spain saint Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Not sure you entirely grasp the nature of "offensive terms". Isolating a single group in a derogatory way based purely on nationality, skin tone, physical appearance, religious views, lifestyle choice or anything else is, to be brutally honest, not on. Calling someone fat, thin, tall, short, Jewish, black, Indian, Australian is fine. Hell, if I could, I would wheel out a fat, black, Jewish Australian for you and call him that. The trouble starts when you use the terms with malice attached. IE "You Black bastard", "shut up you fat ******" etc. Now tell me, the term "jock". Do you think Scots like that term being used, or do you think it is tinged with the latent xenophobia and superiority complex that most English people have inside them? It sure as hell aint a term of endearment. And to me, whose wife is Scottish and son is therefore half-Scottish, it is an insult I take offense to. Amazingly, the Irish in me wasn't to happy with your "paddy" remark either... Why your at it with bleating on about derogatory remarks, why dont you do a search on the term "gay" or even "Ghey" and see all the derogatory remarks that you have missed over the years!! Or maybe its ok for people on this site to insult homosexuals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch of Maycomb Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Atticus this is the lounge and it's a pretty interesting topic. Kindly bugger off back to TMS if you have nothing to contribute. it is truely fascinating. lets talk in circles for ages and have absolutely no one change either their stance or opinion, regardless of circumstances or facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain saint Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 If I knew that someone was offended by a term I used then I would try not to use it in front of them. It's pretty simple really. I was insulted by your "creepy" qoute to be honest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 I was insulted by your "creepy" qoute to be honest! Which one? Where I said that I thought that creepy was the wrong word to use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain saint Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 (edited) Which one? Where I said that I thought that creepy was the wrong word to use? Yes. and where you went on to say that you feel uncomfortable particularly if the people are "both the same sex" ! But saying that I am not going to cry about it! I just want to point out that when people are criticizing other people for using xenophobic remarks on this site we seem to forget all the slightly or openly homophobic remarks that are let go on this site! Edited 23 October, 2009 by spain saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Yes. and where you went on to say that you feel uncomfortable particularly if the people are "both the same sex" ! But saying that I am not going to cry about it! I just want to point out that when people are criticizing other people for using xenophobic remarks on this site we seem to forget all the slightly or openly homophobic remarks that are let go on this site! I feel very uncomfortable seeing same sex kissing (some videos with fit lasses excluded). What's wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.comsaint Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 I feel very uncomfortable seeing same sex kissing (some videos with fit lasses excluded). What's wrong with that? +1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 I feel very uncomfortable seeing same sex kissing (some videos with fit lasses excluded). What's wrong with that? spain saint is gay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 spain saint is gay So I have to be comfortable with blokes kissing because he's gay? Yeah, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 (edited) With hindsight quotas for the A8 would have been a good idea but business, which Labour snuggled up in bed with, wanted total freedom of movement as it brought in plenty of good, cheap, labour. So our extreme right wing, neo-fascist tory posters, capitalism, in all of its glory, brought us our recent East European immigration flood. Are you suggesting that the markets were wrong? That raw capitalism failed society? Well I never. Raw capitalism didn't create the EU, maybe the Common Market, but not the EU. This was a socialist driven ideology / creation which has nothing to do with capitalism. Let's all tear down the borders and get together on one great socialist love fest. However, in doing so, those who are less fortunate (due to their previous socialist / communist masters) naturally wanted to migrate to the wealthier nations (made wealthy by capitalism). So, actually, maybe you are right, they came here because capitalism made us an attractive nation to come to. Had we been a real socialist / communist society, they certainly would not have come. As for cheap labour, had we not paid for millions to sit on their arses, rather than making them work, we would not have needed anywhere near the immigration we did. So perhaps the socialists did create the problem afterall. Edited 23 October, 2009 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 So I have to be comfortable with blokes kissing because he's gay? Yeah, right. no...just pointing out he is gay.