What we can expect for a year or two

[francisgraham]

1footinthegrave - 2012-04-18 4:19 PM

francisgraham - 2012-04-18 3:50 PM

1footinthegrave - 2012-04-18 3:36 PMI'm quite happy that by implication you include me, to be fair you illustrate perfectly the puffed up self important pompous attitude of so many politicians ( perhaps your are one, you seem to have the perfect disposition ), who are grand masters of never giving a straight answer to a straight question. Your idea of "debate" is to agree with you and your view point, or verbally beat up those like me that don't. Anyway must pop out and get a hot Pasty before they go up again, there that'll have you laughing again ;-)

Biggest laugh today actually! I debate, you just spout slogans I really do not think that I've come across anyone so brimming with such an irrational and uninformed hatred, although there's one or two come close!

How odd that most political parties spout slogans, "we're all in it together comes to mind" or "the big society" or"we'll get Britain working", the very thing you accuse me of. As for not coming across someone brimming with irrational and uninformed hatred, you know nothing about me, other than my dislike of Politics, and to stoop to your level of insult, you obviously don't glance in a mirror very often.And how I agree with the previous commentHonesty and morality amongst our political elite is what is needed not politic speak, double speak and platitudes, I wouldn't hold your breath that we will get that anytime soon though ;-)

Oh dear! I accuse you of not actually debating in this thread, which you haven't, and of simply spouting hateful slogans about our MPs. You justify this stance by telling us that political parties have slogans. So that's all right then!

Anyway, you told us earlier about all the MPs who have never done a day's work in their lives. I have asked several times for you to supply their names. Or perhaps it was just you spouting unsubstantiated slogans and claptrap (again)?

[CliveH]

1footinthegrave - 2012-04-18 4:19 PM

francisgraham - 2012-04-18 3:50 PM

1footinthegrave - 2012-04-18 3:36 PMI'm quite happy that by implication you include me, to be fair you illustrate perfectly the puffed up self important pompous attitude of so many politicians ( perhaps your are one, you seem to have the perfect disposition ), who are grand masters of never giving a straight answer to a straight question. Your idea of "debate" is to agree with you and your view point, or verbally beat up those like me that don't. Anyway must pop out and get a hot Pasty before they go up again, there that'll have you laughing again ;-)

Biggest laugh today actually! I debate, you just spout slogans I really do not think that I've come across anyone so brimming with such an irrational and uninformed hatred, although there's one or two come close!

How odd that most political parties spout slogans, "we're all in it together comes to mind" or "the big society" or"we'll get Britain working", the very thing you accuse me of. As for not coming across someone brimming with irrational and uninformed hatred, you know nothing about me, other than my dislike of Politics, and to stoop to your level of insult, you obviously don't glance in a mirror very often.And how I agree with the previous commentHonesty and morality amongst our political elite is what is needed not politic speak, double speak and platitudes, I wouldn't hold your breath that we will get that anytime soon though ;-)

Francis - I hesitate to get invlved because of your previous vitriol towards myself but having seen you try to dish the same out to others I can see that pitying you and not taking it personally was by far the best option.Try to remember Francis - Rudeness and arrogance are the training wheals on the bicycle of life - used only by those whose personalities are so flawed that they cannot achieve a balance in life.

[Guest pelmetman]

I wonder if debate is actually possible at our age? :-S....................as we have all been around long enough for our views to be well entrenched ;-)...........Which probably explains our view of politicians...........as we have been lied to so often that we no longer believe a word they say *-)

[RogerC]

francisgraham - 2012-04-18 5:11 PM

RogerC - 2012-04-18 3:55 PM  

 

The above in red......But I do know what they would need just reinforces my comments...you do not know what they need.  Your comment regarding bringing in 'experts' merely reinforces the argument that knowledge of the topic is not necessary in the modern world.  This obfuscation of the intent of the words is indicative of modern 'politic speak'.  You said 'But I do know what they would need' by which you actually mean 'I have no idea of what is required personally but  I will ask someone who does'.  Unfortunately there are too many people in politics with this mentality who, whilst being the 'big man' rely on the expertise of others to 'gild their lily'.  In my walk of life these people were regarded as wastrels......living on the efforts and knowledge of others industry and intellect.

