anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 5 February, 2013 Share Posted 5 February, 2013 How would Labour be "paying the debt down" if they were running the country? The Tories may be struggling to get the debt down but it's not for want of trying. What's the alternative? Allow the debt to grow at a much higher rate? What about Labour wah wah wah..... Osborne staked his credibility on paying down the debt and he hasn't achieved it and doesn't look like achieving it soon. We might even get a "Quadruple dip" recession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 5 February, 2013 Share Posted 5 February, 2013 (edited) What about Labour wah wah wah..... Osborne staked his credibility on paying down the debt and he hasn't achieved it and doesn't look like achieving it soon. We might even get a "Quadruple dip" recession. But what would labour do. No one knows as they don't tell us. They just disagree with everything the government do whilst refusing to rule out doing the same.. And they are the alternative and they probably won't win the election either as they don't have anything Edited 5 February, 2013 by Thedelldays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 5 February, 2013 Share Posted 5 February, 2013 But what would labour do. No one knows as they don't tell us. They just disagree with everything the government do whilst refusing to rule out doing the same.. And they are the alternative and they probably won't win the election either as they don't have anything What Labour would do wasn't relevant to the post that Toryers was commenting upon, it was a criticism of the Tories and not a comment on Labour. Of course a wider debate on alternatives is valid. But backers of Osborne et al can't simply resort to whataboutery when they get criticised. The Government is subject to praise and criticism on it's merits, just because one might think that the Tories have done a poor job doesn't mean that you therefore think Labour would've done better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 5 February, 2013 Share Posted 5 February, 2013 The praise and criticism is worthy if there is a credible alternative It's hard to say they are doing it wrong... When they are doing what wrong compared to absolutely nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 February, 2013 Share Posted 5 February, 2013 What about Labour wah wah wah..... Says all I need to know... thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 5 February, 2013 Share Posted 5 February, 2013 But what would labour do. No one knows as they don't tell us. They just disagree with everything the government do whilst refusing to rule out doing the same.. And they are the alternative and they probably won't win the election either as they don't have anything Labour's plan involved a bit less cutting, and a bit more spending. I think it was 12.5% less cuts? And another year delay possibly. One way to reduce debt is to grow your economy, something that just isn't happening right now and hasn't happened since this current government has come in. Though there is only so much you can do in a globalised world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 5 February, 2013 Share Posted 5 February, 2013 The Beeb stoked up a feeding frenzy over Huhne today, revealing some pretty nasty text messages sent to him by his son, who loathes him for cheating on his mother. Then some Lib Dem decided to bring up Aitken and Archer and said that Huhne wouldn't want to remembered in the same way as them, conveniently overlooking Thorpe, Oaten and Paddy Pantsdown. They're all as bad as each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 6 February, 2013 Share Posted 6 February, 2013 (edited) Labour's plan involved a bit less cutting, and a bit more spending. I think it was 12.5% less cuts? And another year delay possibly. One way to reduce debt is to grow your economy, something that just isn't happening right now and hasn't happened since this current government has come in. Though there is only so much you can do in a globalised world. And how would that happen right now? The very fact is that the western world has overstretched itself on unsustainable commercialism and will suffer further as the far eastern powers catch up. We are no longer a world power and avoiding financial meltdown should be the focus, not sustaining the idiotic and decadent current way of life that this country seems fixated on. So much is being put onto sustaining university systems that are merely tools for recirculating resources and previously quangos that do a lot of pretty things but little of true value. Sorry to be a doom-monger, but we are in for a shock in years to come. Better to be ready. Edited 6 February, 2013 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 6 February, 2013 Share Posted 6 February, 2013 And how would that happen right now? The very fact is that the western world has overstretched itself on unsustainable commercialism and will suffer further as the far eastern powers catch up. We are no longer a world power and avoiding financial meltdown should be the focus, not sustaining the idiotic and decadent current way of life that this country seems fixated on. So much is being put onto sustaining university systems that are merely tools for recirculating resources and previously quangos that do a lot of pretty things but little of true value. Sorry to be a doom-monger, but we are in for a shock in years to come. Better to be ready. I'm not a Labour supporter, but presumably they believe the economy would have continued in the growth it showed in their final year and that they could have built on that and so the economy would not have been in such a bad condition as it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 6 February, 2013 Share Posted 6 February, 2013 The US declined to make big cuts to their economy, they even lost their AAA credit rating, and yet their economy is now growing. Given that we're not in the euro there's no way our economy should be performing worse than most European countries. It just needs a proper growth plan with investment in infrastructure. This whole idea that we have to urgently pay off our debt is a false one spread by politicians who have an ideological belief in reducing the size of the state Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 6 February, 2013 