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 no...just pointing out he is gay.... Wasn't aimed at you mush. Personally I feel very uncomfortable around overly affectionate gays. If the gay community don't like that then un*******lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Raw capitalism didn't create the EU, maybe the Common Market, but not the EU. This was a socialist driven ideology / creation which has nothing to do with capitalism. Let's all tear down the borders and get together on one great socialist love fest. However, in doing so, those who are less fortunate (due to their previous socialist / communist masters) naturally wanted to migrate to the wealthier nations (made wealthy by capitalism). So, actually, maybe you are right, they came here because capitalism made us an attractive nation to come to. Had we been a real socialist / communist society, they certainly would not have come. As for cheap labour, had we not paid for millions to sit on their arses, rather than making them work, we would not have needed anywhere near the immigration we did. So perhaps the socialists did create the problem afterall. Under Labour no less. Never took you as Blairite Johnny. Welcome to the right side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Yes. and where you went on to say that you feel uncomfortable particularly if the people are "both the same sex" ! But saying that I am not going to cry about it! I just want to point out that when people are criticizing other people for using xenophobic remarks on this site we seem to forget all the slightly or openly homophobic remarks that are let go on this site! Why is that homophobic? I feel more uncomfortable seeing two blokes kissing than a bloke and a woman. That's my personal opinion because I am not attracted to men myself. I have no problem with homosexuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mao Cap Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Raw capitalism didn't create the EU, maybe the Common Market, but not the EU. This was a socialist driven ideology / creation which has nothing to do with capitalism. Let's all tear down the borders and get together on one great socialist love fest. However, in doing so, those who are less fortunate (due to their previous socialist / communist masters) naturally wanted to migrate to the wealthier nations (made wealthy by capitalism). So, actually, maybe you are right, they came here because capitalism made us an attractive nation to come to. Had we been a real socialist / communist society, they certainly would not have come. As for cheap labour, had we not paid for millions to sit on their arses, rather than making them work, we would not have needed anywhere near the immigration we did. So perhaps the socialists did create the problem afterall. Genuine socialist parties are opposed to the EU as "an exclusive capitalist club". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 And also I would feel no offence if a homosexual said they felt more comfortable seeing two blokes kiss than a bloke and a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Under Labour no less. Never took you as Blairite Johnny. Welcome to the right side. Only because they had an economic legacy that they didn't manage to **** up until now - the worst recession in recorded history. Having said that, Bliar is more preferable to Clown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Genuine socialist parties are opposed to the EU as "an exclusive capitalist club". So re-distributing wealth from the wealthier nations to the poorer nations is not socialist????? All of the legislation imposed on us is capitalist????? Not sure about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 So re-distributing wealth from the wealthier nations to the poorer nations is not socialist????? All of the legislation imposed on us is capitalist????? Not sure about that. Single Market = Capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Only because they had an economic legacy that they didn't manage to **** up until now - the worst recession in recorded history. Having said that, Bliar is more preferable to Clown That's right. The tories had done a grand job. No recessions and mass unemployment under them. No crippling interest rates either and no one lost their home. Nope, they were goodo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. 12 years of boom under the Socialists, brought about by Conservative foundations layed in the 90's, and prudence Brown continued to borrow leaving the cupboard bear for a rainy day. We will be paying the price of Socialiasm for many years to come with high taxes, but ultimately the lessons will not be be learnt and a future generation will vote the Socialists back again to repeat the cycle of misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 That's right. The tories had done a grand job. No recessions and mass unemployment under them. No crippling interest rates either and no one lost their home. Nope, they were goodo. none of them are perfect....IMO being elected for a 3rd term is one too many... when labour are ousted you have to look at their legacy and compare thatr to the previous tory one.. both have over seen mass unemployment at some point both have over seen a period of boom both have royally ****ed off parts of society looking at it broadly, the things that set them apart are.. tory - dealing with the miner strikes and poll tax labour - tearing up the middle east and having the blood of hundereds of thousands of iraqi's on their hands after lying to the country.. hmmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 none of them are perfect....IMO being elected for a 3rd term is one too many... I couldn't agree more. They all run out of steam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 I couldn't agree more. They all run out of steam. quite like the american way....2 terms, then off you go.