Jump to content

pap

Members
  • Posts

    14,363
  • Joined

Everything posted by pap

  1. Opening shots in the battle for independence. I'm not sure it really matters. The Scots are just swapping one set of political masters for another. They'll still try for EU membership, they'll still be using our money and will still be part of the central banking system. The timing is weird. Historically, Scots have every right to feel aggrieved about the indifference in Westminster. Recently though, New Labour gave them devolution, the Tories gave them a referendum and as things stand, the Scots have the best public services in the Union.
  2. At this rate, the inflation adjusted point will be moot soon anyway. Also, it's bugger all like your Roman invasion analogy. We're talking cumulative inflation over 16 years. Osborne has failed to deliver on his financial prudence and you don't need to compare prices from 2,000 years ago to work out why. When they took office, both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems talked of creating a government to serve the national interest. Each "cost-cutting" measure has cost more money. We're means testing people who say they can't work, which usually involves a 20 minute test in which we tell them they can and a costly appeal afterward in the courts. It's short-term knee-jerk thinking all the way, only with added u-turns. If Osborne was being taunted by football fans, "you don't know what you're doing" would seem appropriate.
  3. I don't see politics as a team sport either, but frequently make the analogy to highlight that some people do. It's mindless tub-thumping in many cases. You only need to look at the abortive attempts to add to the debate here. Our caped crusader seems to have a "Whatabatarang" in his utility belt, but that's it. There's nothing further. We won't be getting a detailed breakdown of Liberal Democrat spending objectives in from Gotham anytime soon. I'm not sure on the two Eds either, but for me, the difference is this. Only one party seems to wilfully operate against the interests of the British people while it is in power. Oddly enough, it's the one that was founded to "conserve" traditional British values. Perhaps they are and I'm just starting from the wrong reference point. Maybe they're looking to conserve the workhouse values of Victorian Britain. I've seen people bash Labour's borrowing record for years. Most moderate conservatives will accept that a large proportion of that money went toward saving the financial system, yet even with that burden, Labour still borrowed less. So if the Conservatives are less economically competent, which surely follows from their need to borrow 13 years worth of cash in 3, what does that actually make them? I've said before that I've no problem with a bit of belt-tightening if the country emerges from it in a stronger position. That is not happening here. We're borrowing more money yet the quality of public services is degrading. On that basis, even the much maligned New Labour look like f**king good value for money.
  4. As an aside, we really need to stop looking West for our social policies. The US really does have little to teach us there, especially when it comes to employment. It has been argued that the changes to the benefit system aren't really saving us any money. Case in point is the benefit cap at 26K p.a. It's a great political soundbite, but it costs a hell of a lot more money. Anyway, at this rate, Labour are looking like a f**king bargain. A quarter of the price and no demonisation of the poor.
  5. The only role that the LibDems have had apart from "moderating the Tories" is being f**king handy scapegoats for every unpopular policy going. I refer sir to the case of tuition fees. Until this coalition, they've not been a relevant party of government for almost a century, their role in coalition war governments obviously excepted. In the years leading up to government, they operated as a party of principles, a relatively mainstream outlet for anyone dissatisfied with the red and blue teams. The biggest mistake they ever made was joining the coalition. It has finished them as a political force, and while I have some sympathy for their position within the context of our electoral system ( under PR they'd almost be equal partners with the Tories on the 2010 ballot ), they knew the game they were playing and who they were playing it with. The consequence of that was a "principled" party being shown up on practical matters. They're a spent force and even in government, a complete and utter irrelevance, operating largely as an unwitting shield to the Conservative party.
  6. What are the great drivers of borrowing coming from the LibDem side then?
  7. Perhaps, KRG, perhaps. HS2 is a perfectly valid example, tho. Planning started in 2009, but the decision to build (and contracts on who gets to build it) are very much of this government. They made the decision at a point when the UK economy was deep in recession, while simultaneously telling the public that there was no money left. Lest you attempt to lecture me on the whole investment-return conundrum, I get it. I'd even say that I'm broadly in favour of large infrastructure projects, both for the jobs they create first and the infrastructure left behind afterwards. The Conservatives have raked Labour over the coals for their borrowing record, and rightly so. As I said before, I don't agree with every line item on Labour's spending - but they managed to finance a lot more stuff while borrowing less money. Extrapolated over a similar (hellish) period of Conservative government, the Tories will out-borrow Labour 4-to-1. They've cut benefits across the board and raised VAT to 20%. The social fallout from their policies is going to be incalculable over the long term. So where has the dosh gone?
  8. I think that could be a factor, but that doesn't imply economic competence on the part of the Conservatives. Anyone can sell the vast majority of publicly owned utilities for rock-bottom prices and have a bit of cash in the bank. The problem is that you don't have those assets anymore - and that's a real problem. Both the housing and energy bill crises of today began back in the 1980s.
  9. Who took out the money?
  10. One of the major questions being asked in this thread is where the money has gone. I don't know why borrowing has gone up to the extent that it has. I'm not part of your everyone set, so perhaps you could explain. Why, in a time of real cuts which are hurting people, is the government BORROWING MORE MONEY THAN EVER BEFORE?
  11. I'm not even sure that's germane to the point. As someone who supports the broadly stated tenets of Conservatism, one of which is smaller government and more self-reliance, doesn't it alarm you that they've spunked 13 years worth of cash in 3? Adjust it all for inflation all you like. Have a hypothetical argument if you like. The fact is, you and I will end up paying for this largesse. On a purely financial level, the UK taxpayer should be f**king horrified at the bills run up in one's name in the last 3 years.
  12. If we were truly comparing like with like, the question would be more like:- How much would Labour have needed to borrow to prosecute its pre-planned agenda, which may or may not reflect their pre-2010 election pledges? Or perhaps framed more specifically, whatever happened to the Conservative commitments on "no top down reorganisation of the NHS" and "green energy"? Whereabouts in the Tory manifesto did they say that "we promise to give a lot of money to our mates so they can get unemployed people to work for free"?
  13. Yup, I'm including those shockingly poor value for money PFI contracts - and all the money spent during their tenure servicing them. Fully accept that the Tories have to keep those agreements (and payments) in place, but still at a loss as to how we've borrowed more in 3 years than we managed in 13. Paying back Labour's PFI commitments doesn't cover it.
  14. I'm not sure I can agree with all of this. For starters, the Conservatives have instituted some fairly radical ideas of their own, such as top-down re-organisation of the NHS, workfare programs which see vast sums of cash going to the likes of atos, paying people off to leave their public sector jobs, the additional cost involved in "cost-cutting" measures (such as putting families up in B&Bs which work out more expensive than the HB-financed places they were in) and the much debated HS2 project.
  15. The Tories claim to be the party of economic competence, yet this report in the Huffington Post (also appears elsewhere) seems to suggest the complete opposite. The coalition government has borrowed more money than Labour managed during its entire 13 year tenure. For those with short memories, that money was spent on hospitals, schools, programmes like Sure Start, imperialistic wars of aggression and saving the world financial system. I can't say I subscribe to or agree with all of those line items, but superficially at least, it seems like Labour have got more bang for their buck than the "economically competent" Conservatives. What the f**k have they spent all that money on? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/21/uk-borrowing-_n_4316084.html
  16. Neither can you, but I put in a tad more effort
  17. This thread seems to have died a death. A couple of interesting links/resources for anyone interested. First up, an article of the way that the BBC has reported 9/11 that claims that the BBC is in breach of its charter by not presenting a balanced view. http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-building-7-the-bbcs-role-in-distorting-the-evidence-and-misleading-the-public/5359036 Next, a video referenced in the same article which backs this up. The Beeb were doing a show on conspiracy theories and were interviewing Dr Niels Harrit. He only agreed to the interview on the basis that he could have his own people record it in its entirety. The video is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it's clear from the outset (and throughout) that the BBC reporter already has a point of view. Second, most of the interview is spent attempting to discredit the interviewee, instead of discussing the issues at hand. Additionally, all of the old tricks you see on here are used again. Harrit continually tries to keep the interview focused on hard evidence. The interviewer is constantly trying to get him to produce a theory. It's a long watch at 2hours, but it's an interesting insight into how mainstream media handles the subject, and there is definitely a case to suggest that the BBC isn't treating the material impartially. [video=youtube;XF334x-xWz8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF334x-xWz8
  18. ms pap is much worse than I. Her normal TV watching posture is highly reminiscent of Jabba the Hutt on his intergalactic chaise lounge, largely immobile and speaking only when turning down business opportunities from jedis, etc. Put a Liverpool game on, and she's like a hyperactive child rocking too many E numbers. When Liverpool actually score, the dog leaves the room for several hours until noise and movement levels have returned to their pre-match norms.
  19. Tim:- Wiz = wee Wazz = w4nk If you meant wazz, I can't blame the shopkeeper.
  20. pap