 

If you had said 'the experts would know what is needed' that would be a different matter but to claim, as you did that you know what is needed is obviously untrue.  Fortunately, unless you are in a position of 'power' your obfuscation is irrelevant.  However when those in 'office' use this tactic to reinforce their own standing and the 'pollsters count' it is disingenuous, misleading and morally reprehensible.  Honesty and morality amongst our political elite is what is needed not politic speak, double speak and platitudes.

You choose to see into my statement that which you wish to see. Are you really suggesting that I would claim to know how to deal with starving people personally? You did indeed make such a claim...........You said 'But I do know what they would need'

or are you now resorting to the recently intoned political get out by saying that what you have written is not what you meant?

 

Had you said you know which agencies could be approached to provide assistance that would have been a different matter.  You chose to write initially.... 'I know'... which implies by definition that you personally have the knowledge required where it is patently obvious you do not.

But are you really suggesting that politicians who rely on expert advice are somehow deficient? If you are I find that a most extraordinary statement. Do you really expect them to be experts in all things in this ever more complex world that we live in?

 

No I am simply suggesting that there is too much 'double speak or spin in modern politics.

I'm sorry that you have chosen to infer that I meant that I personally would know how to help starving people. I clearly would not and I would not have thought it necessary to spell it out in words of one syllable. But I would know how to ensure that they got that help.

 

I infer nothing.....I merely responded to that which was written in that you said.....'But I do know what they would need'.

 

If this is not what you meant then maybe one so well versed in the written word as your good self should have been somewhat less vague and a lot more deliberate in your writings so as to avoid the 'that's not what I meant...I have been mis-quoted reposte.

 

If politicians reverted to common decency and spoke to the public as equals instead of treating the populace as ignoramuses then maybe just maybe they could go a little way towards redemption in the eyes of the public.

[CliveH]

Debate is fine Dave - as for the "lazy" MP's - you only have to go to the Tax payers alliance site to see their views on how some MP's are not value for the tax-payers £

 

Also - even the Labour party recognised a couple of years ago tyat some of their party were lazy

 

Matthew Elliott, chief executive at the TaxPayers' Alliance said: "The fact that they have to be shamed and hectored into doing the job they are elected and paid to do shows they are not fit for public office, and don't deserve the privilege of serving their community."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/5018301/Lazy-Labour-MPs-to-be-told-to-pull-their-weight-in-Parliament-for-the-first-time.html

[Guest Tracker]

Can we expect a year or two more of FG continually putting his points in an antagonistic and abrasive way?

 

Answers on the back of a used £20 note please c/o the Saddam Hussein School of Tact and Diplomacy!

[francisgraham]

Tracker - 2012-04-18 5:49 PMCan we expect a year or two more of FG continually putting his points in an antagonistic and abrasive way?Answers on the back of a used £20 note please c/o the Saddam Hussein School of Tact and Diplomacy!

Come on Tracker, try not to be so partisan again! Once again you ignore those who have a go at me, as this from 1footinhismouth:

'I'm quite happy that by implication you include me, to be fair you illustrate perfectly the puffed up self important pompous attitude of so many politicians ( perhaps your are one, you seem to have the perfect disposition ), who are grand masters of never giving a straight answer to a straight question.' 

Or this from CliveH, whom I've never actually mentioned in this thread at all but can't resist having his usual nasty little dig and who himself can be the rudest man on the forum when it suits him:

'Francis - I hesitate to get involved because of your previous vitriol towards myself but having seen you try to dish the same out to others I can see that pitying you and not taking it personally was by far the best option. 

Try to remember Francis - Rudeness and arrogance are the training wheals on the bicycle of life - used only by those whose personalities are so flawed that they cannot achieve a balance in life.' 

Training 'wheals' eh! He never lets me down! He 'hesitates to get involved' but in the end he couldn't resist! ;-)

Anyway, it's been fun, I'm not working today and it helped to pass the time.

I am now out for the evening so you can all have your little moans whilst I'm gone. Get those 'wheals' turning Clive!

[pepe63xnotuse]

Tracker - 2012-04-18 5:49 PM

 

Can we expect a year or two more of FG continually putting his points in an antagonistic and abrasive way?

