antony1969 Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Nice to see heavyweights from the entertainment world and politics coming together with all those teachers and stuff demanding an end to the spending cuts by marching in London today Former child star now grown up nobody Charlotte Church and ace ' comedian ' Russell Bland joined leader of the Labour Party Len McCluskey in the protest What a waste of an afternoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Yeah. Bl**dy protesters ! Before you know it women will be getting the vote. >:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archiesgrandad Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 My parents were both committed socialists, for all the obvious reasons, and worked throughout their lives for the party and their unions. ( don't worry, it's not hereditary) It was my father's belief that anyone with money who supported the Labour Party was either raving mad or extremely dodgy. In either case they should not be trusted in any circumstances. AGD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Most of us have benefitted from other peoples protests, in the past. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 malc d - 2015-06-20 8:23 PM Most of us have benefitted from other peoples protests, in the past. :-| I haven't and I won't from this one either The same olds out waving stupid banners ... Praise The Lord we got the best option in back in May Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Archiesgrandad - 2015-06-20 5:15 PM My parents were both committed socialists, for all the obvious reasons, and worked throughout their lives for the party and their unions. Restricting building and throwing taxpayers money at the housing market to pump up house prices is certainly not free market or capitalism. More like socialism for landlords and estate agents. The strongest trade union is probably the Law Society, except of course they don't call it a trade union. So which parties are socialists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casey Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Hi all, I find it a little confusing, big protest march in london, snp and others arguing against austerity but how do these people think this country can balance the books. We are obviously living beyond our means so how do people suggest we do it? In a simplistic way anyone i think of it in a similar way to running a houshold, live within your means, or is that just too simplistic. Not looking for any arguments, as i say just confused. thanks casey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwendolyn Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Archiesgrandad - 2015-06-20 5:15 PM My parents were both committed socialists, for all the obvious reasons, and worked throughout their lives for the party and their unions. ( don't worry, it's not hereditary) It was my father's belief that anyone with money who supported the Labour Party was either raving mad or extremely dodgy. In either case they should not be trusted in any circumstances. AGD My parents were both committed Tory supporters, for all the obvious reasons, and worked throughout their lives for the party and their business (don't worry, it's not hereditary). It was my father's belief that anyone with money who supported the Labour Party was either misguided or [as he came to realise] well educated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 casey - 2015-06-20 10:42 PM Hi all, I find it a little confusing, big protest march in london, snp and others arguing against austerity but how do these people think this country can balance the books. We are obviously living beyond our means so how do people suggest we do it? In a simplistic way anyone i think of it in a similar way to running a houshold, live within your means, or is that just too simplistic. Not looking for any arguments, as i say just confused. thanks casey. Instead of sorting out the waste in public services they would hit the people they despise most. ... The rich Instead of sorting out our crazy benefit system they would hit the rich As long as they keep the cozy crazy pensions at tax payers expense they would hit the rich Our recent election proved the country mostly accepts the Tories cuts and realise these are required to get us out of the .... The march stunk of sour grapes to me , they didn't get in power even with all the proposed cuts by the Tories and they don't like it .... Move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 casey - 2015-06-20 10:42 PM Hi all, I find it a little confusing, big protest march in london, snp and others arguing against austerity but how do these people think this country can balance the books. We are obviously living beyond our means so how do people suggest we do it? In a simplistic way anyone i think of it in a similar way to running a houshold, live within your means, or is that just too simplistic. Not looking for any arguments, as i say just confused. thanks casey. You would have to ask them, but I think they are suggesting that all the cuts should be not be falling on the poor.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/11689154/Queens-finances-are-safe-from-cuts-for-two-years.