all the money we want.. BUT your living in a fantasy world as doing so would de-value the currency.

It worked back in the 40s for the americans, if you recover the economy before serious damage to the currency is done then you'll be in a better position because you'll actually have an economy going rather than being in exactly the same position in five years time like the Conservatives are doing right now.

jam666

26-03-2011, 08:43 PM

It worked back in the 40s for the americans, if you recover the economy before serious damage to the currency is done then you'll be in a better position because you'll actually have an economy going rather than being in exactly the same position in five years time like the Conservatives are doing right now.

Your solution wont work because this situation whilst in essence is similar to previous rescessions its not the same as this was caused by one group of people only and thats Labour.

The pound is already at an all time low against the euro.

The one example if any that we should follow is Canada. They had debt problems like ourselves and cut alot of things including blowing up hospitals because they couldnt afford them. Fast forward a dozen years and Canada is going about its business just fine.

I don't understand why people fail to see a pattern that is very clear and has arised. The pattern being labour spend, then spend some more and continuing spending till there is nothing left. A conservative government is then elected and solves all of our problems and makes the country prosper again. Labour is then elected again and makes the same mistakes of spending everything we have and MORE.. and then we end up with our present conservative / lib dem coalition.

I have no doubts that this pattern will probably happen again but it won't be third time lucky.

Chippiewill

26-03-2011, 09:52 PM

Your solution wont work because this situation whilst in essence is similar to previous rescessions its not the same as this was caused by one group of people only and thats Labour.
So the recessions in other countries ALSO came from Labour?

The pound is already at an all time low against the euro.
I'd hardly call an all time low over ten years a catastrophe.

The one example if any that we should follow is Canada. They had debt problems like ourselves and cut alot of things including blowing up hospitals because they couldnt afford them. Fast forward a dozen years and Canada is going about its business just fine.Yes because our economy isn't one of those big ones like Canada...

I don't understand why people fail to see a pattern that is very clear and has arised. The pattern being labour spend, then spend some more and continuing spending till there is nothing left. A conservative government is then elected and solves all of our problems and makes the country prosper again. Labour is then elected again and makes the same mistakes of spending everything we have and MORE.. and then we end up with our present conservative / lib dem coalition.
You're projecting a pattern that has only occurred once.

I have no doubts that this pattern will probably happen again but it won't be third time lucky.
It'll be third time's the charm?

Conservative,

26-03-2011, 11:52 PM

Your solution wont work because this situation whilst in essence is similar to previous rescessions its not the same as this was caused by one group of people only and thats Labour.

The pound is already at an all time low against the euro.

The one example if any that we should follow is Canada. They had debt problems like ourselves and cut alot of things including blowing up hospitals because they couldnt afford them. Fast forward a dozen years and Canada is going about its business just fine.

I don't understand why people fail to see a pattern that is very clear and has arised. The pattern being labour spend, then spend some more and continuing spending till there is nothing left. A conservative government is then elected and solves all of our problems and makes the country prosper again. Labour is then elected again and makes the same mistakes of spending everything we have and MORE.. and then we end up with our present conservative / lib dem coalition.

I have no doubts that this pattern will probably happen again but it won't be third time lucky.

I noticed this pattern too. Basically, Labour spend all our money to keep us happy, then get us into debt and happily walk out Number 10. knowing they'll be back in 5-10 years because people won't like the Tory cuts - however the Tory cuts get us back on track, but because of the cuts, people feel hard-done-by so they then re-elect Labour who spend all the money the Tories got back.

So the recessions in other countries ALSO came from Labour?

No, the recession is different. The recession is a consequence of several countries having substantial debts and the banks lending more than they could afford. But our National debt was caused by labour borrowing too much.

I'd hardly call an all time low over ten years a catastrophe.

12 years* and anyway, it's still bad?

Yes because our economy isn't one of those big ones like Canada...

what's your point here?

You're projecting a pattern that has only occurred once.

Uhm, actually, 1919, 1930, 1974, 1980, & 2008. That's 6 times. Guess which party were in power?: 1919 - Coalition (Prime Minister - Lloyd George - Labour). 1930 - Labour. 1974 - Labour, 1980 - Conservative, 2008 - Labour. One exception to the rule.

It'll be third time's the charm?

Cheryl

27-03-2011, 12:40 AM

I agree with almost all of this and add my points in bold

Dont forget me :).

This march in westminster is absolutely disgraceful and EVERYONE who is there should hang their heads in shame. This is usual of the left and socialist who think marching will achieve anything.. but it wont. They squark and squirm how "everyone agrees with them" but we do NOT.
I thought Mr Milliband's speech at the end of the protest/march was rather weak, he claims that he knew the Torries would say the people protesting are in minority, the thing is they actually were in minority, Labour created this situation and the Torries are doing it in the most swift way. This wy it means the counrty can get back on track quickly.

The unions died in the 80's and quite frankly need to perish into the pits of oblivion as they serve no purpose what-so-ever except to protest against things that need to be done.
All public sector based unions that is. There is no way the public sector would accept as much inductrial action as we allow the public sector to display at the expense of the tax payer.

Im a Conservative but I don't agree with everything that David Cameron has said or done...

* He didn't give us an EU refferendum
* No reform on british bill of rights
* Inheritence tax chages scrapped

and these are just a few of the things I disagree with..... infact I'd say cuts need to be over 20% for example across the board and nothing less will do.
fair points above.

As for college or uni lecturers they need to get off their high horse and take a cold hard look at them selves. The only reason they are complaining is because their pensions are being brought into line with what the private sector has had for years and just because they wont get their gold plated pensions or pay rises here and there they strike for nothing but purely greed.
again referring to my point above about the public sector, the solution however should be streamlining and making the public sector more effective, as opposed to 'cuts'.

Most people are forgetting who caused this mess and the answer is the LABOUR party... You ask most left wing supporters what the alternative is to the cuts and they cant even come up with an answer which renders their silly little protest USELESS!.
Ed Miliband touched on this, saying labour would disperse the cuts across more years, however this would also be rendered useless because they are not going to be in power after their cuts for more than 4 years, or when the election is called, they would therefore be useless, in effect, all modern politics need to be aimed to be achieved in less than 4 years.

In may you know who to vote for and it certainly isnt labour, lib dems or any other left social party including the greens.

Vote Conservative / UKIP.

Fez

27-03-2011, 01:39 AM

1919 - Coalition (Prime Minister - Lloyd George - Labour)

Wrong.

Lloyd George was the Liberal party leader who had to form a coalition with Labour, he himself was not the leader of Labour. They were shoe-horned in as a working class vote netcatcher, I believe that they'll repeat the same mistakes nowadays with the Liberal Democrats being shoe-horned into a coalition.

Wig44.

27-03-2011, 02:21 AM

ITT: People claiming that the Tories are better than Labour when they cut some of the only things they shouldn't cut, like the NHS (unless you sack 90% of the bloated administration which would be good) or Education and then increase Foreign Aid spending, increase EU spending and develop a cop out budget. Most people have it right; labour ideology is just not applicable to a stable country but what the Conservatives have done is go about cutting in possibly the worst way achievable, quite remarkable really. I don't see why people are so fixated on Lib/Lab/Con. Other parties do exist you know.

Agnostic Bear

27-03-2011, 08:57 AM

ITT: People claiming that the Tories are better than Labour when they cut some of the only things they shouldn't cut, like the NHS

ITT people who think money comes from the money tree.

Mathew

27-03-2011, 09:16 AM

I've not really followed the story about the protests but it does seem to be on a massive scale. Stuff like this really angers me. I really do frown upon protests because they really are so pathetic in most cases. It's just silly, petty people who seem to think sitting around (albeit turning into havoc) can get the Government on their side. These people have been under the "buy-what-you-want-worry-about-it-later" procedures that our last Labour Government applied and they can't accept change.

As we've seen with tuition fees (and now this), the Government won't listen to protests, and thank goodness too. These people are wasting their time and it just makes the country look stupid. It's an embarassment.