 

Answers on the back of a used £20 note please c/o the Saddam Hussein School of Tact and Diplomacy!

 

 

...Yet another thread,well and truely "FGed" (lol)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

It really seems that he just cannot help himself. :-S

[Guest Tracker]

francisgraham - 2012-04-18 6:07 PM

I am now out for the evening so you can all have your little moans whilst I'm gone.>

 

Thank heaven for some relief at least!

 

What you fail to accept or realise FG is that nobody (except maybe Clive) has had a go at you unless you have arrogantly and/or abrasively replied to their postings (and even Clive only originally responded to your inability to address the topic without recourse to personal attacks).

 

You still seem unable to grasp the principle that everyone has a right to an opinion other than your own no matter how wrong they may or may not be.

 

You still seem unable to grasp the principle that a reply to any point with which you disagree can easily be made by purely by addressing the point itself and without reference to the individual, although to be fair, that does take some skill with words.

 

 

[antony1969]

Wet , miserable , grey , damp and depressing , today's weather , not this thread

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Tracker - 2012-04-18 6:15 PM

 

francisgraham - 2012-04-18 6:07 PM

I am now out for the evening so you can all have your little moans whilst I'm gone.>

 

Thank heaven for some relief at least!

 

What you fail to accept or realise FG is that nobody (except maybe Clive) has had a go at you unless you have arrogantly and/or abrasively replied to their postings (and even Clive only originally responded to your inability to address the topic without recourse to personal attacks).

 

You still seem unable to grasp the principle that everyone has a right to an opinion other than your own no matter how wrong they may or may not be.

 

You still seem unable to grasp the principle that a reply to any point with which you disagree can easily be made by purely by addressing the point itself and without reference to the individual, although to be fair, that does take some skill with words.

 

 

Well said Tracker,

 

wouldn't mind betting he's out for the evening canvasing for the local elections for some party or other, but no on second thoughts perhaps not, I can imagine that if he was as abrasive in real life on someones door step, as he is on here, he's spend the majority of his time in his local casualty department. ( assuming it hasn't been shut down by his beloved politicians ) :D :D :D

[Guest Tracker]

antony1969 - 2012-04-18 6:18 PM

 

Wet , miserable , grey , damp and depressing , Francis Graham , not this thread

[nowtelse2do]

FG. In one of your replies to 1footinthegrave you said, you don't get it do you? The continuing improvement in your standard of living over the last fifty years, the fact that longevity is increasing so much that children borne today will live to 100, is due to two things, those interfering politicians and the capitalist economy that they promote and encourage.

 

I think you can extend that fifty years to 90 or more. You say it is due to two things, I say it is due to three things or do the unions not count. The unions were the biggest reason why we are much better off, if it had been left to the old politicians and the business elite, women and children would still be down the coal mines. As for today's children living to 100, I will take that as a joke because if they are going to be working until their 70's and the latest suggestions has been put forward that the retirement age should be 80, these children will never reach 100, they will have been worked to death long before 100.

 

You remind us that home ownership has never been higher, that's very true, but neither have home repossessions.

 

Dave

[francisgraham]

nowtelse2do - 2012-04-18 10:26 PMFG. In one of your replies to 1footinthegrave you said, you don't get it do you? The continuing improvement in your standard of living over the last fifty years, the fact that longevity is increasing so much that children borne today will live to 100, is due to two things, those interfering politicians and the capitalist economy that they promote and encourage.I think you can extend that fifty years to 90 or more. You say it is due to two things, I say it is due to three things or do the unions not count. The unions were the biggest reason why we are much better off, if it had been left to the old politicians and the business elite, women and children would still be down the coal mines. As for today's children living to 100, I will take that as a joke because if they are going to be working until their 70's and the latest suggestions has been put forward that the retirement age should be 80, these children will never reach 100, they will have been worked to death long before 100. You remind us that home ownership has never been higher, that's very true, but neither have home repossessions.Dave

I agree entirely about the role of the trades unions but, once again, it is our political system that allows them to operate and flourish. And do you really believe that politicians (of both parties) haven't also been active in promoting reform? There have also been many employers who have improved the lot of their workers and set examples for others to follow. 