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 antony1969 - 2015-06-21 8:15 AM Our recent election proved the country mostly accepts the Tories ..... actually the 'country' mostly rejected the Tories but they got in with about one third of the vote *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 casey - 2015-06-20 10:42 PM Hi all, In a simplistic way anyone i think of it in a similar way to running a houshold, live within your means, or is that just too simplistic. Not looking for any arguments, as i say just confused. thanks casey.[/quote Tis confusing isn't it. At the end of the war we were in a far worse state than we are now, but the government set up the National Health Service and built tens of thousands of prefab homes to help the shortage of houses Today they are planning to throw away billions on an unnecessary high speed rail link from London to Birmingham - to cut the journey time by 20 minutes. Just a question of priorities I guess. . ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jobless-mum-admits-letting-kids-5917926 Is our benefit system too generous?................. It appears to be generous enough for people to make a right t*t (and a left t*t) of their selves 8-)........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 Peter James - 2015-06-21 8:31 AM antony1969 - 2015-06-21 8:15 AM Our recent election proved the country mostly accepts the Tories ..... actually the 'country' mostly rejected the Tories but they got in with about one third of the vote *-) An increased majority even in these hard times .... Unbelievable I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 pelmetman - 2015-06-21 8:54 AM http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jobless-mum-admits-letting-kids-5917926 Is our benefit system too generous?................. It appears to be generous enough for people to make a right t*t (and a left t*t) of their selves 8-)........... Which, of course, proves................................well, what? That all mums are stupid? That all mums on benefits are stupid? That everyone on benefits is stupid? That everyone is stupid? Or just that that mum, who happens to be on benefits, is stupid? Perhaps the same line of reasoning should be applied in all situations? Example, All pillar boxes are red. All fire engines are red. So you can post a letter in a fire engine, then? Beware the Daily Mail, it can seriously affect your IQ! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 Brian Kirby - 2015-06-21 12:24 PM pelmetman - 2015-06-21 8:54 AM http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jobless-mum-admits-letting-kids-5917926 Is our benefit system too generous?................. It appears to be generous enough for people to make a right t*t (and a left t*t) of their selves 8-)........... Which, of course, proves................................well, what? That all mums are stupid? That all mums on benefits are stupid? That everyone on benefits is stupid? That everyone is stupid? Or just that that mum, who happens to be on benefits, is stupid? Perhaps the same line of reasoning should be applied in all situations? Example, All pillar boxes are red. All fire engines are red. So you can post a letter in a fire engine, then? Beware the Daily Mail, it can seriously affect your IQ! :-D I'd say it proves she is far from stupid ... If the taxpayer gives her money to help with living costs and she blows it on a couple of air bags instead of food on the table for her children then it is the taxpayer who is stupid for such generous handouts The question should be asked is she guilty of neglect ? She is of course one of many abusing the system up and down the land and the generous handouts she recieves is of course the main reason all those young men in Calais are happy to travel all through Europe to get a slice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 casey - 2015-06-20 10:42 PM Hi all, I find it a little confusing, big protest march in london, snp and others arguing against austerity but how do these people think this country can balance the books. We are obviously living beyond our means so how do people suggest we do it? In a simplistic way anyone i think of it in a similar way to running a houshold, live within your means, or is that just too simplistic. Not looking for any arguments, as i say just confused. thanks casey. Part of the answer is that although the deficit is measured by comparing government income with government expenditure, the level of debt is generally measured against GDP. The overall numbers are huge, so tend to become incomphehensible, but frightening. The problem with this is that GDP fluctuates continually, so in good times (bouoyant economy) a debt of several £ trillion seems lower than in bad times (recession). GDP is a rough measure of the state of the economy, which in turn affects government income. So, for example, the simple remedy of sacking large numbers of public employees to save money can only work if a) the work they were doing is no longer required and b) there is alternative employment for them. If a) is untrue and the work is still required, someone else must be paid to do it. Whether this results in a real saving is more an aritcle of faith than of economics. In politics, faith invariably dominates. If b) is untrue, most will end up recieving redundancy packages and unemployment pay, which still leaves them on the government payroll, but with no beneficial outputs from them. If both are untrue, you probably end up increasing government expenditure while also shrinking both the economy and government income. It is one of the only ways