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. 12 years of boom under the Socialists, brought about by Conservative foundations layed in the 90's, and prudence Brown continued to borrow leaving the cupboard bear for a rainy day. We will be paying the price of Socialiasm for many years to come with high taxes, but ultimately the lessons will not be be learnt and a future generation will vote the Socialists back again to repeat the cycle of misery. Thank you Adolf. Now run along and iron your black shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 quite like the american way....2 terms, then off you go.. Maybe PMs should only be allowed to run for two terms and they certainly should only be able to come to power after a general election, unlike Brown and Major. If a party, whilst in power, changes its leader it should automatically trigger a general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Not sure you entirely grasp the nature of "offensive terms". Isolating a single group in a derogatory way based purely on nationality, skin tone, physical appearance, religious views, lifestyle choice or anything else is, to be brutally honest, not on. Calling someone fat, thin, tall, short, Jewish, black, Indian, Australian is fine. Hell, if I could, I would wheel out a fat, black, Jewish Australian for you and call him that. The trouble starts when you use the terms with malice attached. IE "You Black bastard", "shut up you fat ******" etc. Now tell me, the term "jock". Do you think Scots like that term being used, or do you think it is tinged with the latent xenophobia and superiority complex that most English people have inside them? It sure as hell aint a term of endearment. And to me, whose wife is Scottish and son is therefore half-Scottish, it is an insult I take offense to. Amazingly, the Irish in me wasn't to happy with your "paddy" remark either... Does this include the general loling at the, to use your words, "Tranny" who appeared on University Challange the other day (see thread you started on TMS) Or are "Trannies", as a lifestyle group, exempt from getting upset at ridicule? I'd just like to know the rules, so i don't trip myself up when i'm taking the moral high ground when it suits me, etc, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 none of them are perfect....IMO being elected for a 3rd term is one too many... when labour are ousted you have to look at their legacy and compare thatr to the previous tory one.. both have over seen mass unemployment at some point both have over seen a period of boom both have royally ****ed off parts of society looking at it broadly, the things that set them apart are.. tory - dealing with the miner strikes and poll tax labour - tearing up the middle east and having the blood of hundereds of thousands of iraqi's on their hands after lying to the country.. hmmmmmm no different to what the torries oversaw in the early 90's. we were there for the same reasons...well 2 reason...sadam and oil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Maybe PMs should only be allowed to run for two terms and they certainly should only be able to come to power after a general election, unlike Brown and Major. If a party, whilst in power, changes its leader it should automatically trigger a general election. agree with that...I dont like our democratic system... the idea that you vote for you local MP and the person with the most MPs (by a set majority) wins the election.. we all know that in a general election you are voting for the leader of said part..even if you very much dislike your local MP... I would rather that we vote for the party and the winner of the most votes regardless wins... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 no different to what the torries oversaw in the early 90's. we were there for the same reasons...well 2 reason...sadam and oil err, no...the first gulf war was very different and had the backing of multi major nationalities... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 they are all as bad as each other. they all rob us blind and tax us to the hilt, then, with the country in its worst recession, the bankers give themselves huge bonuses and the mp's moan about having to pay back their illegal expenses claims, meanwhile many hardworking people struggle to pay their morgages. Something is very wrong with the powers that be in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Adolf went a little bit too far....priceless!!! I also loved the way he described London today as being "ethnically cleansed". We need more of this guy on TV. He shows the BNP up for what they really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 err, no...the first gulf war was very different and had the backing of multi major nationalities... errrr no! different how? And this time round, initially had the backing of multi major nations until the point where people moaned and they changed their views, The only reasons we were there the 1st time and this time is sadam and oil. With sadam they went back to finish off the job they messed up the 1st time round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonManager Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 I'd like to see him do a half hour interview with Ali G or any of Sasha Baron