Lord Leverhulme comes to mind with his Port Sunlight village, the Cadburys and Rowntree Quaker families are other examples of enlightened employers. 

As for longevity, it is a fact that many children born today will live to be 100. That figure wasn't plucked from the air but is the opinion of demographers and is based on all current trends. Longevity continues to increase quite dramatically. Just Google a few key words and see for yourself.

It is also a fact that they will have to work longer, but do you really think that this is unreasonable? Do you really think that the country can afford to let people retire at 65 and pay them a pension for another 35 years?

One grandfather of mine worked until he was 65 and died in his early seventies. He had Parkinson's disease, for which there was no treatment. The other also worked in industry until he was 65 and died five years later from emphysema, caused by cigarettes and the smog laden atmosphere.

Which do you think is better, working until 65 like our grandparents did and perhaps enjoying  five to ten years of retirement, or working until 75 and having twenty years of retirement? I know which I'd prefer.

In fifty years time people of 75 will be as fit and healthy as sixty-year-olds are now.

And do you think that you do this debate any good whatsoever by statements about people being 'worked to death' long before they are 100? That really is emotive nonsense. Do you think that people will be forced to slave away until they drop dead on the factory floor? Will the trades unions really allow that to happen?

Whilst I would agree that the unions have played a big part in workers' conditions and rights, I would still contend that our increase in wealth comes from business and industry which creates it. The socialist countries had even stronger unions and were supposed to be the workers' paradise, but they were backward and poor compared to the capitalist west. The reason being that, without competition, there is no incentive to make a better product. Hence Western Germany had Mercedes, Porsche and Volkswagen and Eastern Germany had the Trabant.

Finally, there may well be more house possessions than in previous years although I'm not sure of that, but there are a lot more houses! When I grew up very few of of my friends' families owned their own home. We lived on council estates or in rented terrace houses but now, all of those people would own their own home. And although the wealth graph has climbed continually in the last sixty years there have been recessions before and we'll have them again, but you're surely not using the fact that there may be more house possessions this year than say, five years ago, as some kind of proof that we're not better off than we were fifty years ago?

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

You could be correct in some of your assumptions, but I think you overlook a couple of things.

 

The West now has endless and rising trade deficits; annual budget deficits; rising social/welfare cost; rising national deficits and declining tax revenues, a bit of a toxic mix.

 

As for life span, with the positive explosion in Obesity, and Diabetes, It's very unlikely children born today will see 60 never mind 100.

 

I also don't think one should look at lifespan in isolation, yes folk are living longer, but apart from some notable exceptions like the Bruce Forsyths of this world, surely it is quality of life that matters, I don't want extra years of retirement if I'm sitting somewhere waiting for my pad to be changed, or on a waiting list for a hip replacement, etc, etc.

 

 

;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

Spot on 1foot ;-)......................I've no intention of working until I drop.............I'd rather enjoy my time whilst I'm still reasonably healthy :D.....................

 

There's no point in having loadsa money when your old and dribly *-)

[francisgraham]

1footinthegrave - 2012-04-19 6:31 AMYou could be correct in some of your assumptions, but I think you overlook a couple of things. The West now has endless and rising trade deficits; annual budget deficits; rising social/welfare cost; rising national deficits and declining tax revenues, a bit of a toxic mix.As for life span, with the positive explosion in Obesity, and Diabetes, It's very unlikely children born today will see 60 never mind 100.I also don't think one should look at lifespan in isolation, yes folk are living longer, but apart from some notable exceptions like the Bruce Forsyths of this world, surely it is quality of life that matters, I don't want extra years of retirement if I'm sitting somewhere waiting for my pad to be changed, or on a waiting list for a hip replacement, etc, etc. ;-)

That's OK, continue to ignore all the evidence about longevity and the continuing improvements in our general health. Continue to ignore the millions of septuagenarians and even octogenarians who are enjoying active lifestyles that their grandparents couldn't dream of. 

Continue to believe that they're all wrong and that really, it's a big confidence trick and everyone is, as you say, going to be dead before they're 60.

I'm not going to bother trying to convince you any more as I now realise that, for you to be happy, you actually have to be unhappy and depressed about every single aspect of life.

