Renton

Can someone enlighten me why I need to multitask on my iPhone? Why would I want to do two things at once on such a small screen?

That is certainly true. I have a lower post-per-day count than you though. Im a taxi driver sitting on my arse all day? Arnt you a big editor for the NHS or summit At the moment I'm just doing silly hours in the Office doing some pretty boring stuff and need some light relief. But, if we're going to get personal, didn't you say you earn 100k a year or something from your taxiing? Surely you don't get that from sitting on your arse all day? I'd have thought you'd be earning every minute of your shift.

Frightening artcle that.

That is certainly true. I have a lower post-per-day count than you though.

We may well go into a double dip recession but I would still rather see the government taking action than one hoping the good times fairy will magic it all away. There is only one place the blame for all this lies and that is with the Labour Government. While Labourites will try and deflect blame and whisper away the years of overspending, I dont think the main electorate (the ones who change governments), will forgive them for a very long time. You still don't get it do you? A double dip recession would mean no growth, and no way to cut the deficit no matter how savage the Conservative cuts were. It would mean millions of people unemployed, especially in this region. A decade of misery for the North East, just like the 1980s. As for your 'fairy magic', what are you talking about? If you mean economic growth, well persistent economic growth, with recession 'blips', has been the norm since World War 2, hasn't it? Why would that change now? If we end up in a global depression like the 1930s we're all pretty fucked anyway - and you'd blame Labour for that I suppose. I do Renton but you seem not too and padding out your posts with lots of ;) isnt going to make it make anymore sense. Why would a double dip recession lead to millions more unemployed? Did the first dip lead to millions more unemployed? Every party was promising cuts next year. Do you acknowledge this? There is going to be a decade of misery because your lot overspent and overspent and then spent some more? The financial meltdown, which Labour did nothing to prevent, added to the debt already run up by Browns Maxed out visa. Its worse now because nobody can see where the next boom is going to come from, unless you can? The finance boom was the last biggy and its all over now? No more cheap loans? This is why cuts are needed. There isnt a boom (magic fairy ) on the horizon. Honestly, this doesn't even warrant a serious response. I'm quite disappointed actually. By failing to demonstrate any understanding of the issues at hand you've yet again shown yourself either to be an idiot or a wum. My money is on the former like.

We may well go into a double dip recession but I would still rather see the government taking action than one hoping the good times fairy will magic it all away. There is only one place the blame for all this lies and that is with the Labour Government. While Labourites will try and deflect blame and whisper away the years of overspending, I dont think the main electorate (the ones who change governments), will forgive them for a very long time. You still don't get it do you? A double dip recession would mean no growth, and no way to cut the deficit no matter how savage the Conservative cuts were. It would mean millions of people unemployed, especially in this region. A decade of misery for the North East, just like the 1980s. As for your 'fairy magic', what are you talking about? If you mean economic growth, well persistent economic growth, with recession 'blips', has been the norm since World War 2, hasn't it? Why would that change now? If we end up in a global depression like the 1930s we're all pretty fucked anyway - and you'd blame Labour for that I suppose.

I said filling the 'role' not 'hole' you twisted bastard

NO! You really just don't get it do you? Making cuts in a recession is completely counterproductive. You do realise we are out of recession? You also realise that all parties planned to make big cuts? You also realise that the Tories decided to make 6 billion of savings this year to AVOID labours hike in National Insurance next year? My point was that all parties should have fully discussed their own cuts policies before the election. If you don't agree with the last point you need a lie down. We are only just out of recession from a technical point of view and the recovery is looking slow at best. There is a clear threat of a 'double dip'. Anyway your post clearly suggests Labour should have made cuts while they were in power, which presumably means while we were in recession. I thought you were interested in politics? Then you should be aware that Labour stated how they would half the deficit over the course of a parliament, so what are you on about? The crucial point was to establish the recovery first. The Liberals agreed on this point, only to betray their voters later because of tory coercion.

NO! You really just don't get it do you? Making cuts in a recession is completely counterproductive.

Thats the sort of clear blue sky thinking that wins my confidence CT should send him his Terrence the Tory story for him to use.

Let's all hope I'm right and your wrong then Well, a depression was on the cards 2 years ago without the intervention Brown took so I fear the Conservatives really haven't got a clue. I say we get Chez in to sort it out.

Actually to an extent I agree but he is quite an absurd figure who deserves ridicule as well. And a shit actor. And Agony Uncle.

I'd take the advice of a Nobel prize winning economist seriously mind, or I suppose we could stick to you Terrence the Tory analogy. Don't see how you reckon the Conservbative way is guaranteed either, it could equally plunge us into a depression - that is a very real fear.

I blame him for Souness though and therefore making a desperate gamble like this seem necessary.