Share Posted 6 February, 2013 I'm not a Labour supporter, but presumably they believe the economy would have continued in the growth it showed in their final year and that they could have built on that and so the economy would not have been in such a bad condition as it is now. It wasn't real growth, it was all fuelled by excessive borrowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted 6 February, 2013 Share Posted 6 February, 2013 Incorrect. There was real growth, but it was distorted in later years by excessive borrowing - much of it to bail out banks and building societies. Ah - just seen reference to final year - fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 February, 2013 Share Posted 6 February, 2013 The problem was that the Labour Govt believed that they had abolished boom and bust (or at least said and acted like they did). It's all very well saying that to stimulate growth in a recession you spend money, but the other side of the coin is that you pay down debt in the growth years. Labour were like a guy who earns big bonus' year after year and spent it all instead of saving some for the years he didn't get a bonus. We were ill equipped to face the oncoming economic storm. Not that the Cameron/Osborne wing of the Tory party were any better, they promised to stick to Labour's spending plans if you remember. Real reforms to welfare that the Government are making now, capping it, reducing WFTC for people on decent wages, abolishing family benefit to the wealthy, should have been made during the boom years. Personally as bad as this Government is , I would rather have it making the tough choices than Balls and Milliband. One further point on Huhme, he got £17,000 severance pay, when he stepped down as a minister. Surely Clegg and the squeaky clean Lib/dems should call for him to pay this back. He is a millionaire after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cambsaint Posted 6 February, 2013 Share Posted 6 February, 2013 I have been a staunch Labour supporter all my life. No longer They cannot be forgiven for three things: The Iraq war- B Liar was a disgrace and a criminal. Allowing the debt to spiral, and leave us in the financial crisis we are in. Allowing even encouraging uncontrolled immigration. That's before I get onto the mess they made of the NHS, and the asault on personal liberties. Unfortunately who can I vote for: The idea of voting for a bunch of public school Tories is still unthinkable, The Libs have disappointed in the coalition. Probably UKIP as a curse on all your houses- now start thinking about the electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted 6 February, 2013 Share Posted 6 February, 2013 Just watched the Party Political Broadcast for the Lib Dems. Surprisingly no mention of the lies told by Clegg, Teather and Huhne. Bunch of c * n t s the lot of 'em. History. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted 6 February, 2013 Share Posted 6 February, 2013 And Oaten. Forgot him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightysaints Posted 6 February, 2013 Share Posted 6 February, 2013 He will put us in the dark ages with his energy policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted 7 February, 2013 Share Posted 7 February, 2013 And Oaten. Forgot him. What a filthy old bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 7 February, 2013 Share Posted 7 February, 2013 Just listened to the phone conversation on Sky. Don't get involved in UK Politics normally. But I have to say that Chris Huhne is by FAR the best advertisment I have ever seen for living under a Benevolent Dictatorship. To think that Democracy allows people like THAT to be a representative of the people? Dear Lord God bless the people that nailed the slime ball and may they offer a hope for the proper way to run a country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 7 February, 2013 Author Share Posted 7 February, 2013 And Oaten. Forgot him. What a filthy old bastard. Give him credit for his comedy value, but I'd hate to have his laundry bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 8 February, 2013 Share Posted 8 February, 2013 Just listened to the phone conversation on Sky. Don't get involved in UK Politics normally. But I have to say that Chris Huhne is by FAR the best advertisment I have ever seen for living under a Benevolent Dictatorship. To think that Democracy allows people like THAT to be a representative of the people? Dear Lord God bless the people that nailed the slime ball and may they offer a hope for the proper way to run a country And look at all the skeletons coming out during the trial: Second affair Forced wife into abortion Cheeky expense claims He really is an advertisement for everything wrong with UK politics in general, and the LibDems specifically. If they dont kick him out of their party PDQ, they will lose the by-election. The LibDems are an utter f**king joke, getting in the way of the Tories trying to sort out the mess Labour left. The boundary change block was a dishonest disgrace that should have broken the coallition. what the f**k were all you LibDem voters thinking ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 13 February, 2013 Share Posted 13 February, 2013 Comedy writer and author John O'Farrell named as Labour's candidate for Eastleigh. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/12/john-ofarrell-labour-candidate-eastleigh-byelection The Lib Dems have fielded a Councillor named Mike Thornton. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21398150 Interesting choice by both parties. Thornton isn't a 'heavyweight' and it looks like John O'Farrell isn't taking the whole thing too seriously at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 20 February, 2013 Share Posted 20 February, 2013 Just been reading the reasons the judge dismissed the jury in his wifes case. They came back with a set of questions, one of which was asking if they could base a verdict on reasons not presented in court and there was no evidence for. Where on earth do they get these idiots from. I hope I'm never up on a charge with half wits like that on the jury. They also wanted to know what reasonable doubt meant.... Surely there should be some IQ test before serving. Jesus Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 February, 2013 Share Posted 20 February, 2013 Just been reading the reasons the judge dismissed the jury in his wifes case. They came back with a set of questions, one of which was asking if they could base a verdict on reasons not presented in court and there was no evidence for. Where on earth do they get these idiots from. I hope I'm never up on a charge with half wits like that on the jury. They also wanted to know what reasonable doubt meant.... Surely there should be some IQ test before serving. Jesus Christ. Were they really not sure what 'reasonable doubt' was? Sometimes I despair for the future of this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 21 February, 2013 Share Posted 21 February, 2013 Were they really not sure what 'reasonable doubt' was? Sometimes I despair for the future of this country. Reminds me of a story my mate told me about his jury service. They discussed the case for about 2 hours and they had 8 not guiltys 3 unsure and one defo guilty. They asked the guy why he thought guilty as none of the others were of that opinion,. His reply was "because he's a gypsy and their all robbing gets" (the case was robbing from a building site). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharktopus Posted 21 February, 2013 Share Posted 21 February, 2013 Just been reading the reasons the judge dismissed the jury in his wifes case. They came back with a set of questions, one of which was asking if they could base a verdict on reasons not presented in court and there was no evidence for. Where on earth do they get these idiots from. I hope I'm never up on a charge with half wits like that on the jury. They also wanted to know what reasonable doubt meant.... Surely there should be some IQ test before serving. Jesus Christ. My understanding of this is that generally in jury trials there are at least a few jurors who would be able to explain to the others "complicated" terms such as reasonable doubt, and would have been taking notes enabling them to get a better understanding of the defence of marital coercion which in fairness to them is quite an unusual concept and can easily imply the necessity of force or specific threats. In this case, embarrassingly it seems as if no one was capable of understanding exactly what they had been instructed to do. Also, the high profile nature of the case might have contributed to some jurors feeling overawed by the situation and apprehensive at reaching the 'wrong' conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10280908.Sentencing_of_Chris_Huhne_and_Vicky_Pryce___live/ Cost to crown of prosecuting Huhne and Pryce: £117,558 I can see a heavy sentence for both.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 Absolutely no point sending them to jail. Absolute waste of money. They are no danger to the public and will have to suffer for the rest of their lives courtesy of the fact their reputations, careers and family lives have been trashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooney Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 Absolutely no point sending them to jail. Absolute waste of money. They are no danger to the public and will have to suffer for the rest of their lives courtesy of the fact their reputations, careers and family lives have been trashed. Agree entirely but a cash fine at least equivilent to the tax payers contribution.should be the order of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 I agree there is no point, however the crown will protect its speeding income at any price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 Absolutely no point sending them to jail. Absolute waste of money. They are no danger to the public and will have to suffer for the rest of their lives courtesy of the fact their reputations, careers and family lives have been trashed. Nonsense, you have to send out a message that perverting the course of justice is a very serious offense. If you lessen it where will it end? Perjury & perverting the course of justice are 2 offenses that form major pillars of our justice system and enable the police and juries/courts to do their job . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 Perjury & perverting the course of justice are very serious, however the background crime was not hugly serious compared with other cases. IE; speeding case, false rape accusation, false murder alibi. The risk of the Huhne's re-offending and being a material risk to the public does not justify a custidodial sentence. They have both lost heavily already. Thier sentence could be a community based sentence This is about the crowns retribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 Perjury & perverting the course of justice are very serious, however the background crime was not hugly serious compared with other cases. IE; speeding case, false rape accusation, false murder alibi. The risk of the Huhne's re-offending and being a material risk to the public does not justify a custidodial sentence. They have both lost heavily already. Thier sentence could be a community based sentence This is about the crowns retribution. The seriousness of the background crime will be taken into account and a term of 6 months or so will be the result. The principle of jail time for this offense should and will be upheld, there can be no watering down of that basic principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 Absolutely no point sending them to jail. Absolute waste of money. They are no danger to the public and will have to suffer for the rest of their lives courtesy of the fact their reputations, careers and family lives have been trashed. The deterrent needs to be severe to try and stop repetition. How many people are using Facebook to incite riots these days? If it makes people think twice then good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 Oh and the fine should be £117k split 50:50 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 The deterrent needs to be severe to try and stop repetition. How many people are using Facebook to incite riots these days? If it makes people think twice then good. It won't make people think twice though. Not over something like that, crime continues all over the world despite various forms and levels of punishment and so on. Punishment has absolutely nothing to do with crime, and it will not act as a deterrent in this case (though I don't think we should use individual cases