Europe --- In or Out

[Alex 30446]

7 hours ago, zerosum said:

 

Did we? I wonder what all the fuss was about then. We should of just carried on, business as usual. Crazy eh.

It’s almost like you fell for the media bias at the time. 

[Alex 30446]

1 hour ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Zero sum is correct. Labour took annual spending from around 400 billion a year to 800 billion a year which totally fucked the country as soon as benefits climbed due to unemployment and tax receipts dropped due to the crash. Suddenly we had hundreds of billions of commitments that we couldn’t afford which led to increased borrowing to cover those commitments.

 

Card maxed to the full, plain and simple.

You’re fucking simple 

[Alex 30446]

6 hours ago, zerosum said:

Anyway.  We’re going round in circles here.

 

Fact is, like I said earlier.. the country is still trying to deal with decades of mismanagement by cretins. That goes back to Majors days.. They’re all useless.

Off the top of my head Thatcher ran a deficit just about every year she was in power despite unprecedented levels of North Sea oil revenues and selling off loads of publicly owned utilities etc. The ultimate Tory con artist 

[ewerk 26440]

He’s admitted to voting for Brexit because it personally enriched him. It shouldn’t be a surprise that he’s a Tory too.

[Alex 30446]

 Fair point

[Alex 30446]

3 hours ago, NJS said:

Household budget/national economy allegories - thick as shit, plain and simple. 

 

 

The best bit is saying the card was ‘maxed to the full’. How the fuck does that work as an analogy when the next government increased borrowing? 

Edited January 7, 2019 by Alex

[zerosum 234]

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

He’s admitted to voting for Brexit because it personally enriched him. It shouldn’t be a surprise that he’s a Tory too.

 

I wouldn’t say I was a Tory. I guess it’s termed a floating voter. I voted Labour for years, and only voted Tory because I couldn’t stand Milliband, couldn’t picture him running the country. And if you read my original post, I said Bad mistake, right after mentioning I voted for Cameron. Unfortunately I don’t know how to see 2 or 3 years into the future like many on here can. So yeah it was a mistake. I didn’t vote last time around.

 

Regarding voting leave to personally enrich, partly, yes to benefit myself and partly because I think the UK would be better off choosing what to do with our money and laws. Not decided by 27 other countries who give zero fucks about us.

 

Once again, couldn’t see 2 years into the future but it’s looking like that’s out of the window now. 

 

Thing is when people vote, majority of people vote for what they “think” would benefit them and the things they care about.. I cared about me and my family. Nothing wrong with that. You got to look after no.1 cos let’s face it, no politician is going to look after you.

[zerosum 234]

2 hours ago, Alex said:

Off the top of my head Thatcher ran a deficit just about every year she was in power despite unprecedented levels of North Sea oil revenues and selling off loads of publicly owned utilities etc. The ultimate Tory con artist 

you’re probably right. I don’t dig too deep on politics, and I was young pissed high and daft then, didn’t take any notice.

[Dr Gloom 19837]

Tbf to Zerosum, Labour weren’t offering  much of an alternative in the Cameron v Miliband election. There might have been media bias but the main opposition party were signed up to the austerity narrative too. There wasn’t really a lot to split the two parties, plus Miliband looked silly eating a bacon sandwich. 

[ewerk 26440]

You’re probably right, people do vote for what what they think benefits them. They shouldn’t though. You claim that part of your reason for voting out was that it was best for the country yet claim to vote in a GE based on what is best for you? If I wanted what is best for me I’d vote Tory every time but there comes a point where you have to think about society in general and what’s best for them.

You say you want Trump with a brain, just what qualities does Trump have that you admire?

[zerosum 234]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

You’re probably right, people do vote for what what they think benefits them. They shouldn’t though. You claim that part of your reason for voting out was that it was best for the country yet claim to vote in a GE based on what is best for you? If I wanted what is best for me I’d vote Tory every time but there comes a point where you have to think about society in general and what’s best for them.

You say you want Trump with a brain, just what qualities does Trump have that you admire?

 

He doesn’t muck about. Gets things done..  Isn’t afraid of making a decision. Other than that, he’s an idiot.

[ewerk 26440]

@zerosum As a floating voter who admits not to get too involved in politics, would you consider voting for Corbyn?

My assumption is that you and many like you (not meant in a negative sense) wouldn’t touch him with a barge pole.

[ewerk 26440]

Just now, zerosum said:

 

He doesn’t muck about. Gets things done..  Isn’t afraid of making a decision. Other than that, he’s an idiot.

Well part of that is the role of President has more direct powers than that of PM. I don’t think taking action for the sake of taking action when it’s detrimental to the country is anything to be admired.

[zerosum 234]

8 minutes ago, ewerk said:

If I wanted what is best for me I’d vote Tory every time 

mate I don’t know how old you are, but i got my first mortgage and started my business in the major Tory years. My mortgage payment doubled in a year or two and i struggled like fuck with my business. So labour promised change and so i voted that way. Normal right?

[zerosum 234]

8 minutes ago, ewerk said:

@zerosum As a floating voter who admits not to get too involved in politics, would you consider voting for Corbyn?

My assumption is that you and many like you (not meant in a negative sense) wouldn’t touch him with a barge pole.

