Jump to content

Double Dip?


Saintandy666

Recommended Posts

And as I said at the time, I agree with the general trust of that.

 

Clarke adopted a One Nation Tory approach and the majority of the centre left can deal with that, myself included. It's the public school, Oxbridge idiots who are driven solely by dogma, from any party, that I despise. The current government has far to many of them.

 

The current resident of Number 11 looks so out of his depth it's scary.

 

I agree (it won't happen very often)...

 

I'd like to see more people with experience of the real world than career politicians that have left uni and gone straight into politics as special advisors.

 

[video=youtube;NtSDiHq-x7Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtSDiHq-x7Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG5wt2jUOsg

Edited by dune
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree (it won't happen very often)...

 

I'd like to see more people with experience of the real world than career politicians that have left uni and gone straight into politics as special advisors.

 

Has it only just dawned on you that your lords and masters, on whom you fawn so abjectly, are from a world you could only dream of but never really aspire to? And you certainly wouldn't be allowed anywhere near...

 

The political class live their lives in complete security knowing that there are enough unthinking, obsequious dunderheads in Britain to go around propping up their lives of unearned privilege and power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has it only just dawned on you that your lords and masters, on whom you fawn so abjectly, are from a world you could only dream of but never really aspire to? And you certainly wouldn't be allowed anywhere near...

 

The political class live their lives in complete security knowing that there are enough unthinking, obsequious dunderheads in Britain to go around propping up their lives of unearned privilege and power.

 

Absolutely true Verbal, meritocracy is no longer in place. Watched the program posh and posher this week, Dune I suggest you do. I *think* the figures were 66% of the 120 MPs in the condem government went to public schools, I could have just made that % up though! Have a look on iplayer very enlightening, David Davies came across very well as someone who came from a grammar school background.

Edited by GenevaSaint
corrected public schools for oxford/cambridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely true Verbal, meritocracy is no longer in place. Watched the program posh and posher this week, Dune I suggest you do. I *think* the figures were 66% of the 120 MPs in the condem government went to Oxford/Cambridge, I could have just made that % up though! Have a look on iplayer very enlightening, David Davies came across very well as someone who came from a grammar school background.

 

But weren't the lefties against grammar schools?

 

If this program doesn't make the case, then I don't know what does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely true Verbal, meritocracy is no longer in place. Watched the program posh and posher this week, Dune I suggest you do. I *think* the figures were 66% of the 120 MPs in the condem government went to Oxford/Cambridge, I could have just made that % up though! Have a look on iplayer very enlightening, David Davies came across very well as someone who came from a grammar school background.

 

Your % of Oxbridge MP's for the coalition may or not be right but what is also I think somewhat depressing is that for thirty odd years from Harold Wilson onwards we had a PM who did not come from public school background until god old Tony arrived on the scene, now we are back to that background for PM and it seems to me there is little difference between the parties in terms of the leadership and movers and shakers.

When you look at the Labour leadership you see the Milliband brothers came out of Oxford uni having studied PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics), Balls (an ex public schoolboy) and his wife also studied PPE at Oxford and I doubt any of them have done a "proper" job for any length of time other than as a researcher for someone else in Westminster. As for the others I have not a clue but one can see a theme throughout Parliament of an elite who think they know best because they think they know best.

The 11+ / grammar school route was not perfect but it was at least a route that was open to all of us irrespective of background. Since that route was closed I cannot see what replaced it and maybe that is the reason why we now have the dearth of working class politicians from any of the parties.

Andrew Neil explains it better than me in his article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12282505

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But weren't the lefties against grammar schools?

If this program doesn't make the case, then I don't know what does.

 

Not sure tbh, I'm from the comprehensive era, there wasn't one grammar school in Southampton when I went to secondary. Andrew Neil and David Davis came from normal backgrounds, if you have the intelligence and the work ethic why shouldn't you have the same opportunities as someone from Eton? Unfortunately the Eton old boys network gives people who may be less able than the comprehensive pupil a leg up in life.

 

Neil and Davis both bemoaned the move back to privileged backgrounds in politics away from the meritocracy of the 60s and 70s. Social mobility, pah. Those in power never want to lose it, the privileged classes have regained the upper hand unless you want to pay £30k per year for Eton and even then the selection process would weed out undesireables.

Edited by GenevaSaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your % of Oxbridge MP's for the coalition may or not be right but what is also I think somewhat depressing is that for thirty odd years from Harold Wilson onwards we had a PM who did not come from public school background until god old Tony arrived on the scene, now we are back to that background for PM and it seems to me there is little difference between the parties in terms of the leadership and movers and shakers.

When you look at the Labour leadership you see the Milliband brothers came out of Oxford uni having studied PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics), Balls (an ex public schoolboy) and his wife also studied PPE at Oxford and I doubt any of them have done a "proper" job for any length of time other than as a researcher for someone else in Westminster. As for the others I have not a clue but one can see a theme throughout Parliament of an elite who think they know best because they think they know best.