to score two own goals with one kick! So, in the case of a) little is achieved if your objective was to reduce government expenditure: in the case of b) the effect is to shrink the economy, so government income falls, increasing the deficit while GDP also falls while the size of the debt as a percentage of GDP rises. Hence, the popularity of privatisation, which transfers the employees along with their work from the public to the private payroll. The hope is that this will, in the longer term, result in cost savings - although it can cause an increase in costs in the short term if badly timed/handled. My suspicion is that once public money is spent hiring private contractors there is an inevitable tendency for the private contractor to begin cutting corners to reduce cost, with the almost inevitable result that standards begin to slip, with ensuing outcry, followed by more then being spent on monitors to ensure the required standards are met. So, an initial dip in expenditure while the contractor works out what he has really let himself in for, then the fall in standards as he tries to balance his books, then the outcry accompanying the fall in standards, and then an increase in expenditure as the monitoring effort is stepped-up. This phenominon is widely observable. Think of all those government agencies and privatised entities, and the small army of accompanying inspectorates from the FCA down. The end result, it seems to me, is that once the new way of providing the service matures and stabilises, the cost is little different to what it was before the change. So, ultimately an act of political faith, with little long term impact on overall government expenditure. Not in every case, of course, but I remain to be persuaded that the cost benefits from the successes significantly outweigh the losses from the failures. Governments do not run economies, economies run themselves with governments only able to influence events in an inexact, lagging, and unpredictable manner. For proof, look at the events of 2007/8! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Brian Kirby - 2015-06-21 1:16 PM casey - 2015-06-20 10:42 PM Hi all, I find it a little confusing, big protest march in london, snp and others arguing against austerity but how do these people think this country can balance the books. We are obviously living beyond our means so how do people suggest we do it? In a simplistic way anyone i think of it in a similar way to running a houshold, live within your means, or is that just too simplistic. Not looking for any arguments, as i say just confused. thanks casey. Part of the answer is that although the deficit is measured by comparing government income with government expenditure, the level of debt is generally measured against GDP. The overall numbers are huge, so tend to become incomphehensible, but frightening. The problem with this is that GDP fluctuates continually, so in good times (bouoyant economy) a debt of several £ trillion seems lower than in bad times (recession). GDP is a rough measure of the state of the economy, which in turn affects government income. So, for example, the simple remedy of sacking large numbers of public employees to save money can only work if a) the work they were doing is no longer required and b) there is alternative employment for them. If a) is untrue and the work is still required, someone else must be paid to do it. Whether this results in a real saving is more an aritcle of faith than of economics. In politics, faith invariably dominates. If b) is untrue, most will end up recieving redundancy packages and unemployment pay, which still leaves them on the government payroll, but with no beneficial outputs from them. If both are untrue, you probably end up increasing government expenditure while also shrinking both the economy and government income. It is one of the only ways to score two own goals with one kick! So, in the case of a) little is achieved if your objective was to reduce government expenditure: in the case of b) the effect is to shrink the economy, so government income falls, increasing the deficit while GDP also falls while the size of the debt as a percentage of GDP rises. Hence, the popularity of privatisation, which transfers the employees along with their work from the public to the private payroll. The hope is that this will, in the longer term, result in cost savings - although it can cause an increase in costs in the short term if badly timed/handled. My suspicion is that once public money is spent hiring private contractors there is an inevitable tendency for the private contractor to begin cutting corners to reduce cost, with the almost inevitable result that standards begin to slip, with ensuing outcry, followed by more then being spent on monitors to ensure the required standards are met. So, an initial dip in expenditure while the contractor works out what he has really let himself in for, then the fall in standards as he tries to balance his books, then the outcry accompanying the fall in standards, and then an increase in expenditure as the monitoring effort is stepped-up. This phenominon is widely observable. Think of all those government agencies and privatised entities, and the small army of accompanying inspectorates from the FCA down. The end result, it seems to me, is that once the new way of providing the service matures and stabilises, the cost is little different to what it