Italia

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2018-03-05 6:55 PM

Nah John, that ain't National Debt. This is national Debt! :-D

 

No it isn't because, for a start, your graph finished 6 years ago just as debt was taking off under the Tories.

And then the GDP figures are inflated by inflated rents.

By building less homes, demand increases, then its stoked up further by Tory borrowing to fund subsidies like 'Help to Buy'- rent goes up and so do the GDP figures - as if the country is better off!!!.

Even young professionals on good salaries are paying over half their net income to rent a shoe box, so can't pay our debts back.

PS: don't get me started on Tory borrowing to bribe votes from the DUP, the Scots, the Welsh etc ;-)

[DavidGJH]

John52 - 2018-03-05 8:16 PM

 

DavidGJH - 2018-03-05 5:10 PM

 

John52 - 2018-03-05 3:52 PM

 

malc d - 2018-03-05 2:42 PM

 

politicians in general - not keeping in touch with their electorates.

 

:-(

 

Tories don't need to - just borrow money and bribe them

 

Interesting graph which if anything highlights the danger of Labour's policies.

 

What is clear is that from 2001 the debt was creeping inexorably upwards. In the last six years of a Labour government the debt rose two and a half times from under £400 billion to over one trillion.

 

Does anyone seriously believe that after the biggest financial crash in decades that Labour, if still in power, would have reduced the massive growth that it had already started?

 

The Tories took over in 2010 inheriting an economy that was in trouble, exemplified by the Labour minister's quote: "There's no money left."

 

Despite this and despite having to deal with the aftermath of Labour and the recession, in a similar six-year period the debt has only grown by 50%. That's one half as opposed to Labour's growth of two and a half.

 

Since then the Tories have now balanced the books, something Labour never did.

 

If Labour had won the last two elections we can guarantee that the increase in the National Debt would be a lot more than the 50% under the Tories.

 

The increase of two and a half times that Labour's policies created would make today's figures look like small change.

 

Thank God that the Tories have been in office for the last six years.

 

Look again and get a calculator if you can't do the sums. The debt took off when Darling had to bail out all the Building Societies the Tories had demutualised and bankrupted - remember Northern Rock etc?

Despite that Labour's average annual borrowing was still far less than the Tories because -

Gideon Osborne's average borrowing was about 6 times that of Gordon Brown.

 

The banking bailouts did little to increase the national debt figures. Most of the funding was actually just guarantees and the actual cash spend purchased shares in the institutions and was not recorded as debt but as a cash for equity swap.

 

The debt was rising every year under Labour as your own figures show and it would have continued to rise.

 

George Osborne never uses Gideon. Gideon is a Jewish name. Is this your typical Labour anti-Semitism manifesting itself? I can see no other reason for your continued use of Gideon when ever you mention him.

 

 

[Barryd999]

Tracker - 2018-03-05 6:10 PM

 

England, like so many other countries, was a more pleasant place before mass immigration swamped it so rather than the oh so convemient racist term beloved by the foreigneer worshippers I prefer patriot and self preservationist as being more realistic and fortunately I am far from alone.

 

Trouble is Rich the world has changed and unless your totally self sufficient and are able to afford to close the doors you just have to accept it. We are not, far from it. If we dont play the global game we will get left behind, simple as that. Take Brexit for example. A sledge hammer to crack a nut but a pointless one as the first thing any future trading partner will insist on as part of any deal is free movement of people.

 

As far as I can remember we have been a multicultural country but there are some perhaps of the older generation that seem to remember long sunny days of an underpopulated Britain where it was always sunny, everyone was white and there were proper "Bobbys" on bicycles that would give you a clip around the ear. I dunno if that world really existed ever to be honest but if it did its long gone. Trouble is once we kick out all our close neighbours who are pretty much the same as us, same colour, roughly the same culture and religion who are they going to be replaced with?

[Bulletguy]

Barryd999 - 2018-03-05 11:36 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-03-05 6:10 PM

 

England, like so many other countries, was a more pleasant place before mass immigration swamped it so rather than the oh so convemient racist term beloved by the foreigneer worshippers I prefer patriot and self preservationist as being more realistic and fortunately I am far from alone.