Catzsy

27-03-2011, 09:23 AM

Dont forget me :).

This march in westminster is absolutely disgraceful and EVERYONE who is there should hang their heads in shame. This is usual of the left and socialist who think marching will achieve anything.. but it wont. They squark and squirm how "everyone agrees with them" but we do NOT.

The unions died in the 80's and quite frankly need to perish into the pits of oblivion as they serve no purpose what-so-ever except to protest against things that need to be done.

I think the part in bold actually sums up exactly what this is about except it need to be done for the people not the self serving ideological policies of this government who actually don't seem interested in the majority of this country.

Im a Conservative but I don't agree with everything that David Cameron has said or done...

* He didn't give us an EU refferendum
* No reform on british bill of rights
* Inheritence tax chages scrapped

and these are just a few of the things I disagree with..... infact I'd say cuts need to be over 20% for example across the board and nothing less will do.

As for college or uni lecturers they need to get off their high horse and take a cold hard look at them selves. The only reason they are complaining is because their pensions are being brought into line with what the private sector has had for years and just because they wont get their gold plated pensions or pay rises here and there they strike for nothing but purely greed.

I think you will find that public sector workers have always been paid less that private sector workers. The average pension is about £6,000 a year. Hardly gold plated. What you forget is that any other reform has
not been retrospective so this is quite a diversion in policy. They have contributed to their pensions for years and now face them being cut. Also this was not just about the pensions it was about the savage cuts in general. Interesting to know that whilst Osbourne didn't announce it they are cutting pensioner's winter fuel allowance by 25 % despite Cameron promising it would not be done.

Most people are forgetting who caused this mess and the answer is the LABOUR party... You ask most left wing supporters what the alternative is to the cuts and they cant even come up with an answer which renders their silly little protest USELESS!.

Yes Labour caused all the mess - the banking sector and global world crisis and recession had nothing to do with it. I think you will find this is just the beginning and I wonder how you will feel when we start plunging into a double dip recession, huge unemployment, and galloping inflation. This is the only thing the conservative government are successful at. Labourey do have a plan -halving the deficit over 4 years which is backed by nobel prize winners. The RBS Shares are now worth at least X3 than when Labour bailed them out so not a bad investment there.:P

In may you know who to vote for and it certainly isnt labour, lib dems or any other left social party including the greens.

Vote Conservative / UKIP.

I think you should enjoy your short time in the sun because it will be short. The local elections in May will show a crushing defeat for both Lib Dems and Conservatives and the road for them started going downhill from the first week.

Inseriousity.

27-03-2011, 09:24 AM

Mathew

27-03-2011, 09:44 AM

It's supposed to be a democratic country so they have every right to protest. They won't feel like they're wasting their time because they are standing up for what they believe in and personally I wish people would start doing that more often - whether you agree with cuts or not, whether you agree with fascism or not etc etc
Would it be considered prissy to suggest they're cluttering up the place? :P It's all well and good for this to be a democratic country, but 9 times out of 10 this rubbish leads to violence; which is when problems start.
I just have a mental image of an American chap yesterday, watching pictures of London and thinking "oh what a state." Why don't they learn that protesting isn't going to shift the Governments choice? They were voted in power for a reason, let them do their job.

Conservative,

27-03-2011, 09:48 AM

Okay...lets do this then.

I think the part in bold actually sums up exactly what this is about except it need to be done for the people not the self serving ideological policies of this government who actually don't seem interested in the majority of this country.

Do you not understand that cutting is the only way to save money so we can pay back the defecit?

I think you will find that public sector workers have always been paid less that private sector workers. The average pension is about £6,000 a year. Hardly gold plated. What you forget is that any other reform has
not been retrospective so this is quite a diversion in policy. They have contributed to their pensions for years and now face them being cut. Also this was not just about the pensions it was about the savage cuts in general. Interesting to know that whilst Osbourne didn't announce it they are cutting pensioner's winter fuel allowance by 25 % despite Cameron promising it would not be done.

Yes - however that is public sector work, they weren't forced into it were they? Their choice. And when the public sector complain about jobs being cut - the private sector has been cutting jobs by up to 50% - so really, they just need to learn that not everything revolves around them. Plus, private sector workers often have to make their own pension without Government funding - so again, the Public sector are lucky they even have that.

Yes Labour caused all the mess - the banking sector and global world crisis and recession had nothing to do with it. I think you will find this is just the beginning and I wonder how you will feel when we start plunging into a double dip recession, huge unemployment, and galloping inflation. This is the only thing the conservative government are successful at. Labourey do have a plan -halving the deficit over 4 years which is backed by nobel prize winners. The RBS Shares are now worth at least X3 than when Labour bailed them out so not a bad investment there.:P

What is this plan then? You say they have one, and that it's backed by Nobel Prize winners, but you haven't said what it is? Plus - I actually have proved in above posts that Labour are the ones that generally get us into a mess like this - and the Tories come in and clean it up. Margret Thatcher anyone? Did the best job of cleaning up after a recession ever. Double dip my arse, that will happen if Labour come in and print loads of money (which was part of their campaign last year) because it devalues the currency so then we go into inflation which will in turn spiral into hyper-inflation with more money flying about.

I think you should enjoy your short time in the sun because it will be short. The local elections in May will show a crushing defeat for both Lib Dems and Conservatives and the road for them started going downhill from the first week.

I think the Lib Dems will have awful poll results but actually, anyone with a bit of logic and common sense will realise that the Conservatives are doing their best and HAVE to cut things. The only people who will vote Labour (sorry if this offends anyone) are those who live on benefits and are upset because they're getting cut or those too stupid to realise that cuts have to be made otherwise our debt will grow. Labour will no doubt be voted in in 5-10 years time, and then they'll happily spend all our money again, and I gaurantee by 2035, there will be another recession.

Inseriousity.

27-03-2011, 09:53 AM

Would it be considered prissy to suggest they're cluttering up the place? :P It's all well and good for this to be a democratic country, but 9 times out of 10 this rubbish leads to violence; which is when problems start.
I just have a mental image of an American chap yesterday, watching pictures of London and thinking "oh what a state." Why don't they learn that protesting isn't going to shift the Governments choice? They were voted in power for a reason, let them do their job.

I would much rather they cluttered up the place. I'm sure the vast majority of people at the march today did not expect a miracle and Cameron to go "GUESS WHAT GUYS, NO MORE CUTS" and I'm sure the vast majority of people at the march today are not against cuts completely but where they are but it's a democratic right to protest regardless of what Americans think, regardless of whether the government will change anything and I'd rather they did that than have a country where they were executed for doing so.

Democracy is not just about voting at the elections, it goes beyond that and that's why people will continue to protest.

Mathew

27-03-2011, 09:59 AM

Then the whole protesting business seems rather pointless to me. If one half agree with some cuts and the other half don't think they can change anything, then it seems like a lost cause and they're wasting their time.

Conservative,

27-03-2011, 10:00 AM

I would much rather they cluttered up the place. I'm sure the vast majority of people at the march today did not expect a miracle and Cameron to go "GUESS WHAT GUYS, NO MORE CUTS" and I'm sure the vast majority of people at the march today are not against cuts completely but where they are but it's a democratic right to protest regardless of what Americans think, regardless of whether the government will change anything and I'd rather they did that than have a country where they were executed for doing so.

Democracy is not just about voting at the elections, it goes beyond that and that's why people will continue to protest.

No one mentioned execution? Yes, they have a right to protest but do they need to use it? No. Someone already said this, but the money that could be saved will have to be spent on clearing up their mess - so it is illogical? I think this sort of protesting is pointless. Yes - they express their unhappiness, but it won't change anything so what's the point?

Catzsy

27-03-2011, 10:07 AM

Okay...lets do this then.