was before the change. So, ultimately an act of political faith, with little long term impact on overall government expenditure. Not in every case, of course, but I remain to be persuaded that the cost benefits from the successes significantly outweigh the losses from the failures. Governments do not run economies, economies run themselves with governments only able to influence events in an inexact, lagging, and unpredictable manner. For proof, look at the events of 2007/8! Osborne has got the answer to all that ;-) Throw taxpayers borrowed money at the housing market to pump up house prices. Then count the rent increases as GDP 'Growth' instead of Inflation, and call it a 'Recovery' :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 antony1969 - 2015-06-21 1:01 PM If the taxpayer gives her money to help with living costs and she blows it on a couple of air bags instead of food on the table for her children then it is the taxpayer who is stupid for such generous handouts How generous? Her mum was apparently paying for her kids food so she could spend the money on a boob job antony1969 - 2015-06-21 1:01 PM She is of course one of many abusing the system up and down the land and the generous handouts she recieves is of course the main reason all those young men in Calais are happy to travel all through Europe to get a slice You keep telling us how generous her handouts are so perhaps you can tell us how much? All I know is it will be a lot less than French social security benefits. Except of course for housing benefit. But that reflects the cost of the cheapest available housing being much greater in parts of England, which benefits the landlord, not the claimant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Brian Kirby - 2015-06-21 12:24 PM Beware the Daily Mail, it can seriously affect your IQ! :-D Nothing wrong with my IQ then :D ..........It was a Daily Mirror link ;-) ............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Peter James - 2015-06-21 5:17 PM How generous? Her mum was apparently paying for her kids food so she could spend the money on a boob job . I reckon the NHS should pay for me to have a all expenses holiday in the Caribbean, on account of all the stress I suffer when reading about feckless mothers who expect other people to fund their lifestyle choices *-) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 pelmetman - 2015-06-21 5:18 PM Brian Kirby - 2015-06-21 12:24 PM Beware the Daily Mail, it can seriously affect your IQ! :-D Nothing wrong with my IQ then :D ..........It was a Daily Mirror link ;-) ............. Same difference! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 antony1969 - 2015-06-21 1:01 PM...............the generous handouts she recieves is of course the main reason all those young men in Calais are happy to travel all through Europe to get a slice And, of course, you have fairies at the bottom of your garden. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Brian Kirby - 2015-06-21 6:53 PM pelmetman - 2015-06-21 5:18 PM Brian Kirby - 2015-06-21 12:24 PM Beware the Daily Mail, it can seriously affect your IQ! :-D Nothing wrong with my IQ then :D ..........It was a Daily Mirror link ;-) ............. Same difference! :-D This ones from the Telegraph ;-) ...............Does that improve my IQ? :-S .......... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11347454/Mother-and-daughter-weigh-a-total-of-43-stone-and-get-34k-a-year-handouts-but-refuse-to-diet.html Or does accepting that folk should be allowed to make life style choices, that mean they sponge of the state make you more intelligent? ;-).......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Peter James - 2015-06-21 5:05 PM.....................Osborne has got the answer to all that ;-) Throw taxpayers borrowed money at the housing market to pump up house prices. Then count the rent increases as GDP 'Growth' instead of Inflation, and call it a 'Recovery' :D Personally, Peter, I don't think that is what he wants. What I think he wants, along with a lot of other people, is a "smaller state". That is the driving idea, and it is pure politics (American "neo-con" inspired politics at that!). The present financial issues over debt and deficit have provided the ideal opportunity to frighten people into accepting that shrinking the state fast is the only remedy. That is what I meant by belief taking precedence over economics. I think it is a flawed a way of trying to solve the problem, and I don't think it is proving that successful economically, though it seems to be working politically. I also think that the main reasons folk voted Conservative were less a desire for them to govern, and more a combination of a distrusted and unattractive Labour leadership, and a fear them forming a coalition with the SNP. Whatever the Conservatives may do, I personally think that outcome would have proved far worse! It would be much better, IMO, if we could have the economy managed by people who were politically neutral, who adopted policies that weren't in thrall to a political agenda - whether of the right or of the left. We might then get something more balanced. Fat chance of that, I'm afraid. It is still going to take (and always was, whoever was elected) a very long time before it is all satisfactorily sorted out. Consequence of living in a democracy? You just have to grin and bear it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.