The 11+ / grammar school route was not perfect but it was at least a route that was open to all of us irrespective of background. Since that route was closed I cannot see what replaced it and maybe that is the reason why we now have the dearth of working class politicians from any of the parties.

Andrew Neil explains it better than me in his article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12282505

 

Yes my figures are well off, thanks for pointing out that article. If you get a chance watch the program on iplayer, more enlightening than the short article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12531102

 

UK Chancellor George Osborne's austerity plan has received the backing of the US Treasury Secretary.

Timothy Geithner told the BBC that he was "very impressed, as just one man looking from a distance, at the basic strategy that he's adopted".

He said Mr Osborne had been handed "problems not created by this government".

 

But he said the chancellor had "locked his government and the coalition into a set or reforms that are very good".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you and raise:

 

Today's figures will ease fears that borrowing is in danger of overshooting forecasts set by the tax and spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), and could add weight to arguments against the size of the coalition's package of austerity measures, which includes £81 billion-worth of spending cuts.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-public-finances-eased-by-tax-haul-2222134.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you and raise:

 

Today's figures will ease fears that borrowing is in danger of overshooting forecasts set by the tax and spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), and could add weight to arguments against the size of the coalition's package of austerity measures, which includes £81 billion-worth of spending cuts.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-public-finances-eased-by-tax-haul-2222134.html

 

Pools panel says: "score draw"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, if you pay off more debt than you borrow in a year, it is quite possible to have a small budget deficit yet have overall nation debt decrease.

 

For somebody so vocal (or whatever the web equivalent is) and adopting such a patronising tone, your lack of understanding is frankly staggering.

 

Unfortunately I only have mobile access to the site today and so will have to keep this brief but...

 

1) National debt is a £ amount. It is you who is confused, confusing debt and debt as a % of GDP. Despite your protestations, if you run a deficit, debt will increase. Or maybe I shouldn't worry if my wife spends more than I earn, because as we will be running a deficit my credit card bill will actually go down .

 

2) your inistance that labour left us in a better position than when they came in because of defecit and debt figures (as a % of GDP!) just continues to highlight your lack of understanding of the economic cycle. After over a decade of (artificial) boom we should have been running a surplus in order to allow us the ability to properly deal with the dip (double or otherwise). Having lower (as a % of GDP!) debt/deficit after a sustained boom than at the end of a recession is absolutely nothing to be proud of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but when your wife overspends, you don't pay off the bill by printing money.

 

Or do you...?

 

:):lol: Touche.

 

It doesn't change the fact that Saintandy666 is spouting off whilst completely misunderstanding the points, although there a number of sensible arguments on here from others.

 

Its the absolute certainty with which people who don't have a grasp of the points they are making argue until they're blue in the face which bugs me rather than the rights or wrongs of each individual policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For somebody so vocal (or whatever the web equivalent is) and adopting such a patronising tone, your lack of understanding is frankly staggering.

 

Unfortunately I only have mobile access to the site today and so will have to keep this brief but...

 

1) National debt is a £ amount. It is you who is confused, confusing debt and debt as a % of GDP. Despite your protestations, if you run a deficit, debt will increase. Or maybe I shouldn't worry if my wife spends more than I earn, because as we will be running a deficit my credit card bill will actually go down .

 

2) your inistance that labour left us in a better position than when they came in because of defecit and debt figures (as a % of GDP!) just continues to highlight your lack of understanding of the economic cycle. After over a decade of (artificial) boom we should have been running a surplus in order to allow us the ability to properly deal with the dip (double or otherwise). Having lower (as a % of GDP!) debt/deficit after a sustained boom than at the end of a recession is absolutely nothing to be proud of.

 

We did run a surplus for a few years. Either way, our figures were better than for a lot of Europe.

 

I think I have phrased my argument badly there and I apologise. Let me put my original bullet points across again.

 

- There was no 12.5% budget deficit until recently, it was around 1 or 2 percent and a surplus in some years before the crash.

- National debt as a percentage of GDP decreased under Labour.

- National debt was lower than under the Tories under Labour until the crash.

- The national debt and deficit then became the large amount we see today during the financial crisis because of the ideological decisions they made.

- Subsequently, there was no decade of spending beyond our means.

 

I would argue that this recession has a lot more to do with the failure of successive governments to regulate the banks properly.

Edited by Saintandy666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

as ever, the people at the top are fine, and keeping more and more of everything for themselves, leaving the bottom 90% to fight, (maybe literally before too long) over the scraps.

 

we must be mad to put up with these parasites owning and running our world........

 

I agree. All political parties make no difference to this. The left have abandoned redistribution of wealth, and the right have abandoned social mobility through opportunity (only offering tax breaks and govmnt work to big companies). They're all about maintaining the status quo of 12-20 years in government on massive salaries making friends in the large corporations, then board level positions and after dinner speaking.

 

and they all did bloody politics degrees at oxford or cambridge. Stuck up ****ers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...