Johnny Bognor

We've had an advert for a junior machine operator (paying £20k pa + benefits) in the job centre for over two weeks. We've had three CV's (one of which is the son of a friend). ****ing joke....if you want work it is out there. Look I did that in my head (on the back of a fag packet) and am happy to rework the analogy - EDIT: Simplify the analogy National Debt = 900,000,000,000 Population = 60,000,000 Debt per head = £15,000 (not £22k as I stated) on the credit card UK GDP = £1,400,000,000,000 Population = 60,000,000 GDP per capita = £23,333 or £1944 per month (not far off on that one) Defecit Reduction = £20bn per annum Population = 60,000,000 Per head = £333 per person equivalent to £27.77 per month So, is it significant to ask someone who earns £1944 per month to find £27.77 to reduce the overspend, when there is £15,000 on their credit card? It's not socialism in itself that I detest, but the hypocricy and envy. In terms of headcount, they are in the higher echelons (with Bush), just behind Pol Pot and Ghengis Khan.

But love or hate someone, if they are a strong character who stands for what they believe in, they command some respect? I didn't like Tony Benn or his politics, but you have to respect him. Some wishy washy bull****ter like Blair or a no hoper like Brown doesn't get any. Considering the feelings on Blair, Brown and Thatcher, by my reckoning, it makes John Major the best PM of the last 30 years. No wonder the country is in such a mess.

OK, I guess you are at least honest, which is something. I still don't get it though. In my opinion, if you hate Thatcher as much as you do, then by default you should hate the other two as much. Bearing in mind your views on Thatcher, Blair and Brown, can I take it that you think John Major is the best PM since 1979 or does that honour go to Dave (and Nick). I wonder what the other two have to say (they are still viewing the thread)

Fuengirola (come, you've got one post left, don't waste it), Badger, R&R Man. You are all online and looking at the thread (@10.30). Why won't you answer such a simple question?

So will you celebrate their deaths? Simple question. As it happens, I won't celebrate Thatchers death and I won't celebrate Blair or Browns either. It is inhuman to celebrate someones death. Either I have got socialism totally wrong or none of you are really sociallist Regards Confused of Bognor

If they won't answer it, then you have to assume the answer is no. THey were quick to announce their celebration of Thatcher's death (which when it happens, I couldn't give a ****) but they refuse to answer this question, they refuse to answer. If the answer is no, then it makes them total hypocrites. You could argue that their narrow minded prejudice is akin to that of a racist (the people they supposedly hate). One hates on race, the other on class. The real evil here is the sin of envy - the worst of the seven deadly sins. If that is socialism, you can stick it.

So considering your point above and considering the deaths of milions, the continuation of the widening wealth gap and the fact the union men like Prescott (lapping up the trappings of wealth), Blair and Brown betraying you and totally taking the **** out of you, will you celebrate their deaths too? It is a simple question, but none of the lefties will answer it.

What about gordon and tony? They murdered millions, made the rich richer and the poor poorer and totally betrayed you They OK by you?

Indeed, their heroes are responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people that puts them up there not far behind murderers like Adolf Hitler and Stalin. But no, good old Tony and Gordon are alright by them. But Maggie, she is the anti-christ......# So of you forget the deaths, forget the rich poor gap widening, my last point is the total betrayal. The socialists rejoiced in 1997 when New Labour got elected, but they were betrayed by their own. There is nothing worse than betrayal in my mind. Yet they won't have a bad word said against them. It's ****ing weird if you ask me.

The envy of socialism is so bitter and twisted, I am not surprised. As the lady said, they would rather everyone poor, with a small gap, rather than everyone better off with a wider gap. Ironically, the rich got richer and the poor poorer under Blair and Brown, but they won't have a word said against either of them. The hypocricy shown by those on the left never fails to amaze me.

Love her or hate her, in that clip, she is bang on the money

That's right, Beethoven, Mozart et al were all from Africa

Of course all politicians lie. "I did not have sexual relations" was one that comes to mind. However, if it was covering up for an indiscretion (or Geoffery Archer lieing in court, just to show political balance), it doesn't affect me directly on a day to day basis. Even if a politician goes back on a promise, **** happens / things change. However "No more boom and bust" was more sinister than that, as it was deliberately designed to give people false confidence to continue the debt fueled boom, by taking on more debt, so that knobhead could have a chance to be PM one day. That's right, many people got themsleves up **** creek so that ****head could "play" at being PM. It wouldn't be so bad apart from the fact that he was the worst PM in living memory.

......which means he was either stupid (which I don't think he was) or he fraudulently gave people false confidence for which he should be prosecuted.