Cohen's alter egos. That would knock spots off QT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 errrr no! different how? And this time round, initially had the backing of multi major nations until the point where people moaned and they changed their views, The only reasons we were there the 1st time and this time is sadam and oil. With sadam they went back to finish off the job they messed up the 1st time round. we went to war with iraq (the first time) as they invaded another country (who im sure we had deals with) and were lobbing missiles into isreal and utterly threatend to bring the whole region into war...if isreal responded in any way militarily then it would have been a big problem as syria and the like would have come into play.. we stopped at a certain point as we were not there to remove a regime or find the fabled WMD... infact, do you really believe the two wars were fought on the same ideals..?....surely not..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 we went to war with iraq (the first time) as they invaded another country (who im sure we had deals with) and were lobbing missiles into isreal and utterly threatend to bring the whole region into war...if isreal responded in any way militarily then it would have been a big problem as syria and the like would have come into play.. we stopped at a certain point as we were not there to remove a regime or find the fabled WMD... infact, do you really believe the two wars were fought on the same ideals..?....surely not..? im not condoning either of them but i do believe we only got involved because it would have effected us one way or another. They went after sadam the 1st time and failed, im sure there were those in the corridors of power (both here and the US) that were chumping at the bit to have another go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Come on spain saint, I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 (edited) That's right. The tories had done a grand job. No recessions and mass unemployment under them. No crippling interest rates either and no one lost their home. Nope, they were goodo. No one is perfect, they just dragged the UK out of the gutter. Here are the UK GDP per capita figures since 1979: 1979 = £11,459 1980 = £11,203 1981 = £11,049 1982 = £11,294 1983 = £11,698 1984 = £11,990 1985 = £12,390 1986 = £12,858 1987 = £13,416 1988 = £14,063 1989 = £14,344 1990 = £14,415 1991 = £14,164 1992 = £14,149 1993 = £14,431 1994 = £15,010 1995 = £15,424 1996 = £15,830 1997 = £16,311 I make that a 42.34% improvement. 1998 = £16,853 1999 = £17,376 2000 = £17,995 2001 = £18,367 2002 = £18,685 2003 = £19,130 2004 = £19,569 2005 = £19,842 2006 = £20,288 2007 = £20,768 2008 = £20,790 You're the teacher, you do the maths Edited 23 October, 2009 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff leopard Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Possibly the dumbest thing I've read on this thread. how's that? you think the ballot box cares if your vote is a protest or not? a vote for the BNP is just going to give them more of a voice. its protest votes that played a big role in making the BNP a legitimate party and getting griffin on tv. everyone's sick of labour and want them out, that's obvious, the libdems have imploded too many times for any one to trust them, many people just wouldn't vote tory ever again (especially the disenfranchised working class who's communities were killed by thatcher), so who does that leave? the smaller, more politically extreme parties obviously. i voted green a few times in protest which some of you will find ridiculous, i don't want them in power, i wouldn't trust them running the country. but i can defend this by saying the greens don't plan to isolate the UK, tear society to shreds and plunge us back into the dark ages, which is what forced repatriation would surely do. a possible solution to this is to change the way voting works by letting people vote for 'none of the above'. phuq it, lets start a party called 'none of the above' and promise the voters no manifesto, no mp's, no nothing, just a name on a ballot paper. the only downside to this would be if the party actually won a seat, but that in itself would force the political parties to address the appalling state of politics at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 im not condoning either of them but i do believe we only got involved because it would have effected us one way or another. They went after sadam the 1st time and failed, im sure there were those in the corridors of power (both here and the US) that were chumping at the bit to have another go. well...why did we wait so long if that was the case.. i mean, we were constantly bombing the place...policing the 'no fly zones' and then bombing the place some more...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 a possible solution to this is to change the way voting works by letting people vote for 'none of the above'. It gets my vote! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 No one is perfect, they just dragged the UK out of the gutter. Here are the UK GDP per capita figures since 1979: 1979 = £11,459 1980 = £11,203 1981 = £11,049 1982 = £11,294 1983 = £11,698 1984 = £11,990 1985 = £12,390 1986 = £12,858 1987 = £13,416 1988 = £14,063 1989 = £14,344 1990 = £14,415 1991 = £14,164 1992 = £14,149 1993 = £14,431 1994 = £15,010 1995 = £15,424 1996 = £15,830 1997 = £16,311 I make that a 42.34% improvement. 