 Yes that’s right x I don’t like him and don’t trust him. But don’t like May either.

[Sonatine 10007]

 

[Rayvin 4964]

5 hours ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Zero sum is correct. Labour took annual spending from around 400 billion a year to 800 billion a year which totally fucked the country as soon as benefits climbed due to unemployment and tax receipts dropped due to the crash. Suddenly we had hundreds of billions of commitments that we couldn’t afford which led to increased borrowing to cover those commitments.

 

Card maxed to the full, plain and simple.

 

Unemployment benefits are always in the region of a couple of billion aren't they? Where are you getting hundreds of billions from? Pensions maybe? The £27bn spent on bank bailouts to consider too, perhaps.

 

Also, this is the other thing with this. More or less, the crash was driven by the markets - banks took insane risks in lending, individual people couldn't repay their debts, banks freaked out and stopped lending, and subsequently the economy shrank (as it always does when less money is being pumped in, hence the idiocy of austerity). Where does the government come into that statement CT, apart from on not regulating the fuckers properly?

 

"The overall picture is of a pre-recession Labour government whose borrowing and spending were sustainable and a post-recession Labour government that made more or less the right moves to stave off an even more calamitous downturn.

This is not to say that Gordon Brown et al got everything right. The Labour government presided over an era of irresponsibility in UK banking. However, the numbers show that their approach to spending and borrowing was actually sound. The irony is that Labour gets a lot of criticism for a crime of which they are innocent (spending too much) and hardly any at all for one of which they are guilty (not regulating the banks).

 

Reckless government borrowing and spending can indeed pitch countries into an economic crisis. But to co-opt this narrative to explain the UK's current situation is economically illiterate. The striking figures on leverage in the UK banking system show that the ones taking historically unprecedented risks with their finances were not politicians, but banking chiefs.

 

Excessive government borrowing did not get us into this mess. Falsely believing that it does covers all manners of sins when it comes to government spending cuts. Understanding the real causes behind the recession frees our political conversation. No longer should we be arguing about how deep the cuts should be, but whether we should be cutting at all.

 

Borrowing more and spending more are not the kamikaze strategies the Government would have us think. More government borrowing and spending now won't make things worse. In fact, the numbers suggest, there's a good chance it's the only thing likely to make things any better."

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-myth-excessive-government-borrowing-got-us-into-this-mess-8601390.html

Edited January 7, 2019 by Rayvin

[Dr Gloom 19837]

it was labour's crash - don't you remember the letter? there was no money left

[Dr Gloom 19837]

BAU (read the whole thread and sketch) 

 

 

[Rayvin 4964]

Ok this has passed me by a bit. Who organised this nonsense? Please, please tell me it isn't a government initiative...

[Dr Gloom 19837]

32 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Ok this has passed me by a bit. Who organised this nonsense? Please, please tell me it isn't a government initiative...

Bingo!

[Rayvin 4964]

What the actual fuck.

[Alex 30446]

2 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

Unemployment benefits are always in the region of a couple of billion aren't they? Where are you getting hundreds of billions from? Pensions maybe? The £27bn spent on bank bailouts to consider too, perhaps.

 

Also, this is the other thing with this. More or less, the crash was driven by the markets - banks took insane risks in lending, individual people couldn't repay their debts, banks freaked out and stopped lending, and subsequently the economy shrank (as it always does when less money is being pumped in, hence the idiocy of austerity). Where does the government come into that statement CT, apart from on not regulating the fuckers properly?

 

"The overall picture is of a pre-recession Labour government whose borrowing and spending were sustainable and a post-recession Labour government that made more or less the right moves to stave off an even more calamitous downturn.

This is not to say that Gordon Brown et al got everything right. The Labour government presided over an era of irresponsibility in UK banking. However, the numbers show that their approach to spending and borrowing was actually sound. The irony is that Labour gets a lot of criticism for a crime of which they are innocent (spending too much) and hardly any at all for one of which they are guilty (not regulating the banks).

 

Reckless government borrowing and spending can indeed pitch countries into an economic crisis. But to co-opt this narrative to explain the UK's current situation is economically illiterate. The striking figures on leverage in the UK banking system show that the ones taking historically unprecedented risks with their finances were not politicians, but banking chiefs.

 

Excessive government borrowing did not get us into this mess. Falsely believing that it does covers all manners of sins when it comes to government spending cuts. Understanding the real causes behind the recession frees our political conversation. No longer should we be arguing about how deep the cuts should be, but whether we should be cutting at all.

 

Borrowing more and spending more are not the kamikaze strategies the Government would have us think. More government borrowing and spending now won't make things worse. In fact, the numbers suggest, there's a good chance it's the only thing likely to make things any better."

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-myth-excessive-government-borrowing-got-us-into-this-mess-8601390.html

Do you honestly think he has any interest in debating the facts? 

[Monkeys Fist 38798]

3 minutes ago, Alex said:

Do you honestly think he has any ability to debate the facts? 

FYP

[Rayvin 4964]

5 minutes ago, Alex said:

Do you honestly think he has any interest in debating the facts? 

 

It was more for Zerosum who I don't think is really a CT-esque figure.

 

I mean I live in hope that one day CT will hold his hands up and acknowledge that he got something, somewhere, wrong. But yeah...