I'm sorry that I've argued with you. If you want to wake up every morning convinced that there is nothing really worth living for, that's your right. I do wish though that you wouldn't try to infect everyone else with your doom and gloom. Anyone listening to you would actually feel like killing themselves well before they get to 60.

[CliveH]

francisgraham - 2012-04-18 11:38 PM

nowtelse2do - 2012-04-18 10:26 PMFG. In one of your replies to 1footinthegrave you said, you don't get it do you? The continuing improvement in your standard of living over the last fifty years, the fact that longevity is increasing so much that children borne today will live to 100, is due to two things, those interfering politicians and the capitalist economy that they promote and encourage.I think you can extend that fifty years to 90 or more. You say it is due to two things, I say it is due to three things or do the unions not count. The unions were the biggest reason why we are much better off, if it had been left to the old politicians and the business elite, women and children would still be down the coal mines. As for today's children living to 100, I will take that as a joke because if they are going to be working until their 70's and the latest suggestions has been put forward that the retirement age should be 80, these children will never reach 100, they will have been worked to death long before 100. You remind us that home ownership has never been higher, that's very true, but neither have home repossessions.Dave

I agree entirely about the role of the trades unions but, once again, it is our political system that allows them to operate and flourish. And do you really believe that politicians (of both parties) haven't also been active in promoting reform? There have also been many employers who have improved the lot of their workers and set examples for others to follow. 

Lord Leverhulme comes to mind with his Port Sunlight village, the Cadburys and Rowntree Quaker families are other examples of enlightened employers. 

As for longevity, it is a fact that many children born today will live to be 100. That figure wasn't plucked from the air but is the opinion of demographers and is based on all current trends. Longevity continues to increase quite dramatically. Just Google a few key words and see for yourself.

It is also a fact that they will have to work longer, but do you really think that this is unreasonable? Do you really think that the country can afford to let people retire at 65 and pay them a pension for another 35 years?

One grandfather of mine worked until he was 65 and died in his early seventies. He had Parkinson's disease, for which there was no treatment. The other also worked in industry until he was 65 and died five years later from emphysema, caused by cigarettes and the smog laden atmosphere.

Which do you think is better, working until 65 like our grandparents did and perhaps enjoying  five to ten years of retirement, or working until 75 and having twenty years of retirement? I know which I'd prefer.

In fifty years time people of 75 will be as fit and healthy as sixty-year-olds are now.

And do you think that you do this debate any good whatsoever by statements about people being 'worked to death' long before they are 100? That really is emotive nonsense. Do you think that people will be forced to slave away until they drop dead on the factory floor? Will the trades unions really allow that to happen?

Whilst I would agree that the unions have played a big part in workers' conditions and rights, I would still contend that our increase in wealth comes from business and industry which creates it. The socialist countries had even stronger unions and were supposed to be the workers' paradise, but they were backward and poor compared to the capitalist west. The reason being that, without competition, there is no incentive to make a better product. Hence Western Germany had Mercedes, Porsche and Volkswagen and Eastern Germany had the Trabant.

Finally, there may well be more house possessions than in previous years although I'm not sure of that, but there are a lot more houses! When I grew up very few of of my friends' families owned their own home. We lived on council estates or in rented terrace houses but now, all of those people would own their own home. And although the wealth graph has climbed continually in the last sixty years there have been recessions before and we'll have them again, but you're surely not using the fact that there may be more house possessions this year than say, five years ago, as some kind of proof that we're not better off than we were fifty years ago?