    Sci-fi Fans

    They covered your major issue. The War Doctor went back to his time without any memory of events. Even if they'd have spilled the beans, he'd never have remembered. I watched it last night and spotted several things that'd really undo some of the stuff we've been told before, but they managed to corral it all into existing continuity. The only thing I thought was a little crap was Baker's appearance. Doesn't really make any sense as anything but fan service.
  21. I'm currently sat drinking with one of my best mates. Doesn't post on here, or anywhere for that matter, but he reckons the next four games are massive. Here's why. 1) we are playing some top teams, Villa excepted. 2) first stage of champions league over. Players can't play for another team in CL or Europa League (unless still playing in team that they have already represented that year). 3) Cortese can show his ambitions by signing the best players from teams that don't qualify. Thoughts?
  22. Just go for the best deal, replacement price pikey. I'd have a wee nose on the 'net for customer complaints first, like. I remember buying a key on eBay for something once. F**kers took two days to send an email.
  23. We pay for about a grand's worth of shopping vouchers over the course of the year, which sorts out the vast majority of presents. Probably another grand on top of that. Chrimbo costs around two grand in our gaff.
  24. Do you know what nemesis means?
  25. See, this is why you could never be my nemesis. You're using popular culture to try and explain your position, claim you have more important things to do than be on here (your post count suggests otherwise). You can't be my nemesis because too many would accuse me of taking the easy option.
×
×
  • Create New...