Robbie come back when you actually have some valid knowledge about the matter. Margaret Thatcher ruined this country by her obsessive hatred of the unions which caused them to become even more militant and between them ruined most of the manufacting businesses in this country. Apart from that she devided the country with her policies and encouraged the rise of the 'yuppies' who did nothing for this country's growth at all. All Britain became was based on 'paper' in the financial industries. The whole thing crashed under her too. Have you never heard of 'Black Wednesday' when the country was in a terrible mess and had to go begging to the IMF for money. This was in 1992 when they had been in power for 13 years themselves.
The plan is to halve the deficit over 4 years! This obviously will mean cuts but staggered so inflation and umemplyment can be managed.

The only people who will vote Labour (sorry if this offends anyone) are those who live on benefits and are upset because they're getting cut or those too stupid to realise that cuts have to be made otherwise our debt will grow. Labour will no doubt be voted in in 5-10 years time, and then they'll happily spend all our money again, and I gaurantee by 2035, there will be another recession.

This is probably the most uniformed comment and ill judged I have ever heard on Habbox Forum almost in line with those who believe the holocaust never happened. I also think you should put the 'spending all our money' in perspective. The UK is still the 6th richest country in the world.

Niall!

27-03-2011, 11:29 AM

I'm not the most political guy in the world so this will probably sound completely ******ed, but do we really need ALL those mps? Do we also really need to be in the EU which we probably spend billions on a year?

Also, I'm pretty sure vodafone or something haven't paid their taxes since they started. Why not just force them to pay or arrest the owner of the company?

Catzsy

27-03-2011, 11:32 AM

-:Undertaker:-

27-03-2011, 12:03 PM

Robbie come back when you actually have some valid knowledge about the matter. Margaret Thatcher ruined this country by her obsessive hatred of the unions which caused them to become even more militant and between them ruined most of the manufacting businesses in this country. Apart from that she devided the country with her policies and encouraged the rise of the 'yuppies' who did nothing for this country's growth at all. All Britain became was based on 'paper' in the financial industries. The whole thing crashed under her too. Have you never heard of 'Black Wednesday' when the country was in a terrible mess and had to go begging to the IMF for money. This was in 1992 when they had been in power for 13 years themselves.
The plan is to halve the deficit over 4 years! This obviously will mean cuts but staggered so inflation and umemplyment can be managed.

Mrs Thatcher hated the unions by 1979 just as a fair portion of the country did for one single reason; they were far too powerful and abused that power. My history teacher who is a socialist, is a member of the Socialist Workers Party also admits this one simple fact which had led to unsustainable pay packets being demanded by the unelected unions who had already brought down two elected governments, that of Mr Heath and the other of Mr Callaghan.

The yuppies did do something for our growth so please don't be silly, hence why France and the EU now want to harmonise taxes in order to put out our competative advantage. The yuppies and the corporations aren't that important to our economy though, most people forget that it is small business which drives the United Kingdom and Mrs Thatcher did help small business during her stay in office, with low taxes and cutbacks on regulation.

Sadly her work on costly regulation has now been rolled back, imposed by a body which we cannot vote out of office.

A lot of right wingers don't, you certainly aren't alone. There are just a few Conservative fanboys who agree with what the tories have done - most people who actually know what they are talking about and have right-wing views don't agree with what's happening. The Conservatives are cutting things like the NHS, Education and other public sector services however then there's announcements like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12852926 - which just absolutely takes the piss.

I wish all those marching today good luck and I hope it's a peaceful protest, this Government is awful and their cuts are tearing this country apart - they have taken this standpoint of "pay back debt as quickly as possible no matter what the consequences are" - when in reality the repayments need to be much more stable and should be done with less cuts to the people who need it most.

So instead of cutting pay and services, you want to cut EU/foreign aid/quangos - am I right?

Are all the people who are complaining in agreement with me there?

Agnostic Bear

27-03-2011, 12:05 PM

So instead of cutting pay and services, you want to cut EU/foreign aid/quangos - am I right?

Are all the people who are complaining in agreement with me there?

I certainly am.

Conservative,

27-03-2011, 01:05 PM

-:Undertaker:-

27-03-2011, 01:14 PM

I must ask, why is everyone complaining about 'cuts' when government expenditure is actually increasing and is forecast to increase upto 2015? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/8007556/The-Coalition-is-spending-even-more-than-tax-and-waste-Labour.html A myth that plays well for both political parties, but don't let the truth get in the way!

however then there's announcements like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12852926 - which just absolutely takes the piss.

From my memory (and you can correct me if i'm wrong), when the MPs expenses scandal broke and showered the three main parties in slime (and rightly so), you were one of the ones who said something along the lines of 'well you can't blame them because most of us would do it aswell or they are only paid a small amount so its right that they should be able to do this'.

But whatever you said you still voted for it and will continue to vote for it.

Chippiewill

27-03-2011, 01:45 PM

I must ask, why is everyone complaining about 'cuts' when government expenditure is actually increasing and is forecast to increase upto 2015?

But that's my entire problem with the conservatives, they're making cuts but not achieving anything by doing so.

Inseriousity.

27-03-2011, 04:10 PM

No one mentioned execution? Yes, they have a right to protest but do they need to use it? No. Someone already said this, but the money that could be saved will have to be spent on clearing up their mess - so it is illogical? I think this sort of protesting is pointless. Yes - they express their unhappiness, but it won't change anything so what's the point?

I know no-one mentioned execution but it just beggars belief that there are countries out there where protestors are shot down and yet there are people in a more democratic society where protesting makes people say 'what's the point?' The point being they have every right to be there whether you disagree with them or not. Do they need to use it? No, they could stay at home and moan from their armchairs like the majority of this country seems to do or they have an agenda that they believe is worth fighting for and then act on it. Had they been fighting something you believe in, would you still be saying the same thing? I would imagine no and that's where my problem lies with the "What's the point?" brigade.

Conservative,

27-03-2011, 04:35 PM

I know no-one mentioned execution but it just beggars belief that there are countries out there where protestors are shot down and yet there are people in a more democratic society where protesting makes people say 'what's the point?' The point being they have every right to be there whether you disagree with them or not. Do they need to use it? No, they could stay at home and moan from their armchairs like the majority of this country seems to do or they have an agenda that they believe is worth fighting for and then act on it. Had they been fighting something you believe in, would you still be saying the same thing? I would imagine no and that's where my problem lies with the "What's the point?" brigade.

It depends on whether I believed that anything could actually come from the action.

StefanWolves

27-03-2011, 08:49 PM

I dont know where you get your info from but we arent going to be 'selling' one off and we arent going to be sharing one with the French. If anything the French will pay for us to build one/copy ours.
I think the MoD is one department where the cuts are appropriate. The actual department itself seems to be the problem with ridiculous salaries, pensions and of course the whole £9 lightbulb thing - These do of course need resolving.

However there has been rather a lot of frontline cuts, for instance many of the RAFs planes and Navy's ships have been scrapped early and we now have no aircraft carriers. In 2018 when two come into service, we'll be sharing one with the French and selling the other off. Aircraft orders also seem to be on hold and minimised whilst Trident has also been put on hold. And of course an awful lot of soldiers have been/will be laid off, many who are on active duty right now.

I'm not saying that their cuts have gone too far but we make very good use of our military, not long back they were stretched on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're still in Afghanistan and now there's fumbling around in Libya too. So far the forces seem to be coping okay with the cuts but who knows what will happen in the future. History might be very critical of Cameron for his military cuts. If they went any further I suspect they'd be in a lot of trouble, but if they were any less it would be disproportional with other department cuts.

-:Undertaker:-

27-03-2011, 10:42 PM

Do the pro-'cuts'/anti-'cuts' brigade of both sides on here have anything to say on this?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100081146/budget-for-growth-wot-budget-for-growth/

And what of these savage cuts that the great unwashed are planning to waste more and more police time protesting against in the next few months? Well, as Fraser Nelson notes in the Spectator (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6809128/osbornes-new-softer-cuts.thtml), they are small to non-existent:The “total cuts” figure is, oddly, not printed in the Budget. Perhaps because it’s so embarrassingly small. After the Autumn Statement, it was 5 per cent over four years. Now it’s back to 3.7 per cent over four years: that is to say, total cuts of just 0.9 per cent a year. The Chancellor’s cuts are mild — milder than Denis Healey’s now-forgotten cuts. Over the next five years, the spending total has risen: in 2014-15, we’ll be spending £744 billion, an extra £11 billion. A relatively small figure, but you get the overall direction. Remember this next time Ed Balls talks about “deep and fast” cuts.