1998 = £16,853 1999 = £17,376 2000 = £17,995 2001 = £18,367 2002 = £18,685 2003 = £19,130 2004 = £19,569 2005 = £19,842 2006 = £20,288 2007 = £20,768 2008 = £20,790 You're the teacher, you do the maths Shall we factor in inflation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 a possible solution to this is to change the way voting works by letting people vote for 'none of the above'. phuq it, lets start a party called 'none of the above' and promise the voters no manifesto, no mp's, no nothing, just a name on a ballot paper. the only downside to this would be if the party actually won a seat, but that in itself would force the political parties to address the appalling state of politics at the moment. Shame Richard Pryor isn't still around to front that campaign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 (edited) Shall we factor in inflation? That was Real GDP, which takes account of inflation. I am happy to remove it if you like: 1979 = £3,542 1997 = £14,235 I make that a 302% improvement. 1998 = £15,033 2008 = £23,523 Now, shall we factor in Government borrowing? I'm no teacher but I can see that whether you include or exclude inflation, it makes no difference. On average, the wealth of people improved more under the tories. Now, shall we look at the gap between the rich and the poor over the respective periods? Probably not, to save you some face. We could look at UK Manufacturing decline (which fell less under Maggie than it did in the years preceding her and the years since), but it won't support your envy-driven class-hatred agenda. Edited 23 October, 2009 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 That was Real GDP, which takes account of inflation. I am happy to remove it if you like: 1979 = £3,542 1997 = £14,235 I make that a 302% improvement. 1998 = £15,033 2008 = £23,523 Now, shall we factor in Government borrowing? I'm no teacher but I can see that whether you include or exclude inflation, it makes no difference. On average, the wealth of people improved more under the tories. Now, shall we look at the gap between the rich and the poor over the respective periods? Probably not, to save you some face. We could look at UK Manufacturing decline (which fell less under Maggie than it did in the years preceding her and the years since), but it won't support your envy-driven class-hatred agenda. I asked about inflation as to factor a mean average if required, no more than that Now, as for the highlighted bit. Big LOL at that. I'm comfortably middle class, with the trappings (good and bad) that go with it. You seem happy being a neo-fascist so all is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Why your at it with bleating on about derogatory remarks, why dont you do a search on the term "gay" or even "Ghey" and see all the derogatory remarks that you have missed over the years!! Or maybe its ok for people on this site to insult homosexuals? Where the **** have I ever called someone gay FFS. Wind your neck in son or watch it get chopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 I asked about inflation as to factor a mean average if required, no more than that Now, as for the highlighted bit. Big LOL at that. I'm comfortably middle class, with the trappings (good and bad) that go with it. You seem happy being a neo-fascist so all is good. I'm too close to the centre of the map to be fascist. I'm comfortable with my political compass being almost slap bang in the middle. Gives me the chance to take potshots at all sides. At the moment, Labour get it as they are the ones who are ****ing up. As for immigration, I don't have a problem with it as long as it is controlled (on the basis of the contibution of the immigrant or the need of the genuine refugee). That's not racsism, that is realism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 Where the **** have I ever called someone gay FFS. Wind your neck in son or watch it get chopped. I think he means people on here in general. Not sure why he's telling you though or even me. To the best of my knowledge, neither us have posted homophobic comments on here and I find his comments odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 No one is perfect, they just dragged the UK out of the gutter. Here are the UK GDP per capita figures since 1979: 1979 = £11,459 1980 = £11,203 1981 = £11,049 1982 = £11,294 1983 = £11,698 1984 = £11,990 1985 = £12,390 1986 = £12,858 1987 = £13,416 1988 = £14,063 1989 = £14,344 1990 = £14,415 1991 = £14,164 1992 = £14,149 1993 = £14,431 1994 = £15,010 1995 = £15,424 1996 = £15,830 1997 = £16,311 I make that a 42.34% improvement. 1998 = £16,853 1999 = £17,376 2000 = £17,995 2001 = £18,367 2002 = £18,685 2003 = £19,130 2004 = £19,569 2005 = £19,842 2006 = £20,288 2007 = £20,768 2008 = £20,790 You're the teacher, you do the maths 1979 to 1997 has an average growth of 2.228% per annum 1998 to 2008 has an average growth of 2.136% per annum Not a great difference really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 23 October, 2009 Share Posted 23 October, 2009 1979 to 1997 has an average growth of 2.228% per annum 1998 to 2008 has an average growth of 2.136% per annum Not a great difference really. But the New Labour economic disaster hasn't been factored in yet, nor has government borrowing. It also doesn't take the state of the nation in 1979 into account or the fact that Labour took over a country on the up. Either way, even your interpretation of the facts (without the considerations mentioned) still shows that on balance, the tories performed better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now