as deterrents - should be consistency). The only outcome will be wasted money. They've been punished lots already and jail whilst punishment more won't actually help anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 It won't make people think twice though. Not over something like that, crime continues all over the world despite various forms and levels of punishment and so on. Punishment has absolutely nothing to do with crime, and it will not act as a deterrent in this case (though I don't think we should use individual cases as deterrents - should be consistency). The only outcome will be wasted money. They've been punished lots already and jail whilst punishment more won't actually help anything. As has everyone who commits a crime. Once they are convicted they can often face family difficulties, lose their jobs as well as the stress that the trial itself puts you under. As public figures they have a duty to act responsibly and if they commit crimes, especially willful ones like this then they should be punished for it, if anything more severely than a member of the public would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 Oh and the fine should be £117k split 50:50 They are both unemployed..... at 50p a week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 As has everyone who commits a crime. Once they are convicted they can often face family difficulties, lose their jobs as well as the stress that the trial itself puts you under. As public figures they have a duty to act responsibly and if they commit crimes, especially willful ones like this then they should be punished for it, if anything more severely than a member of the public would be. I have to disagree with you! I think everyone should be treated equally under the law, regardless of social position. Especially in cases like this, where the actual crime could have happened to anyone with the same ease regardless of their job etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 the Judges comments are showing som empathy with price and annoyance with Huhne's attempt to get the case thrown out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 the Judges comments are showing som empathy with price and annoyance with Huhne's attempt to get the case thrown out Hmmm, going in harder on Pryce in my opinion. Calling her 'controlling, manipulative and devious'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 (edited) Huhne: 8 months. According to a lawyer earlier, he'll be in for about 2 months and then will be on curfew. Pryce also gets 8 months. Edited 11 March, 2013 by Saintandy666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 I have to disagree with you! I think everyone should be treated equally under the law, regardless of social position. Especially in cases like this, where the actual crime could have happened to anyone with the same ease regardless of their job etc You wouldn't be defending him if he was a tory young andy! Regardless of what you think in your misty eyed world the reality is people aren't treated the same under law and in anycase someone in a position of authority and responsibilty has to behave in such a manner and if they step out of line need to be punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 Huhne: 8 months. According to a lawyer earlier, he'll be in for about 2 months and then will be on curfew. Pryce also gets 8 months. Glad to se justice has been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 You wouldn't be defending him if he was a tory young andy! Regardless of what you think in your misty eyed world the reality is people aren't treated the same under law and in anycase someone in a position of authority and responsibilty has to behave in such a manner and if they step out of line need to be punished. Oh I'm aware that cases are done to prove a point. I'm not that misty eyed my dear And I'm not defending him at all. He's done wrong, I just don't see the point of jailing him, given the context. However, it sounds like he'll only be actually in jail for 4-6 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 Oh I'm aware that cases are done to prove a point. I'm not that misty eyed my dear And I'm not defending him at all. He's done wrong, I just don't see the point of jailing him, given the context. However, it sounds like he'll only be actually in jail for 4-6 weeks. the average sentance for the crime is 10 months apparently, he can consider himself to have had a squeeze. The point of jailing him is that the crime warrant a custodial sentance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 They are both unemployed..... at 50p a week? I suggest a little dip into his diamond crusted mp pension pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 It won't make people think twice though. Not over something like that, crime continues all over the world despite various forms and levels of punishment and so on. Punishment has absolutely nothing to do with crime, and it will not act as a deterrent in this case (though I don't think we should use individual cases as deterrents - should be consistency). The only outcome will be wasted money. They've been punished lots already and jail whilst punishment more won't actually help anything. What a load of nonsense. Of course it will be a deterrent. The spokesman for the serious crime squad has just said on Radio 5 that nobody can now doubt the seriousness that the courts take this offense. I'm sure a lot of people will think twice now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 It won't make people think twice though. Not over something like that, crime continues all over the world despite various forms and levels of punishment and so on. Punishment has absolutely nothing to do with crime, and it will not act as a deterrent in this case (though I don't think we should use individual cases as deterrents - should be consistency). The only outcome will be wasted money. They've been punished lots already and jail whilst punishment more won't actually help anything. How can you possibly measure if it has made people think twice or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 11 March, 2013 Share Posted 11 March, 2013 Glad he got jailed, and his slag of an ex-wife. I have less respect for her than I do him for such a petty act of revenge. 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