0.9 per cent a year cuts whilst public expending increases year on year, so what are you all arguing about? Labour voters can now vote Tory and the Tory faithful can now vote Labour.. oh wait, its not about the facts I forgot, its about the red team vs the blue team. I always post these uncomfortable facts for both sides and they usually are ignored by both sides on this forum so this is now a challenge - so all of you posting from the sides of Tory vs Labour over whether its supposed NHS cuts, school cuts and so forth..

..does anybody want to reply to the figures rather than the rhetoric? anyone?

Conservative,

27-03-2011, 10:47 PM

Do the pro-'cuts'/anti-'cuts' brigade of both sides on here have anything to say on this?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100081146/budget-for-growth-wot-budget-for-growth/

0.9 per cent a year cuts whilst public expending increases year on year, so what are you all arguing about? Labour voters can now vote Tory and the Tory faithful can now vote Labour.. oh wait, its not about the facts I forgot, its about the red team vs the blue team. I always post these uncomfortable facts for both sides and they usually are ignored by both sides on this forum so this is now a challenge - so all of you posting from the sides of Tory vs Labour over whether its supposed NHS cuts, school cuts and so forth..

..does anybody want to reply to the figures rather than the rhetoric? anyone?

I honestly didn't look into the facts deeply before reading that but now I've seen that...wtf? I'm against Labour's policies but the coalition aren't doing any better atm :/

FlyingJesus

28-03-2011, 11:14 AM

at the moment we have NO money.

Since 1750 there have only been two 30 year periods when our debt has been lower than it is now. We went through the Industrial Revolution and owned an empire that covered about a quarter of the world with more debt than we currently have

I understand politics and economics.

obv

beth

28-03-2011, 12:47 PM

Okay...lets do this then.

"The only people who will vote Labour (sorry if this offends anyone) are those who live on benefits and are upset because they're getting cut or those too stupid to realise that cuts have to be made otherwise our debt will grow."

YOU are uneducated. and i'm not even sorry if that gets me warned or whatever. my grandparents and my parents have ALWAYS voted labour and ALWAYS worked. and i vote labour and i paid more in taxes last year than you will probably pay in the next 5 years. you are quite obviously not mature enough to understand politics and hence make comments like this. the word LABOUR in itself means work, the "working man"'s party and even though thats not really their stance anymore, that is where their roots lie. the conservatives are actually making people STAY on benefits because if a single mother with a kid worked she'd be less able to support her family as she would be by staying on benefits.

i cannot even fathom your lack of intelligence if you think it's acceptable to make comments like that. i have no issue with people who vote conservative or lib dem, as long as they have brains and haven't just jumped on a right-wing hype. go read a book.

-:Undertaker:-

28-03-2011, 02:20 PM

Since 1750 there have only been two 30 year periods when our debt has been lower than it is now. We went through the Industrial Revolution and owned an empire that covered about a quarter of the world with more debt than we currently have

Indeed, an Empire that generated profits backed by a strong home economy of which we no longer have either.

Any examples of public spending out of control, people need to look back to Britain itself in 1979 when we had to go cap in hand to the IMF, Greece and Ireland now and Portugal/possibly Spain and Belgium next.

YOU are uneducated. and i'm not even sorry if that gets me warned or whatever. my grandparents and my parents have ALWAYS voted labour and ALWAYS worked. and i vote labour and i paid more in taxes last year than you will probably pay in the next 5 years. you are quite obviously not mature enough to understand politics and hence make comments like this. the word LABOUR in itself means work, the "working man"'s party and even though thats not really their stance anymore, that is where their roots lie. the conservatives are actually making people STAY on benefits because if a single mother with a kid worked she'd be less able to support her family as she would be by staying on benefits.

i cannot even fathom your lack of intelligence if you think it's acceptable to make comments like that. i have no issue with people who vote conservative or lib dem, as long as they have brains and haven't just jumped on a right-wing hype. go read a book.

Why should the state pay for an unmarried mother in terms of benefits? would it not be better to not tax the woman in the first place or indeed tax her less so she is allowed to keep the profits of her work? why is this idea of 'benefits' which are essentially our own money just repackaged not challenged? people need to get the idea of 'government money' out of their heads, there is no such thing.

What do you make of the statistics I posted anyway? surely you would be inclined to vote Conservative now that i've posted those figures.

beth

28-03-2011, 04:49 PM

Indeed, an Empire that generated profits backed by a strong home economy of which we no longer have either.

Any examples of public spending out of control, people need to look back to Britain itself in 1979 when we had to go cap in hand to the IMF, Greece and Ireland now and Portugal/possibly Spain and Belgium next.

Why should the state pay for an unmarried mother in terms of benefits? would it not be better to not tax the woman in the first place or indeed tax her less so she is allowed to keep the profits of her work? why is this idea of 'benefits' which are essentially our own money just repackaged not challenged? people need to get the idea of 'government money' out of their heads, there is no such thing.

What do you make of the statistics I posted anyway? surely you would be inclined to vote Conservative now that i've posted those figures.

i didn't say she were right to stay on benefits, i'm just basing that on the financial situation she would be. and it's right, and i am NOT saying this morality is right (i would work whatever, regardless) but why would someone work when they can get more money from the "state".

and no, i would never be inclined to vote conservative. :).

-:Undertaker:-

28-03-2011, 04:58 PM

i didn't say she were right to stay on benefits, i'm just basing that on the financial situation she would be. and it's right, and i am NOT saying this morality is right (i would work whatever, regardless) but why would someone work when they can get more money from the "state".

Then we agree on that one, so why not vote for a party which stands for that rather than a party which stands for the opposite (ie, more benefits/the status quo)? the reason Conservative referred to that is because its true, many turkeys will not vote for christmas which would mean the removal of their benefits. The Labour Party relies very heavily on the poorer areas by offering them bribes of their own money in return for voting Labour.

The same now applies to the Conservative Party which has accepted the doctrine of Labour.

and no, i would never be inclined to vote conservative. :).

But you support Labour I take it from your posts? again, i'm just highlighting the fact that both main parties are the exact same in almost every policy area and that both parties agree with one another and want to be eachother - now fair play if you agree with what they do during their period in government as Rosie and so on I know do whereas I find them utterly incompetent and corrupt. But what i'm getting at is tribalism, the fact that when the blue team (or the red team when its the other way around) do exactly the same as the previous administration, theres an outrage about it when there wasn't during the period in office of the 'home team'. A great quote in relation to this topic and its quite fitting; 'you can't reason a man out of a position he never reasoned himself into'.

The debt example that i've posted, earlier on in this thread both sides were at eachothers necks, arguing over what was nothing but cheap talk and rhetoric from both sides eager to make political advantage out of these so-called cuts - now that i've posted whats really going in, which is the opposite to what both sides were arguing about - nobody has anything to say on it, not a word. Yet in May they'll go out and vote for the same parties which are fooling them into believing these 'cuts' (if you can call them that) are somehow harsh.

Jordy

28-03-2011, 05:48 PM

How are they not cuts if public sector borrowing is going down..?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/Budget/Budget2011/DG_WP195492

Admittedly I'd like them to go faster but that's another issue, significant cuts are being made and statistics show that. It's something like 20% off each department.

-:Undertaker:-

28-03-2011, 07:00 PM

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6809128/osbornes-new-softer-cuts.thtml

3.7% 'cuts' over four years while public spending continues unchecked, not to mention the money we are throwing down the plughole in debt interest.

Both Labour and the Conservatives are playing this issue up when, in reality, there's no serious disagreement between them both on this issue.

How are they not cuts if public sector borrowing is going down..?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/Budget/Budget2011/DG_WP195492

Admittedly I'd like them to go faster but that's another issue, significant cuts are being made and statistics show that. It's something like 20% off each department.