 

As far as I can remember we have been a multicultural country but there are some perhaps of the older generation that seem to remember long sunny days of an underpopulated Britain where it was always sunny, everyone was white and there were proper "Bobbys" on bicycles that would give you a clip around the ear. I dunno if that world really existed ever to be honest but if it did its long gone. Trouble is once we kick out all our close neighbours who are pretty much the same as us, same colour, roughly the same culture and religion who are they going to be replaced with?

Yeah Tracker still lives in a world of pressed slacks, leather brogues, knitted cardies and listening to Val Doonican or Roger Miller......who tried to be a 'cool cat' singing about 'Bobbies on bicycles' as that was his vision of 'swinging' England when the reality was by then we were rockin' to the sounds of The Stones, Beatles, and listening to the good ship Radio Caroline (lol)

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2018-03-05 3:49 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-05 12:10 PM

Extremists ... Which of the parties were extremists ???

 

None by your standards ;-)

 

You mean like this lot? 8-) .........

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5466359/Several-people-hurt-thugs-shut-FREE-SPEECH-event.html

 

Looks like the loony left are not fans of free speech *-) .........

 

 

[Tracker]

Bulletguy - 2018-03-06 12:20 AM

Yeah Tracker still lives in a world of pressed slacks, leather brogues, knitted cardies and listening to Val Doonican or Roger Miller......who tried to be a 'cool cat' singing about 'Bobbies on bicycles' as that was his vision of 'swinging' England when the reality was by then we were rockin' to the sounds of The Stones, Beatles, and listening to the good ship Radio Caroline (lol)

 

It comes as no surprise to see your memories of England, no wonder nobody takes your views about anything seriously! But as long as you are happy, the nurse will be along shortly with your medication!

[John52]

Tracker - 2018-03-06 10:46 AM

nobody takes your views

Yesterday you thought you spoke for all the women who are no longer here

And today you think that you speak for everybody *-)

Do you think your views are taken seriously *-)

[John52]

DavidGJH - 2018-03-05 8:52 PM

 

George Osborne never uses Gideon. Gideon is a Jewish name. Is this your typical Labour anti-Semitism manifesting itself? I can see no other reason for your continued use of Gideon when ever you mention him.

 

You can't see that I use the name Gideon because that is his name?

If his name was George and he called himself Gideon I would still call him George.

Your prejudice is over riding any ability you have to see facts.

As is shown by your obvious distortion of the National debt figures.

[Tracker]

John52 - 2018-03-06 11:06 AM

 

Tracker - 2018-03-06 10:46 AM

nobody takes your views

Yesterday you thought you spoke for all the women who are no longer here

And today you think that you speak for everybody *-)

Do you think your views are taken seriously *-)

 

You're another one who lives in a dream world.

Do you honestly think anyone gives a toss about your views - don't delude yourself anymore.

Just sit tight and the nurse will be along with your medication very soon.

 

Nowhere did I ever say I spoke for anyone other than myself.

What I did say was those ladies to whom I did speak who were leaving the forum told me why either by email or in person at one of the various shows we used to meet at.

Why should my views be taken seriously - nobody else's are - this is a unregulated forum where every misfit and loony can post their views so you should feel right at home.

[John52]

pelmetman - 2018-03-06 8:59 AM

 

John52 - 2018-03-05 3:49 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-05 12:10 PM

Extremists ... Which of the parties were extremists ???

 

None by your standards ;-)

 

You mean like this lot? 8-) .........

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5466359/Several-people-hurt-thugs-shut-FREE-SPEECH-event.html

 

Looks like the loony left are not fans of free speech *-) .........

 

 

If you can still take the Daily Mail seriously perhaps you could think those people are something to do with Jeremy Corbyn?

[Tracker]

John52 - 2018-03-06 11:16 AM

Your prejudice is over riding any ability you have to see facts.

 

Spoken as only a true expert in the art of delusion would speak!

[John52]

Tracker - 2018-03-06 11:16 AM

Nowhere did I ever say I spoke for anyone other than myself.

.

My apologies for stating the obvious but you obviously can't see it

I quoted it where you said 'nobody takes your views ....'

That is you speaking for everybody

 

[John52]

DavidGJH - 2018-03-05 8:52 PM

The debt was rising every year under Labour as your own figures show and it would have continued to rise.

Look again. It shows nothing of the kind.