Yes, recessions are cyclical but they are generally triggered by a major event. The credit crunch was the trigger this time round, so irresponsible lending and the criminal / fraudulent packing and selling toxic assets didn't help either. I am not one who solely blames the bankers and I stand by my point (which has been consistent throughtout) that the bankers are partly (however large or small) to blame. The main cultprits are the Old New Labour party, as they should have put money by for a rainy day, didn't and we will now all feel the consequences.

The bankers are partly responsible for the recession as are the people who failed to regulate them. As for the deficit, which is what the cuts are are all about, some of it is down to the recession (partly caused by the bankers) and the rest is down to government. Therefore, when it comes to cuts, 66% can be blamed on labour and their voters, with the balance being blamed on the bankers. Even if there was no credit crunch / recession, we would still have been facing cuts anyway. But if it is easier for you to live your live with pantomime hate figures, then go ahead and hate the bankers.

What part of structural deficit do you guys not get? A structural deficit is one which is not down to economic cycles (like recessions & credit crunches) and is purely down to government spending. The OECD reckon our STRUCTURAL deficit is 7% of GDP which equates to £100 Billion. That means that TWO THIRDS of our deficit is down to purely to Government (and their voters), not the bankers or anyone else. The Old New Labour party are using the "Blame the Bankers" line to distract everyone from the truth. Yes the bankers may have partly been responsible for the credit crunch / recession (which has increased the deficit somewhat), however they are in not responsible for a structural deficit which has been in place since 2002, some FIVE years before the crisis!!!!!

National debt rose from £300bn (approx) to £500bn (approx) before 2007 (when the crisis started to unfold). Someone borrowed (you'd never guess who) £200bn at a time when we should have been putting money by. Defecits have been recorded since 2002 and so that cannot possibly be the all fault of the bankers http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206 The OECD, for example, thought that the UK's structural budget deficit (i.e related to government spending, not bankers) was 7.2% of GDP. This is equivalent to £100bn, so I think you have it the wrong way round (i.e £100bn caused by the Labour Government and their voters, £60bn caused by the recession). If the bankers have to pay for their share, then Labour and their voters should pay for their share as we are all in this together. Me, I am neither a banker or a Labour voter, yet I am paying my fair share.

Through innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship. The public sector does not create wealth, it merely recycles wealth from taxes taken from the private sector. You're right BTF. The bankers hired an extra 500,000 pubic sector workers over the last 6 years, the bankers sold off our gold reserves at rock bottom prices and the bankers increased public debt before the recession / credit crunch started. I wouldn't dream of blaming anyone else.

Look at all the administrators we had on SWF........the place has improved since they have all gone (mods and admins alike). SWF is like a parody of the public services - cut out the wasters at the top (reducing headcount) and the service not only does not deteriorate, but actually gets better. So see, cuts aren't all bad and SWF is living proof.

Not all in one go they are not as the cost would be spread over the lifetime of the project (for example £1bn per year over 10 years). Having said that, the figures are still way off (Source: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Organisation/KeyFactsAboutDefence/DefenceSpending.htm). The defence budget is split into resource (ongoing running costs) @ £36.7bn and capital expenditure @ £8.8bn. Having said that, I'd bet my bottom dollor that the Israelis would employ less civil servants per £bn than the UK would.

I was brought up to believe a friend in need, is a friend indeed. Not, a friend in need is worth £200 +VAT Anyway, I have only been pulling your leg, so will retire from this thread as I haven't got any valid contribution to make.

Yes, fair enough Keynes is quoted as to why we should spend more now, but the problem is that we did not cut back in bad times. Something in my water tells me that this thread might liven up today.

Say the average salary is £25,000 per year, of which £5,000 is clawed back in tax. Are you suggesting that the average JSA payment would be more £20k per annum? It won't be the case, because if this was the case they could employ everyone who is unemployed and save a fortune (whilst wiping out unemployment altogether). As it happens, 500,000 extra people have been taken on since 2003, so it is only rolling the clock back 7 years. According to the Guardian, it will take 5 years to complete, so at 100,000 per year this is equivalent to 1.5% reduction in head count per year. I'd wager that this could be achieved through natural wastage as more than 1.5 people in 100 retire each year.

Surely, the conversation should have been: BTF: "Hey, haven't seen you for ages, I miss you bruv" BTF's Bruv: "Me too, it's ages since I have been down. I am quiet at the mo so could come down for a few days and remember old times" BTF: "Can't wait. I have a bit of work to do on the house. Could you help?" BTF's Bruv: "Anything for you sis and don't even think about paying me, I couldn't take money off you. Only on one condition, though" BTF: "What's that?" BTF's Bruv: "Don't talk about ****ing politics" BTF: "OK, I can tell you about the time I used to audit NHS contractors instead"