Thanks to the Conservatives

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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

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

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

[Agnostic Bear]

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



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

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

Will rep at some point.

[Ajthedragon]

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

[Jordy]

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

Something like 40% of Cold War Tanks & Artillery are being cut

[immense]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[immense]

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

[Conservative,]

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Agree with everything you said. Hands down.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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

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