Because the public sector and government expenditure are still due to grow (see above) hence why they were left out of the budget, if they were serious then public expenditure would be slashed (as many think it needs to be as government is involved in far too many areas) and taxes would thus be decreased, leaving the economy the space to grow and thus pay off the debts. A £7.9tn debt and growing, yet this government is still increasing expenditure and is talking about 0.9% cuts per year - utterly ridiculous.

..and the Tories aren't exactly clean of this mess themselves, they supported Labours spending plans right upto 2008.

alexxxxx

28-03-2011, 07:36 PM

-:Undertaker:-

28-03-2011, 07:46 PM

there are cuts in spending as the figures youve quoted are non-inflation based, so spending goes up, yet inflation is larger than the spending increase, leading to an overall cut in spending.

plus 'cuts' doesn't have to mean overall cut to the budget. people are losing their jobs and services are being cut. that is a fact.

This is just to break down the deficit (provided you trust government figures, which, as i've pointed out - leave out the actual pitiful numbers of these 'cut's), it doesn't even put a dint in the debt of which we already spend more on the interest of that debt than we do of the entire education/military budgets - small 'cuts' to frontline serves when there should be severe cuts to the bureaucracy, EU contributions, foreign aid, Whitehall, reigning in MoD spending, quangos in general and government having its nose poked in where it should not have it.

The councils laid off many people during the supposed 'good times' regardless, so they can spend the money on all sorts of ridiculous job posts that you can usually find under jobs in the Guardian - councils aren't interested anymore in maintaining parks, keeping the streets tidy because nowadays its all about 'diversity classes', 'diversity officer', 'gay and lesbian manager' - we've heard endless examples of this. The mantra of 'the cuts' are a perfect way to lay off more genuine people (teachers, street cleaners etc) along with scoring political points.

There was a video with the Manchester council leader I think it was, and he was complaining about these cuts telling us all how he has had to lay people off - Andrew Neil then brought up a number of examples such as the ones I just have and the guy was caught out playing politics. Edit- Here we go;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSLPbXwB9pg

The "total cuts" figure is, oddly, not printed in the Budget. Perhaps because it's so embarrassingly small. After the Autumn Statement, it was 5 per cent over four years. Now it's back to 3.7 per cent over four years: that is to say, total cuts of just 0.9 per cent a year. The Chancellor's cuts are mild — milder than Denis Healey's now-forgotten cuts. Over the next five years, the spending total has risen: in 2014-15, we'll be spending £744 billion, an extra £11 billion. A relatively small figure, but you get the overall direction. Remember this next time Ed Balls talks about "deep and fast" cuts.

Next, Osborne has back-shifted a lot of the pain. Originally, total spending was going to be down 1.7 per cent this year. Now, it's just 0.6 per cent. This is in the margin of error so it can be said that there are, in effect, no cuts in total spending this year. Pain has been shifted to the end — so the tax burden for 2015-16 has been revised up by £335 million. But this would be the first year of the next government.

The idea that this government is implementing savage cuts in order to get the debt down is complete wish wash, the Tories rely on their support by playing this out to be a fact - as do Labour who enjoy playing it out as a good old fashioned 'Tory cuts' story in order to keep their voters happy. As I said earlier, the Tories supported the spending plans of Labour right upto 2008 so this isn't suprising.

Borrowing

Public sector net borrowing was £146 billion this year. It will be:

£122 billion next year
£101 billion in 2012-13
£70 billion in 2013-14
£46 billion in 2014-15
£29 billion in 2015-16

Jordy posted the above government forecasts for spending, are these figures supposed to impress me? so we're still going deeper into debt, just at a slightly *projected* slower rate - of which you can never trust government projections anyway, as the books are well and truly cooked.

alexxxxx

28-03-2011, 08:01 PM

Jordy posted the above government forecasts for spending, are these figures supposed to impress me? so we're still going deeper into debt, just at a slightly *projected* slower rate - of which you can never trust government projections anyway, as the books are well and truly cooked.

The state of the councils are a joke Dan. You obviously know very few people who work in the public sector (or in local councils) and everyone is petrified for their jobs. 'Diversity Managers' etc and the like are to some people non-jobs but the issue is that every job that isn't a core service is at risk. My dad's job, my friends' parents' jobs.

You cannot just slash billions of pounds worth of spending in one go, it would be a total disaster for the economy in the medium term, let alone the social cost.

-:Undertaker:-

28-03-2011, 08:07 PM

The state of the councils are a joke Dan. You obviously know very few people who work in the public sector (or in local councils) and everyone is petrified for their jobs. 'Diversity Managers' etc and the like are to some people non-jobs but the issue is that every job that isn't a core service is at risk. My dad's job, my friends' parents' jobs.

You cannot just slash billions of pounds worth of spending in one go, it would be a total disaster for the economy in the medium term, let alone the social cost.

I know the councils and government in general are a joke hence why I do not trust them in the slightest. The video above pretty much proves that - what needs to happen is that useless jobs and layers of management such as diversity managers and the such should be instantly scrapped - sad for the people who occupy them, but blame the last administration which created them in the first place when we never wanted the, nor were they needed.

Even if we did this though, the public sector is still too large for what the private sector can handle - taxes and regulation must be slashed back in order to get the private sector to outpace the public sector, and we would then stage job layoffs in stages so that the private sector can pick it up. We talk about fairness - the private sector hasn't had it fair at all, they've paid in jobs over the past two decades thanks to over-taxation and over-regulation. Of course to tackle these, especially number two, it boils back to the issue of our membership of the European Union.

You cannot just slash billions of pounds worth of spending in one go, it would be a total disaster for the economy in the medium term, let alone the social cost.

Spending in the real economy (the private sector) is the only solution, the disaster we face now is because we are doing exactly what you propose we do right now - which is continue government spending at a uncontrolled rate, and where does govt money come from? the private sector.

Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

alexxxxx

28-03-2011, 08:55 PM

I know the councils and government in general are a joke hence why I do not trust them in the slightest. The video above pretty much proves that - what needs to happen is that useless jobs and layers of management such as diversity managers and the such should be instantly scrapped - sad for the people who occupy them, but blame the last administration which created them in the first place when we never wanted the, nor were they needed.

Councils are not staffed by thousands of diversity managers.

Even if we did this though, the public sector is still too large for what the private sector can handle - taxes and regulation must be slashed back in order to get the private sector to outpace the public sector, and we would then stage job layoffs in stages so that the private sector can pick it up. We talk about fairness - the private sector hasn't had it fair at all, they've paid in jobs over the past two decades thanks to over-taxation and over-regulation. Of course to tackle these, especially number two, it boils back to the issue of our membership of the European Union.

This is all ideological - none of what you have said is actual fact.

Spending in the real economy (the private sector) is the only solution, the disaster we face now is because we are doing exactly what you propose we do right now - which is continue government spending at a uncontrolled rate, and where does govt money come from? the private sector.

Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Do the families of public sector workers eat food which comes out of nowhere or do they spend every penny in the private sector. This 'real economy' rubbish you come out with every time you have an argument is an ideological term. When the government spends money, the money is used in private sector businesses and increases output and employs people. Cutting spending in the public sector without any increase in the private sector cuts the GDP.

Niall!

28-03-2011, 09:56 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/28/cuts-protest-uk-uncut-fortnum

Yeah, that's just not on. At all.

beth

29-03-2011, 08:14 AM

i'm just about to go to uni so i don't have time to quote, but @undertaker; even if conservative and labour were exactly the same i would never vote conservative. i don't like the history of the party or where they started from or where they've stood on issues in the past.
they are a bunch of middle-class ******s, and i'd rather have nothing to do with them.
i tend to believe a lot can be learned from learning the history of something.

