|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 11, 2011 17:53:46 GMT 1
Labour didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining. Unfortunately the coaliton has had to make some very difficult . Anymore Con Dem cliches you'd like to parrot? How about Cameron's classic 'I'll cut the deficit, not the NHS'. Or Clegg's inspirational 'We will resist, vote against, campaign against, a rise in tuition fees'.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 11, 2011 18:00:30 GMT 1
Yeah,
"We ended boom and bust" hahahaha
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 11, 2011 18:12:03 GMT 1
You're making two mistakes there, Mike
1) Taking me for a Labour voter and
2)Believing that Labour and the Conservatives are polar opposites of the political spectrum.
Another thing to bear in mind is that prior to the banking crisis the UK had second lowest level of debt in the G7.
The people who finance your beloved Tory party are the reason for the financial crisis, and yeah, I'm sure they'll be even better off by the time the coalition have finished.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Mar 11, 2011 18:13:39 GMT 1
Labour didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining. Unfortunately the coaliton has had to make some very difficult and unpopular decisions to sort the mess out. I'm confident that we will be better off as a result in the long run. I'm by no means a finance expert but have read a few decent articles which suggests the lack of regulation of the banking industry which caused many of the problems of the last few years has yet to be tackled, and without such reform similar crashes could happen easily in the future Unfortunately regulating the banking industry and getting rid of the idea of making a quick profit doesn't seem to be one of the "tough decisions" the government wants to take. Not suggesting reforming the banking sector is be all and end all of getting us out of the mess we are in, but without it all the other reforms are like moving the deck chairs round on the titanic
|
|
|
Post by blazey on Mar 11, 2011 19:59:46 GMT 1
Labour didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining. Unfortunately the coaliton has had to make some very difficult and unpopular decisions to sort the mess out. I'm confident that we will be better off as a result in the long run. Whoosh! Con-Dem propoganda... swallowed whole! I'm not a Labour supporter seeing as they have long abandoned the class of people who they purport to represent, so in all seriousness some people here need to take off their rose tinted specs..... we'd still be facing huge cuts if Labour had continued in government, as all three main parties - Lib Dem, Tory and Labour - are all hell bent on making normal people pay for a crisis not of their making - caused by the bosses and banks!
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Mar 11, 2011 22:39:55 GMT 1
Labour didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining. Unfortunately the coaliton has had to make some very difficult and unpopular decisions to sort the mess out. I'm confident that we will be better off as a result in the long run. Whoosh! Con-Dem propoganda... swallowed whole! I'm not a Labour supporter seeing as they have long abandoned the class of people who they purport to represent, so in all seriousness some people here need to take off their rose tinted specs..... we'd still be facing huge cuts if Labour had continued in government, as all three main parties - Lib Dem, Tory and Labour - are all hell bent on making normal people pay for a crisis not of their making - caused by the bosses and banks! agreed they are all similar...however at least the Con Dems are tackling the issue (or trying to). The last lot just spent spent...borrowed ,,,spent spent again. sad though that people let their political beief rule every thought.. Pab for example talks out of his arris simply to justify crud.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2011 0:28:26 GMT 1
Whoosh! Con-Dem propoganda... swallowed whole! I'm not a Labour supporter seeing as they have long abandoned the class of people who they purport to represent, so in all seriousness some people here need to take off their rose tinted specs..... we'd still be facing huge cuts if Labour had continued in government, as all three main parties - Lib Dem, Tory and Labour - are all hell bent on making normal people pay for a crisis not of their making - caused by the bosses and banks! agreed they are all similar...however at least the Con Dems are tackling the issue (or trying to). The last lot just spent spent...borrowed ,,,spent spent again. sad though that people let their political beief rule every thought.. Pab for example talks out of his arris simply to justify crud. Making a million plus people unemployed tackles nothing .
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Mar 12, 2011 9:40:06 GMT 1
Making a million plus people unemployed tackles nothing . So what is your answer ? What do you propose to sort this mess out ? As I have stated previously I don't posses as much knowledge as some on here. But to keep a million people in work on the public payroll will have to be funded from somewhere. What are we to ? Continue to borrow establishing an even greater mountain of debt. This debt grew massively during the so called good times so I have litle faith in us paying even more off when the good times return. When people talk of the effects of cuts yes there are immediate effects yet I also think of the effects on future generations having to pay for our mess. Or would you raise income tax ? Thus largely rely on the Private sector to fund the mismanagement of the Public sector. Harsh times not just for those in the Public sector, the Private sector has struggled for some time yet it has adapted - adjusted and is hopefully moving in the right direction. Tough times now and ahead methinks.
|
|
|
Post by bertymax on Mar 12, 2011 10:46:28 GMT 1
Windsor, these 1 million people on the public payroll you speak of. What are the implications for the govt when they are dispensed with and therefore no longer contributing their tax and N.I into the system, but instead claiming job seekers allowance? Maybe Dave is planning to only pay em their benefits if they volunteer for the Big society, probably doing the jobs they did before!