The figures clearly show years where the debt was falling under Labour.

But rising every year under Tory.

In fact Gideon (his real name) Osborne's average annual borrowing was about 6 times that of Gordon Brown'

But you just can't see through your prejudice.

 

[Tracker]

Barryd999 - 2018-03-05 11:36 PM

 

Trouble is Rich the world has changed and unless your totally self sufficient and are able to afford to close the doors you just have to accept it. We are not, far from it. If we dont play the global game we will get left behind, simple as that. Take Brexit for example. A sledge hammer to crack a nut but a pointless one as the first thing any future trading partner will insist on as part of any deal is free movement of people.

 

As far as I can remember we have been a multicultural country but there are some perhaps of the older generation that seem to remember long sunny days of an underpopulated Britain where it was always sunny, everyone was white and there were proper "Bobbys" on bicycles that would give you a clip around the ear. I dunno if that world really existed ever to be honest but if it did its long gone. Trouble is once we kick out all our close neighbours who are pretty much the same as us, same colour, roughly the same culture and religion who are they going to be replaced with?

 

Fair comment Barry, I am no expert but I don't recall being told of any past trade agreements specifically allowing for free movement of people - in other words unrestricted immigration. But the EU forced that upon us and our government lacked the guts to resist it.

I reckon that on balance the UK is one of the best places on the planet to live and we should be very picky on who we allow in and allow to remain and whilst multi culturalism should not be vilified or discouraged the fact remains that the UK is 'our' country and those who would live here need to speak and write our language and fully respect our way of life. It seems to work in other countries where they value their own national identity and it would here if we were not so soft.

 

[antony1969]

antony1969 - 2018-03-05 4:28 PM

 

John52 - 2018-03-05 3:49 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-05 12:10 PM

Extremists ... Which of the parties were extremists ???

 

None by your standards ;-)

 

Would you care to explain what you mean with that John ... Don't particularly care for being called an extremist and not just that your insinuating I'm worse than an extremist ... I'd appreciate an explanation

 

John ???

[John52]

Tracker - 2018-03-06 11:38 AM

unrestricted immigration. But the EU forced that upon us and our government lacked the guts to resist it.

 

 

The Government always resisted things when it suited them.

It resisted EU (and Jeremy Corbyn's) pleas not to illegally invade Iraq after supplying them with weapons (which Corbyn also voted against)

It resisted the Euro

etc etc

But immigrants drive down wages and drive up house prices, both of which suit the Government.

So they have long tackled immigration in a half-hearted manner, preferring to blame it on the EU - our hands are tied etc *-) - even when the immigrants come from outside the EU

[John52]

antony1969 - 2018-03-06 11:42 AM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-05 4:28 PM

 

John52 - 2018-03-05 3:49 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-05 12:10 PM

Extremists ... Which of the parties were extremists ???

 

None by your standards ;-)

 

Would you care to explain what you mean with that John ... Don't particularly care for being called an extremist and not just that your insinuating I'm worse than an extremist ... I'd appreciate an explanation

 

John ???

 

Look at the icon ;-) next to it which shows it was tongue in cheek.

Nevertheless, some of your views seem extreme to me. Which is clearly shown in past posts if you would care to trawl back over them all.

[antony1969]

John52 - 2018-03-06 12:23 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-06 11:42 AM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-05 4:28 PM

 

John52 - 2018-03-05 3:49 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-03-05 12:10 PM

Extremists ... Which of the parties were extremists ???

 

None by your standards ;-)

 

Would you care to explain what you mean with that John ... Don't particularly care for being called an extremist and not just that your insinuating I'm worse than an extremist ... I'd appreciate an explanation

 

John ???

 

Look at the icon ;-) next to it which shows it was tongue in cheek.

Nevertheless, some of your views seem extreme to me. Which is clearly shown in past posts if you would care to trawl back over them all.

 

Which ones seem extreme ???

[Barryd999]

Tracker - 2018-03-06 11:38 AM

 

Barryd999 - 2018-03-05 11:36 PM

 

Trouble is Rich the world has changed and unless your totally self sufficient and are able to afford to close the doors you just have to accept it. We are not, far from it. If we dont play the global game we will get left behind, simple as that. Take Brexit for example. A sledge hammer to crack a nut but a pointless one as the first thing any future trading partner will insist on as part of any deal is free movement of people.