Interestingly I agree almost entirely with the content of FG’s post. Both Capitalism AND the Unions played significant parts in the development of our welfare state.Interesting also is the fact that the ascending economies of which China is probably the largest and most significant has evolved from a Communist background albeit the one party state there has embraced Capitalism with a vengeance.Not surprisingly then that given the choice between our version of Capitalism and that that existed in Hong Kong which became theirs by treaty, they chose the Hong Kong version which is recognised as the freest economy with almost total positive non-interventionism as a “governing” principle.Low taxation and free trade were the watch words of the HK economy under British rule and the Chinese chose to follow that guiding principle rather than the stagnating high taxation mess we now find ourselves in. The Chinese inherited HK as an economy of huge economic strength, including a sound banking system, virtually no public debt, a strong legal system, ample foreign exchange reserves, rigorous anti-corruption measures that enabled it to quickly respond to changing circumstances.Role that out to mainland China (tho the anti-corruption measures seem to have lost out a tad!) and you can see how China has come from nowhere to superpower in a few decades.Sadly the contrast to our stagnating economies is startling. So whilst navel gazing about how we all owe capitalism and certain religions and individuals for superb philanthropy (and FG’s examples of “Lord Leverhulme comes to mind with his Port Sunlight village, the Cadburys and Rowntree Quaker families” are examples I have quoted myself in the past.) - the reality of high taxation to support a welfare state that costs a huge proportion of UK GDP does rather bring us all back down to earth.My point is that Capitalism is the correct system for any economy to thrive – at its simplest it is someone making a widget to sell for more than it cost to make so that the maker has a profit to reinvest. FG’s example of Western cars vs. the Trabant is a good one and one again that I too have used in the past.So how then can we sit back and say that we got it right in having British Leyland producing the Allegro?Rover cars are now a Chinese concern.Is it really as simple as our version of capitalism being someone making a widget to sell for CONSIDERABLY more than it cost to make because of the combined tax burden of Corporation Tax, Income tax, VAT, NIC and fuel duty such that profits are hard to come by because the taxes go to people who are not part of the production or wealth creation process but sit, parasite like, as a burden to this process?Because if this is true, then that is why China has become the manufacturing power house for the West. We run the risk of simply becoming bystanders to the economic success of others whilst our own economy declines.The € debacle is a modern version of collective fiddling whilst “Rome” burns.We are being surpassed by the BRIC economies – we are already seeing very worrying effects of high taxation – one of which is Fuel Tax whilst increasing at the pumps, is actually producing less tax revenue. Now that could be because we are all driving more efficient cars – and this is undoubtedly part of the story, but it is also indicative of an economy stagnating.Whilst I would also agree with FG that I do not see individuals being worked to death – certainly if they are in the protected Public Sector with their Final Salary pensions this is unlikely to happen to them - but when your average worker realises that annuity rates are as low as they are now and private pension pots reduced due to the QE required because the politicians deemed the banks “too big to fail” mean that private pensions are not worth having and they will have to work well beyond NRA and far beyond the SRA of the Public Sector we start to see a very unhealthy dichotomy between the have and the have nots.As a country I think we can be proud of the welfare state and what it has achieved – the question is how when the economy is on its knees can this welfare state be sustained without taxation reaching a tipping point whereby it ceases to make sense to work within the system.This is what happened in Greece. Democracy evolved there as well.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Sorry meant for "francisgraham"

 

You really are a funny bloke, and perhaps if you took the time to read mine and others comments we wouldn't get your now classic knee jerk reaction which is " oh my God another point of view that differs from mine, can't have that can we"

 

I did not say at any point we're all going to be dead before 60, I merely pointed out a very new phenomina that ALL leading health experts say will have a major impact on people, i.e morbid Obesity, oh and I'm neither unhappy or depressed, except that is when reading your utterings.

 

If there is one single thing I do hate, it's know it alls like you. Sadly when I got into this spat I had no idea you already had the reputation of being obnoxious and confrontational on these forums. Where exactly does that come from I wonder, no doubt from recognising in the real world that people see you coming and cross over the road to avoid you, in case you give them an ear bashing of "life according to francisgraham" you really should get over yourself mate, not only for my sake, but for everyone else who has the misfortune to come across you on here, that really is something that could lead to depression and thinking a gun to the head would be a better option than meeting you in the virtual or real world

 

P.S my handle 1footinthegrave alludes to a comic character by the way, not a state of mind, obviously the comic element lost on you though ;-)

[CliveH]

1footinthegrave - 2012-04-19 8:54 AM

 

Sorry meant for "francisgraham"

 

You really are a funny bloke, and perhaps if you took the time to read mine and others comments we wouldn't get your now classic knee jerk reaction which is " oh my God another point of view that differs from mine, can't have that can we"

 

I did not say at any point we're all going to be dead before 60, I merely pointed out a very new phenomina that ALL leading health experts say will have a major impact on people, i.e morbid Obesity, oh and I'm neither unhappy or depressed, except that is when reading your utterings.