FlyingJesus

29-03-2011, 11:06 AM

That's a bit daft, the history isn't anything to do with their current build. The history of Spain is to be treacherous and oily but that doesn't mean I wouldn't go there now. People voting for party loyalty over issues and proposals is the reason we get governments voted in that people afterwards decide not to like

beth

29-03-2011, 11:15 AM

-:Undertaker:-

29-03-2011, 11:48 AM

Councils are not staffed by thousands of diversity managers.

Not just diversity managers, the public sector has become bloated with non jobs such as diversity managers, but also pencil pushers.

This is all ideological - none of what you have said is actual fact.

The part on regulation is true, the more you tax and the more you regulate the less growth and jobs you will get in return - small business struggles across Europe under the burden of EU regulation, whether its for bendy fruit or the standardisation of tractor seats.

And no, i'm not making those examples up.

Do the families of public sector workers eat food which comes out of nowhere or do they spend every penny in the private sector. This 'real economy' rubbish you come out with every time you have an argument is an ideological term. When the government spends money, the money is used in private sector businesses and increases output and employs people. Cutting spending in the public sector without any increase in the private sector cuts the GDP.

I think you will find that is fact, the private sector pays the bills and is thus the real economy because it makes the money which in turn makes the world go around. If government was so great at creating economic growth, then we'd just have it over and done with and nationalise the lot and thus grow a far stronger economy - but look at past examples (including ourselves) and that ideology is shown not to work as it is nothing more than a failed experiment.

When a 'private sector' business relies on government subsidy to function and do business, it is not private sector - it is public sector in all but officaldom. The reason why the public sector makes a loss is simple; because government cannot run business and in order to pay for its bloated self, it has to tax the productive parts of the economy in order to fund itself - again, if this was not the case then we would re-nationalise everything.

The green jobs issue for a prime example, public sector ends up costing the productive private sector;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12597097

i'm just about to go to uni so i don't have time to quote, but @undertaker; even if conservative and labour were exactly the same i would never vote conservative. i don't like the history of the party or where they started from or where they've stood on issues in the past.
they are a bunch of middle-class ******s, and i'd rather have nothing to do with them.
i tend to believe a lot can be learned from learning the history of something.

And Labour politcians aren't? most of the 'working class' Labour politicians aren't working class at all, and even if they were - they now live in ivory towers (hence are oblivious to the ghettoising effects of mass immigration among other issues) whereas the poorest continue to live in these areas because they have no choice. The Labour frontbench team (and the Tories also) all mostly send their children to the best schools (good schools in wealthy areas or they simply go private) whilst they force the comprehensive education system on the rest of us, which, again - only punishes the poorest. A study a while back showed that apparently now, UKIP now picks up more 'working class' votes than Labour does (see the Barnsley by-election) so if you are going to vote based on just class, which I don't think you should as you should vote based on reason and thought, you are picking the wrong horse.

I believe we can learn a lot from history also, and i've learnt that Labour (and Conservative/Liberal Democrat) government only results in more sovereignty being surrendered to the EU, more uncontrolled immigration, higher levels taxation, general corruption within government, a poor education system, no action on crime, an appalling justice system, ridiculous wars at the behest of the United States... I could go on and on.

I mean i'm being fair and honest there, because thats what we get - so why do we keep falling for their rhetoric before election day?

even if conservative and labour were exactly the same

They are the same, I ask somebody - anybody to pick out some real differences between them both.

Agnostic Bear

29-03-2011, 11:48 AM

i'm not saying live by history, i'm saying learn from history.

"People voting for party loyalty over issues and proposals is the reason we get governments voted in that people afterwards decide not to like"

Why not learn from that bit of history?

FlyingJesus

29-03-2011, 11:57 AM

They are the same, I ask somebody - anybody to pick out some real differences between them both.

They wear different colour ties yesssssssssssssss what do I win

GommeInc

29-03-2011, 02:11 PM

They wear different colour ties yesssssssssssssss what do I win
Oh, oh! And when a coalition comes along they blend their party colours to make a different colour! Nick Clegg now wears a green tie, possibly because him and Cameron washed their ties together at too hot a wash.

"People voting for party loyalty over issues and proposals is the reason we get governments voted in that people afterwards decide not to like"

Why not learn from that bit of history?
It's for this reason I might vote for a different party to the top 3 which are too similar and too "corrupt" for my liking. Lib Dems have proven they are not to be trusted, and Labour and the Conservatives like to waste money but in different ways. UKIP/Greens maybe?

alexxxxx

29-03-2011, 02:40 PM

Not just diversity managers, the public sector has become bloated with non jobs such as diversity managers, but also pencil pushers.

This is your assumption. Not ever business/authority is efficient.

The part on regulation is true, the more you tax and the more you regulate the less growth and jobs you will get in return - small business struggles across Europe under the burden of EU regulation, whether its for bendy fruit or the standardisation of tractor seats.

And no, i'm not making those examples up.

Here we go! get an EU jibe in ;)

I think you will find that is fact, the private sector pays the bills and is thus the real economy because it makes the money which in turn makes the world go around. If government was so great at creating economic growth, then we'd just have it over and done with and nationalise the lot and thus grow a far stronger economy - but look at past examples (including ourselves) and that ideology is shown not to work as it is nothing more than a failed experiment.

No what I am saying is that if you CUT government funding too fast, you cut private sector output (ie there are less government orders, there is less orders from government staff - what part of this do you not understand?), possibly by even more.

When a 'private sector' business relies on government subsidy to function and do business, it is not private sector - it is public sector in all but officaldom. The reason why the public sector makes a loss is simple; because government cannot run business and in order to pay for its bloated self, it has to tax the productive parts of the economy in order to fund itself - again, if this was not the case then we would re-nationalise everything.

When my dad pays for fish and chips with money that he's earned from working at the council, does that count as a government subsidy? Is this local business being given a government hand-out?

Schools, roads, street lighting, parks and playgrounds are not businesses, they are services.

-:Undertaker:-

29-03-2011, 02:48 PM

This is your assumption. Not ever business/authority is efficient.

Indeed, and they go bust in the real economy whereas in the government sphere they simply carry on making a loss, supported by the taxpayer.

Here we go! get an EU jibe in ;)

Most of the regulation we have put on us pours out from the EU, none of it needed - thus you get ridiculous legislation (fruit and tractor seats).

No what I am saying is that if you CUT government funding too fast, you cut private sector output (ie there are less government orders, there is less orders from government staff - what part of this do you not understand?), possibly by even more.

The fact that the government is taxing/raising revenue through business which does not require government orders hurts the real economy, not the nationalised-in-all-but-name companies which you keep mentioning. These companies which rely on government money would go bust yes, but it would allow for the real economy (those productive companies which do not need government orders) to expand, rather than contract under the burden of taxation and regulation which is what they face now.

I said before, if nationalisation worked so well - every major economy would be at it.

Tried it, and it failed.

When my dad pays for fish and chips with money that he's earned from working at the council, does that count as a government subsidy? Is this local business being given a government hand-out?

In a way yes, as he isn't working for a productive company - the state sector, although some parts are of course needed (teaching, managers, councillors and so forth) are run at a loss - there is no such thing as 'state money'. The money your Dad earns is taxed from the productive parts.

Thats not to say he is not needed, which brings me onto..

Schools, roads, street lighting, parks and playgrounds are not businesses, they are services.

Which is what I have said, some parts of the state are needed of course as some things will not ever run at a profit (the Royal Navy) and are needed.

I'm talking about the layers of management we have working for the state and the public sector 'private companies' which rely on the government - all of them need to be cut. The NHS is another example; http://www.metro.co.uk/news/819186-six-times-more-managers-than-nurses-taken-on-by-nhs-according-to-report; article states that the number of managers in the NHS has risen by 84% in the last decade - in the real economy, this would not happen otherwise the company would face going bust.

..but because it is run by the state (like many other things), it simply goes on sucking the money out of the real economy.