 

As far as I can remember we have been a multicultural country but there are some perhaps of the older generation that seem to remember long sunny days of an underpopulated Britain where it was always sunny, everyone was white and there were proper "Bobbys" on bicycles that would give you a clip around the ear. I dunno if that world really existed ever to be honest but if it did its long gone. Trouble is once we kick out all our close neighbours who are pretty much the same as us, same colour, roughly the same culture and religion who are they going to be replaced with?

 

Fair comment Barry, I am no expert but I don't recall being told of any past trade agreements specifically allowing for free movement of people - in other words unrestricted immigration. But the EU forced that upon us and our government lacked the guts to resist it.

I reckon that on balance the UK is one of the best places on the planet to live and we should be very picky on who we allow in and allow to remain and whilst multi culturalism should not be vilified or discouraged the fact remains that the UK is 'our' country and those who would live here need to speak and write our language and fully respect our way of life. It seems to work in other countries where they value their own national identity and it would here if we were not so soft.

 

In the past perhaps but as said the world has changed. India has already indicated that free movement will be a condition of a trade deal. You can only cut yourself off from globalization "now" if your in a strong position to do so and don't need the rest of the world. We can not. John sums up the governments attitude very well. Of course this has been the biggest part of the Brexit con. Forget about the £350 million, most of us knew that was bollox but I am sure there were many who voted for an imaginary Britain like the one I described which of course was never as rosey as people think. The present, right now is always the best place to be.

 

The government could have opted out of immigration from some of the late comers back in the 2000s but chose not to. The fact is free movement has actually worked for us and Europe but like it or not it won't go away. If you don't like living with immigrants for whatever reason the only choice you have is to move. Come up here, we hardly have any which I know will annoy many but it's just the way it is. There is no work up here.

 

Your either in the game now or your not and we are about to check out

[Tracker]

Barryd999 - 2018-03-06 1:54 PM

If you don't like living with immigrants for whatever reason the only choice you have is to move. Come up here, we hardly have any which I know will annoy many but it's just the way it is. There is no work up here.

Your either in the game now or your not and we are about to check out

 

Immigrants are not an issue here either, especially cocooned from the real world of work that retirement brings.

I don't think we are checking out of the game, more like hopefully modifying the game rules to suit our country and our natural people, but with controlled immigration giving us the skills we lack ourselves.

However with a succession of weak willed lilly livered governments hell bent on pandering to minorities and the media I wish I could honestly believe that we will make best use of the opportunities that will once again be open to us as a free independant nation.

Most of the world survives without the EU so why wouldn't we?

Ask me again in five year's time!

[antony1969]

Tracker - 2018-03-06 2:39 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2018-03-06 1:54 PM

If you don't like living with immigrants for whatever reason the only choice you have is to move. Come up here, we hardly have any which I know will annoy many but it's just the way it is. There is no work up here.

Your either in the game now or your not and we are about to check out

 

Immigrants are not an issue here either, especially cocooned from the real world of work that retirement brings.

I don't think we are checking out of the game, more like hopefully modifying the game rules to suit our country and our natural people, but with controlled immigration giving us the skills we lack ourselves.

However with a succession of weak willed lilly livered governments hell bent on pandering to minorities and the media I wish I could honestly believe that we will make best use of the opportunities that will once again be open to us as a free independant nation.

Most of the world survives without the EU so why wouldn't we?

Ask me again in five year's time!

 

That's Barry's answer Richard if you don't like immigration which you never said youve gotta move out , maybe you could get on the big red number 350 bus he keeps waffling on about again and again and again ....

[Bulletguy]

John52 - 2018-03-06 11:16 AM

 

DavidGJH - 2018-03-05 8:52 PM

 

George Osborne never uses Gideon. Gideon is a Jewish name. Is this your typical Labour anti-Semitism manifesting itself? I can see no other reason for your continued use of Gideon when ever you mention him.

 

You can't see that I use the name Gideon because that is his name?

If his name was George and he called himself Gideon I would still call him George.

Your prejudice is over riding any ability you have to see facts.

As is shown by your obvious distortion of the National debt figures.