 

If there is one single thing I do hate, it's know it alls like you. Sadly when I got into this spat I had no idea you already had the reputation of being obnoxious and confrontational on these forums. Where exactly does that come from I wonder, no doubt from recognising in the real world that people see you coming and cross over the road to avoid you, in case you give them an ear bashing of "life according to francisgraham" you really should get over yourself mate, not only for my sake, but for everyone else who has the misfortune to come across you on here, that really is something that could lead to depression and thinking a gun to the head would be a better option than meeting you in the virtual or real world

 

P.S my handle 1footinthegrave alludes to a comic character by the way, not a state of mind, obviously the comic element lost on you though ;-)

 

Agreed

 

“Th’ oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely”,

 

Shakespeare

 

(I suspect FG could take the bard to task for the incorrect spelling of "The" (lol) (lol))

[francisgraham]

CliveH - 2012-04-19 9:13 AM   Agreed“Th’ oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely”, Shakespeare(I suspect FG could take the bard to task for the incorrect spelling of "The" (lol) (lol))

Incorrect spelling? Didn't you notice the substitution apostrophe in th'?

As usual, you post simply to show how terribly clever you are and fall flat on your face. I wasn't going to mention it but, as you choose to have another of your nasty little digs, I'll point out that you really should know the difference between role and roll as in 'role that out to mainland China'. Oh, dear me! Blundered again! And please, don't come out with your usual typo excuse. The e is a long way from the l on a keyboard!

Now if you really do want me to stop pointing out your inadequacies, stop the childish little digs that you indulge in at every opportunity. There was no need for the latest one and if you were really interested in some harmony you wouldn't have made it.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

francisgraham - 2012-04-19 9:46 AM

CliveH - 2012-04-19 9:13 AM   Agreed“Th’ oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely”, Shakespeare(I suspect FG could take the bard to task for the incorrect spelling of "The" (lol) (lol))

Incorrect spelling? Didn't you notice the substitution apostrophe in th'?

As usual, you post simply to show how terribly clever you are and fall flat on your face. I wasn't going to mention it but, as you choose to have another of your nasty little digs, I'll point out that you really should know the difference between role and roll as in 'role that out to mainland China'. Oh, dear me! Blundered again! And please, don't come out with your usual typo excuse. The e is a long way from the l on a keyboard!

Now if you really do want me to stop pointing out your inadequacies, stop the childish little digs that you indulge in at every opportunity. There was no need for the latest one and if you were really interested in some harmony you wouldn't have made it.

What a thoroughly nasty individual you obviously are, you really can't help yourself, if you were a stick of rock, the word "bile" would run through you. PLEASE paint your handle on your M/home to alert others to your presence, God I would hate to come across you in real life, not once have I seen you say to anyone " you may just have a point" , no, because your a know it all of the very worst kind.

[malc d]

Getting back to the question; "what can we expect for a year or two" -

 

My guess is that we will have a great number of people being paid a lot of money to guess what is going to happen in the next few years.

 

You then choose which guess you believe in.

 

If you are really persuaded by what you read, you can then cut and paste your preferred guess on the forum.

 

 

 

;-)

 

 

Just remember that the people who are currently predicting the future, didn't see the crash coming.

[Guest pelmetman]

CliveH - 2012-04-19 8:47 AM

 

 

Is it really as simple as our version of capitalism being someone making a widget to sell for CONSIDERABLY more than it cost to make because of the combined tax burden of Corporation Tax, Income tax, VAT, NIC and fuel duty such that profits are hard to come by because the taxes go to people who are not part of the production or wealth creation process but sit, parasite like, as a burden to this process?

 

 

 

Yep agree with that Clive ;-)...................but even though the government is trying to reduce the public sector......and in theory red tape............Its done too little of the first..........and non of the later *-)

 

Which is why the country will stagnate for years.........and the parasites will have to become ever more inventive ;-)

 

Sausage roll tax next? (lol) (lol)

 

There's no reason to be depressed about it though :D................I see it as a good excuse to retire :-D