Mathew

29-03-2011, 04:23 PM

they are a bunch of middle-class ******s, and i'd rather have nothing to do with them.
..and to think that you were the one having a moan at Robbie (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=692645&p=7051081#post7051081) earlier in this thread when he stereotyped Labour voters. Clearly both of your assumptions are stupidly immature, but damn.. don't fall for it yourself :rolleyes:

It's a shame that people can't agree to disagree on one's political stance on this forum.

alexxxxx

30-03-2011, 12:28 AM

Indeed, and they go bust in the real economy whereas in the government sphere they simply carry on making a loss, supported by the taxpayer.

No, no, no they don't. that is such a simplistic way of thinking things. the company i work for (a very large one) is incredibly inefficient. they could cut a third of the workforce in my area and cut management and be fine. It's the fact that it is a monopoly that allows it to continue.

Most of the regulation we have put on us pours out from the EU, none of it needed - thus you get ridiculous legislation (fruit and tractor seats).

All regulation is seen as stupid by some, if it wasn't then it'd be common practice. Regulation isn't done for fun.

The fact that the government is taxing/raising revenue through business which does not require government orders hurts the real economy, not the nationalised-in-all-but-name companies which you keep mentioning. These companies which rely on government money would go bust yes, but it would allow for the real economy (those productive companies which do not need government orders) to expand, rather than contract under the burden of taxation and regulation which is what they face now.

Steel making companies, brickmakers, engineering firms, paper suppliers, IT services are not 'nationalised-in-all-but-name' companies, yet they rely on some of their trade from government contracts. Cut government spending and they won't go bust but they'll cut their workforce moving them onto welfare.

I said before, if nationalisation worked so well - every major economy would be at it.

Tried it, and it failed.

It's not about nationalisation though is it?

In a way yes, as he isn't working for a productive company - the state sector, although some parts are of course needed (teaching, managers, councillors and so forth) are run at a loss - there is no such thing as 'state money'. The money your Dad earns is taxed from the productive parts.

But you understand that a lot of private sector businesses (which rely at least in part on state employees to function at their current output level). If you then extend these businesses as not being in the 'real economy' then i think you're too blinded by ideology.

Which is what I have said, some parts of the state are needed of course as some things will not ever run at a profit (the Royal Navy) and are needed.

I'm talking about the layers of management we have working for the state and the public sector 'private companies' which rely on the government - all of them need to be cut. The NHS is another example; http://www.metro.co.uk/news/819186-six-times-more-managers-than-nurses-taken-on-by-nhs-according-to-report; article states that the number of managers in the NHS has risen by 84% in the last decade - in the real economy, this would not happen otherwise the company would face going bust.

..but because it is run by the state (like many other things), it simply goes on sucking the money out of the real economy.

This is surprising that this is your view actually as i'm undecided about public private partnerships. My initial thoughts were that they are a waste of money as i don't buy into the ideology that private companies are totally efficient and would try to run their services as efficiently as possible - yet these partnerships often have bonuses that less money has to come from the government up front.

But i don't think your example of the NHS is a good one, in the USA where most of the 'medical industry' (not that it should be seen an industry in my eyes) is private, costs escalate and service is as good/bad as here. Profit is at a cost to the consumer.

Ajthedragon

30-03-2011, 07:22 AM

FlyingJesus

30-03-2011, 10:58 AM

I look at it like this; if you're in debt you have to cut down on essentials and luxuries, you have no choice. So is government any different?

Yes because more expenditure helps the economy overall whereas obviously personal finances it's better for you to save if you're in trouble. I'm still not bothered by the cuts but thought I'd point that out

dbgtz

30-03-2011, 04:47 PM

I didn't read have this thread. However I'm right-wing and agree with the cuts. It doesn't affect my life and when Ed Miliband tells us his alternative only then will I stop backing the ruthless Tories. I don't like the cuts, but they have to be done to improve the economic situation.

The whole make the banks pay thing is ridiculous. They are a huge part of our GDP. I believe instead of paying tax they should use this money to continue to lend.

I look at it like this; if you're in debt you have to cut down on essentials and luxuries, you have no choice. So is government any different?

Yes, lets cut down on the NHS whilst we waste money on that voting referendum thing, Libya (well it's not wasting really, depending how you look at it) and other military action, and just generally. I literally got told I could not have an operation (which I did have in the end) because there was no money until the new financial year. Then when I was in hospital, the nurse was even saying how they were the ones getting pay freezes. Wow, how clearly fair. The cuts are necessary, yes. But in my opinion MPs over £40,000 should get pay cuts and seriously why are some MPs paid more then the PM? Why are they allowed expenses for their own personal use or just ridiculously? Yeah I'm going to check into a hotel 2 minutes away which will cost thousands all in all. The real problem is, everybody wants pleasing but they only want to please themselves.

I'd agree with the banks if they actually lent out money and stopped giving bonuses which were not deserved.

Spuds

30-03-2011, 04:57 PM

Mediocre performance, 29th April will be bigger. Direct action, the only way to get to the state.

Suspective

30-03-2011, 05:37 PM

Yes, lets cut down on the NHS whilst we waste money on that voting referendum thing, Libya (well it's not wasting really, depending how you look at it) and other military action, and just generally. I literally got told I could not have an operation (which I did have in the end) because there was no money until the new financial year. Then when I was in hospital, the nurse was even saying how they were the ones getting pay freezes. Wow, how clearly fair. The cuts are necessary, yes. But in my opinion MPs over £40,000 should get pay cuts and seriously why are some MPs paid more then the PM? Why are they allowed expenses for their own personal use or just ridiculously? Yeah I'm going to check into a hotel 2 minutes away which will cost thousands all in all. The real problem is, everybody wants pleasing but they only want to please themselves.

I'd agree with the banks if they actually lent out money and stopped giving bonuses which were not deserved.

I agree with most of this bar the bit about Libya and the Voting Referendum.

I'm all in favor of the principles of the cuts, and I think that in the long-term the cuts will be beneficial to the future of the country and its financial position. There was quite a lot of money wasted during the Labour Administration and its about time that many public bodies are streamlined and expenses are made more stringent.

The voting referendum will not cost a fraction of what its costing to blow up Libyan planes and forces. I'd consider myself to be centre-right in terms of political alignment and I do think we will be seeing some differences in services in the next few years but as long as essential services are being protected and not cut so dramatically there shouldn't be any real problems. There is lots of ways that money could be saved, in both Policing and the NHS.

Ajthedragon

30-03-2011, 05:49 PM

Yes, lets cut down on the NHS whilst we waste money on that voting referendum thing, Libya (well it's not wasting really, depending how you look at it) and other military action, and just generally. I literally got told I could not have an operation (which I did have in the end) because there was no money until the new financial year. Then when I was in hospital, the nurse was even saying how they were the ones getting pay freezes. Wow, how clearly fair. The cuts are necessary, yes. But in my opinion MPs over £40,000 should get pay cuts and seriously why are some MPs paid more then the PM? Why are they allowed expenses for their own personal use or just ridiculously? Yeah I'm going to check into a hotel 2 minutes away which will cost thousands all in all. The real problem is, everybody wants pleasing but they only want to please themselves.

I'd agree with the banks if they actually lent out money and stopped giving bonuses which were not deserved.

All standard MP's earn £40,000 or so. Minsters more. It's the council leaders that earn more than the PM, and their budgets have been slashed.

If your friend is lying on the side of the cliff, and you have to pay a fiver to save him, you would right? Now imagine all those at risk in Libya, and moreover , once this has blown over their country will be in ruins and they'll have to pump out more oil to rebuild their infrastructure. With more oil comes cheaper prices, good for everyone!

And if the NHS did your operation then that point is irrelevant? And if the hospital is that disorganised with it's budget then surely the NHS in your area needs restructuring? A hospital doesn't just run out of money. Nearly all public and private sector workers are getting pay freezes at the moment, my parent's haven't have a rise in over 3 years; both work in the private sector. I'm also sure that had my local surgery not payed £5,000 for a fake wall in the waiting room you could of had your operation, or my school on their new footpath.

Suspective

30-03-2011, 05:53 PM

All standard MP's earn £40,000 or so. Minsters more. It's the council leaders that earn more than the PM, and their budgets have been slashed.