Wasn't Owen a free signing on a pay-as-you-play contract at ManU though? Bit of a difference to us. He was undeniably a huge drain on our resources without much end product for us, and plenty of people had the foresight to say so at the time (not me I might add). We really couldn't afford him.

Ha ha. Couldn't happen to a nicer carpet carrying, waddling twat.

Im citing it because it worked. duh! as for 'wanting' something that'll take longer and cause more hardship, thats nonsense. nobody wants it least of all me (or even those making the decisions) but imo (and those making the decision) its necessary as its been proven to work unlike your fancy dan plan to spend more in the hope that'll it'll drag us out of depression/recession. what happens if it doesnt actually drag us out of recession hmmmm? more debt - more shit Quite frankly the last govs financial planning was a shambles so i would have no truck with the figures they trotted out to support such an argument. Are you aware we live in a global economy? Why haven't you taken global economics into account when citing your Canadian example or describing the economic competence of the previous government?

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500. What if the 27k was spent on a life saving operation? That was supposed to counter CT, not support him. AFAIC borrowing £6k in a year on a £20k income isn't particularly unmanageable once you bounce out of recession....that's the ONLY way to recover.....the problem is deep cuts are going to prolong the recession and fuck us all over. This this, fucking this. I honestly don't think they have a clue what they are doing, and I don't think they care. They were horribly wrong about how to deal with the sub prime crisis, and I honestly am terrified about the damage they are about to cause now. i disagree. you are coming from the perspective that increased spending will actually bring us out of recession when there is no absolute guarantee that it will. however, cutting costs now WILL WORK. it'll take longer and cause more hardship but as evidenced by the canadian model it will work. either way, we're all in the shit! You don't understand what evidence is.

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500. A hard one to debate on the bat phone in the car without figures, but I guess that's a comparison to the budget defecit and not the debt so in reality it's a loan to keep up on a loan. Your family has already raked up thousansd worth of debt and now can't keep up with the payments or the food shopping so is going to billy the loan shark for an extra 7,000 a year to try and keep up. All the while your familys breadwinner is Hoping his ship is going to come in and that big promotion is around the corner. A few years down the line his ship hasn't docked, his debt has kept on growing horifically, he's now paying really sill interest rates and Billy the loan shark wants his money back. No one else will lend him anything, he loses his teeth, his wife, his kids and ends up supping cider at mill dam...... If only he listened to his neighbour, Terrence the Tory and cut his spending habits back in the day! Fucking Hell.

They said on the radio this morning that it will be 80% cuts and 20% tax rises iirc (was a bit sleepy). I think that's the wrong way round personally.

Once again, you ignore the fact things were going fine until the subprime crisis triggered the global meltdown and consequent deep recession. Do you want me to post more graphs? In fact Brown can even take some credit in the way he handled the acute stage of the crisis, heaven knows what would have happened had the incompetent Osbourne and 'lightweight' Cameron been at the helm. Perhaps Brown can be blamed for over reliance on the financial markets and not regulating them enough. But CT, in all honesty, do you think the Conservatives, traditional champions of the free markets, would have acted differently in this regard? I'd like to see Blair and brown interviewed at length by paxman, fuck it then Jack Bauer if Paxman got nowhere. He was interviewed by Paxman before the election. Good job you're not being interviewed by him as you never fail to dodge anything put to you.

To put it another way, if the typical household outspent its means like the government's doing, it would be spending more than £26,800 with an income of £20,500. What if the 27k was spent on a life saving operation?

Once again, you ignore the fact things were going fine until the subprime crisis triggered the global meltdown and consequent deep recession. Do you want me to post more graphs? In fact Brown can even take some credit in the way he handled the acute stage of the crisis, heaven knows what would have happened had the incompetent Osbourne and 'lightweight' Cameron been at the helm. Perhaps Brown can be blamed for over reliance on the financial markets and not regulating them enough. But CT, in all honesty, do you think the Conservatives, traditional champions of the free markets, would have acted differently in this regard?

I think that's the best thing about a place like this. Some people might ignore subjects unless they feel versed in them to a professional standard, but if I find a topic interesting I'll always google it and try to get involved, even if i have no clue (more often than not) cos that's how you learn more about it. I've learned shitloads from the sites I'd never otherwise visit unless it was to counter someone or other on here. To be fair to him, CT is one of the few posters willing to admit he's not sure about something and I don't think the threads where he's a lone WUM ever spiral into the bunfights previous wum's have descended to. I agree You agree you're a wum?

It's hard to make any conclusions based on on anecdote, as you say Canada's return to economic health coincided with a global boom. The dangers of too drastic cuts are obvious - mass unemployment in the public sector, a domino effect on the private sector, more money spent on social security, less revenue in taxes. As you say, the 1980s all over agin.