Yes to put the record straight Osborne was christened Gideon Oliver Osborne. He hated his christian name to such an extent he added 'George' as his forename at the age of 13, a name he took from his Grandfather. So Gideon Oliver are actually his legally recorded christian names and i can't find anything to suggest he changed it by deed poll though it's possible he has since.

 

Not sure why he didn't just drop the 'Gideon' and use 'Oliver' as his foremost christian name.

[DavidGJH]

John52 - 2018-03-06 11:16 AM

 

DavidGJH - 2018-03-05 8:52 PM

 

George Osborne never uses Gideon. Gideon is a Jewish name. Is this your typical Labour anti-Semitism manifesting itself? I can see no other reason for your continued use of Gideon when ever you mention him.

 

You can't see that I use the name Gideon because that is his name?

If his name was George and he called himself Gideon I would still call him George.

Your prejudice is over riding any ability you have to see facts.

As is shown by your obvious distortion of the National debt figures.

 

No, his name since he was thirteen is George. He was christened Gideon Oliver but hated the Gideon part and from then on announced that his given name is George. He is called George by his family, friends, in politics and business as everyone but you respects his choice. I note that you never use the other name of Oliver but choose only to use the Hebrew name of Gideon. Your continued insistence on only using the Hebrew name Gideon tells us a lot about your character. Your use of Gideon is senseless, unless of course you have a malicious intent. And as for my 'distortion' of the figures I'll deal with that separately but I found that amusing coming from the master of distortion as, in just one example, your continuing claim that the Duke of Westminster inherited £ billion tax free. That is more than distortion, it's a blatant lie.

[Bulletguy]

DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 3:04 PM

 

John52 - 2018-03-06 11:16 AM

 

DavidGJH - 2018-03-05 8:52 PM

 

George Osborne never uses Gideon. Gideon is a Jewish name. Is this your typical Labour anti-Semitism manifesting itself? I can see no other reason for your continued use of Gideon when ever you mention him.

 

You can't see that I use the name Gideon because that is his name?

If his name was George and he called himself Gideon I would still call him George.

Your prejudice is over riding any ability you have to see facts.

As is shown by your obvious distortion of the National debt figures.

 

No, his name since he was thirteen is George. He was christened Gideon Oliver but hated the Gideon part and from then on announced that his given name is George. He is called George by his family, friends, in politics and business as everyone but you respects his choice.

Matters not David......unless he's changed the name by deed poll and expunged 'Gideon' to be replaced with 'George' he will still legally be Gideon Oliver Osborne.

 

You can call yourself any name/s you like but when it comes to official documents, passport, driving licence etc, you can't unless it's been legally changed.

[DavidGJH]

John52 - 2018-03-06 11:31 AM

 

DavidGJH - 2018-03-05 8:52 PM

The debt was rising every year under Labour as your own figures show and it would have continued to rise.

Look again. It shows nothing of the kind.

The figures clearly show years where the debt was falling under Labour.

But rising every year under Tory.

In fact Gideon (his real name) Osborne's average annual borrowing was about 6 times that of Gordon Brown'

But you just can't see through your prejudice.

 

You claimed earlier that I distorted the figures. I quoted figures for the last seven years of the Labour government so as to directly compare them with the seven years of the succeeding Tory government.

 

Your figures show that after winning in 1997 Labour kept the debt at a similar level and did reduce it slightly up to 2002. Then of course the result of their policies kicked in and from then on it was all upwards.

 

So as for my 'distortion'. Do you deny that' under Labour, from 2003 to 2010 the debt went up two and a half times from £356 billion to over a trillion? A simple yes or no would be a refreshing change. I note that you haven't challenged my rebuttal of your nonsensical claim that this massive jump was because they bailed out some banks.

 

Do you deny that in 2010 a Labour minister left a note on his desk stating that 'The money's all gone.'

 

Do you deny that, in the same length of time of seven years, despite inheriting a country that was financially on its knees, the Tories, despite dealing with the after effects of a major recession, have only increased the debt by 50%? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

Do you deny that the Tories have now eliminated the budget deficit? In 2009 after years of Labour it stood at a record £99 Billion. Since the Conservatives took office it has gradually reduced to zero. A simple yes or no will do.

 

It would be nice if you could just answer my points without your usual vitriol and obfuscation.