If your friend is lying on the side of the cliff, and you have to pay a fiver to save him, you would right? Now imagine all those at risk in Libya, and moreover , once this has blown over their country will be in ruins and they'll have to pump out more oil to rebuild their infrastructure. With more oil comes cheaper prices, good for everyone!

And if the NHS did your operation then that point is irrelevant? And if the hospital is that disorganised with it's budget then surely the NHS in your area needs restructuring? A hospital doesn't just run out of money. Nearly all public and private sector workers are getting pay freezes at the moment, my parent's haven't have a rise in over 3 years; both work in the private sector. I'm also sure that had my local surgery not payed £5,000 for a fake wall in the waiting room you could of had your operation, or my school on their new footpath.

MPs earn £64,766. Much more than the average salary.

Ajthedragon

30-03-2011, 07:02 PM

Then I stand corrected, although most of them do a lot more than the average worker too. I believe the PM and his cabinet took a pay cut when they took office of around £5,000 each. And their pay is frozen. May I also remind you it's a minority that took advantage of the expenses; most of which are now out of office.

dbgtz

30-03-2011, 08:21 PM

If your friend is lying on the side of the cliff, and you have to pay a fiver to save him, you would right? Now imagine all those at risk in Libya, and moreover , once this has blown over their country will be in ruins and they'll have to pump out more oil to rebuild their infrastructure. With more oil comes cheaper prices, good for everyone!

There is already money for the Libyans to rebuild their country, I heard Obama talk about it I think. Anyway that wasn't my point, the point was if they can afford this why cut the NHS?

And if the NHS did your operation then that point is irrelevant? And if the hospital is that disorganised with it's budget then surely the NHS in your area needs restructuring? A hospital doesn't just run out of money. Nearly all public and private sector workers are getting pay freezes at the moment, my parent's haven't have a rise in over 3 years; both work in the private sector. I'm also sure that had my local surgery not payed £5,000 for a fake wall in the waiting room you could of had your operation, or my school on their new footpath.

Not really because it wasn't my local NHS but the county or something like that, like the higher up people I can't remember what it's called. Either way there are a lot of wastage. My school wasted about 5k on a fence and god knows how much the the hole they made in the bank.

Then I stand corrected, although most of them do a lot more than the average worker too. I believe the PM and his cabinet took a pay cut when they took office of around £5,000 each. And their pay is frozen. May I also remind you it's a minority that took advantage of the expenses; most of which are now out of office.

How do they do more then the average worker? They don't really and 60k seems a bit extravagent, I don't actually see what my local MP does, I met her once and she done little to help my situation.

alexxxxx

31-03-2011, 12:02 AM

i would not be an MP for £40k a year without expenses claims. it's simply not financially viable.

GommeInc

31-03-2011, 12:20 AM

i would not be an MP for £40k a year without expenses claims. it's simply not financially viable.
40k seems about right for a glorified civil servant, although I do agree that expenses should probably be included with that, and by expenses I mean covering the necessary cost of your duties e.g. travel. Being an MP doesn't mean you're meant to live the life of luxury - it's to serve, not be served, after all :/

Ajthedragon

31-03-2011, 07:07 AM

How do they do more then the average worker? They don't really and 60k seems a bit extravagent, I don't actually see what my local MP does, I met her once and she done little to help my situation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/may/14/europe-mps-salaries

We still have some of the cheapest in Europe amongst the richer countries.

Although a little outdated in places: http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/Library/Background_Paper_No_4.__Note_on_Parliamentary_Work ing_Hours.pdf.

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. We're far too harsh on government, both nationally, European and locally. And an MP is supposed to take on board your opinions when voting on matters within the commons, or suggesting something with some consideration of your problem. They don't actually directly provide any help.

alexxxxx

31-03-2011, 11:00 AM

40k seems about right for a glorified civil servant, although I do agree that expenses should probably be included with that, and by expenses I mean covering the necessary cost of your duties e.g. travel. Being an MP doesn't mean you're meant to live the life of luxury - it's to serve, not be served, after all :/

Civil Servants aren't constantly quoted in the media, asked for interviews all the time, under public scrutiny, work huge hours etc. £40k isn't an awful lot of money. If you can have another job that pays £50k or £60k, then you'd obviously take that instead.

-:Undertaker:-

31-03-2011, 11:31 AM

No, no, no they don't. that is such a simplistic way of thinking things. the company i work for (a very large one) is incredibly inefficient. they could cut a third of the workforce in my area and cut management and be fine. It's the fact that it is a monopoly that allows it to continue.

But it still makes money, so while it could cutback and become more efficent - it still makes money and aslong as it makes a profit, it does not need to (at the loss of the shareholders/owners though). You mention monopolies, does your company take orders from the government? - that is most likely the reason it maintains a monopoly or because of over-regulation in that industry as that would stop any rival being able to undercut the company you work for.

See NHS.

All regulation is seen as stupid by some, if it wasn't then it'd be common practice. Regulation isn't done for fun.

Most regulation is ridiculous yes, and the examples I gave show this - I don't think they find it 'fun', although being in the EU and its mickey mouse parliament most of the power nuts within most likely do find it fun.

Afterall, hardly any of them have ever had real, private sector jobs.

Steel making companies, brickmakers, engineering firms, paper suppliers, IT services are not 'nationalised-in-all-but-name' companies, yet they rely on some of their trade from government contracts. Cut government spending and they won't go bust but they'll cut their workforce moving them onto welfare.

In doing so, you give more money back to the real economy and real private sector jobs which do not rely on government subsidy will grow as they have more money in their backpocket to expand - the same goes for people in general, let them keep more of their own money and they then have more capitol to setup business.

It's not about nationalisation though is it?

That is what you are suggesting just above.

But you understand that a lot of private sector businesses (which rely at least in part on state employees to function at their current output level). If you then extend these businesses as not being in the 'real economy' then i think you're too blinded by ideology.

Only because it sets up 'fake demand' - that demand in the real economy is not there. Look at the real unemployment figures for the Thatcher years, as she cut subsidies unemployment rose (as you said about welfare) - however, because more money was circulating within the real economy, the real economy (the private sector) grew and unemployment came right down.

Compare that with the growth of the state to such a large extent in the past decade (higher taxation) along with the excess regulation coming out of Whitehall and Brussels since she left office, unemployment rose again.

This is surprising that this is your view actually as i'm undecided about public private partnerships. My initial thoughts were that they are a waste of money as i don't buy into the ideology that private companies are totally efficient and would try to run their services as efficiently as possible - yet these partnerships often have bonuses that less money has to come from the government up front.

Not all genuinely private companies are efficent, nobody is arguing that - because they go bust if they are.

A good example of this would be the banks.

But i don't think your example of the NHS is a good one, in the USA where most of the 'medical industry' (not that it should be seen an industry in my eyes) is private, costs escalate and service is as good/bad as here. Profit is at a cost to the consumer.

Only because its such a heavily regulated industry, we saw with the NHS how drug companies are charging the NHS more (along with everyother supplier) because theres no competition allowed with the NHS, and as its government run it doesn't have to worry about keeping the balance sheets whereas private sector companies do *unless they are being subsidised by the government, meaning they are not really private at all*

Yes because more expenditure helps the economy overall whereas obviously personal finances it's better for you to save if you're in trouble. I'm still not bothered by the cuts but thought I'd point that out

Keynesian economics doesn't work - true spending does help, but only when in the private sector. I remember Gordon Brown saying we shouldn't cut spending and that the Tories 'wanted to take £6bn out of the economy' - not that they did, but many people don't realise that Brown was the one taking money out of the economy via taxation.

Then I stand corrected, although most of them do a lot more than the average worker too. I believe the PM and his cabinet took a pay cut when they took office of around £5,000 each. And their pay is frozen. May I also remind you it's a minority that took advantage of the expenses; most of which are now out of office.

A great majority of them are in it for their ego, not to mention when they leave they make a great deal of money hence why many in Labour I suspect wanted to loose the election, as they could then secure top corporate jobs/go on expensive speaking tours like dear old Tony.