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on Mar 12, 2011 10:47:04 GMT 1
Labour didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining. Unfortunately the coaliton has had to make some very difficult and unpopular decisions to sort the mess out. I'm confident that we will be better off as a result in the long run. This. Trouble is the Labourites want the government to wave a magic wand and fix everything straight away. Bit difficult after the mess they left the country in.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Mar 12, 2011 10:54:05 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Mar 12, 2011 11:02:34 GMT 1
I am a little annoyed by some of the shortsightedness of it all. The Harrier decision was completely bizarre. and you get the feeling some of this is just slash and burn with nice headline grabbing soundbites but not enough actual number crunching www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12692207It is not the cuts of necessity that worry me, of course the public sector is bloated: but this increasingly looks like an ideological purge. And the idea that the "private sector" is the answer is proven time and again to be a nonsense: you only have to look at defence contracts, NHS I.T. contracts, the PFI initiative. We end up paying through the nose.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 12, 2011 11:21:38 GMT 1
Labour didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining. Unfortunately the coaliton has had to make some very difficult and unpopular decisions to sort the mess out. I'm confident that we will be better off as a result in the long run. This. Trouble is the Labourites want the government to wave a magic wand and fix everything straight away. Bit difficult after the mess they left the country in. Conveniently forgetting the minor detail of the financial sector meltdown of 2008 there, Mr Bunny. Y'know, the same financial sector that provides over 50% of Tory Party funding. You must be a very trusting person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2011 11:33:55 GMT 1
Tory cuts are too great and too quick for my liking, albeit I recognise the need to make cuts in some degree. At the same time the notion that we're all in together is absolute nonsense.
I think we're also stunted by the lack of any real opposition to the Tories too. The Lib Dems are sealed into silence and the new Labour party leader has suggested very little that he is capable of really challenging what is being said by the current Government.
Add to that our two main parties that really aren't very different in terms of current ideologies and it's going to be a tough few years for many.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2011 16:36:01 GMT 1
Making a million plus people unemployed tackles nothing . So what is your answer ? What do you propose to sort this mess out ? As I have stated previously I don't posses as much knowledge as some on here. But to keep a million people in work on the public payroll will have to be funded from somewhere. What are we to ? Continue to borrow establishing an even greater mountain of debt. This debt grew massively during the so called good times so I have litle faith in us paying even more off when the good times return. When people talk of the effects of cuts yes there are immediate effects yet I also think of the effects on future generations having to pay for our mess. Or would you raise income tax ? Thus largely rely on the Private sector to fund the mismanagement of the Public sector. Harsh times not just for those in the Public sector, the Private sector has struggled for some time yet it has adapted - adjusted and is hopefully moving in the right direction. Tough times now and ahead methinks. Mate. The country is not in a mess because of the public sector. The onslaught against the public sector is about tory bigotry not saving the countrys finances, hence why I'm so sure that your lot will make tax cuts before the next general election. What makes you think that dismantling public services is going to solve our problem if public services didn't cause it. Although it may sound a little naive, this was caused by the financial sector so the financial sector should be made to sort it out, and frankly if they don't like it they can duck off.
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Mar 12, 2011 17:58:03 GMT 1
Y'all need to relax a bit. The hatchets come out for a decade, the masses suffer, then everyone votes Labour back in for another 5-10 year trolley dash until the cupboard is bare again. Rinse, Repeat. Up until now, at least.
If Labour had got in again, we'd all go bust. If Cons had a true majority, there'd be zero sanity check short of revolution. There's 5 years to see if the Dems have any influence on moderating further changes, and the opportunity to change the voting system to stop the same old two failed models being repeated ad infinitum.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Mar 12, 2011 18:14:03 GMT 1
But to keep a million people in work on the public payroll will have to be funded from somewhere. . And to keep a million people on benefits will benefit society how exactly ? But it's not just a million people is it ? it's their spouses and dependants. It's their communities and the businesses that rely on those communities in order to survive. Then it's the knock on effects for a decade or so of a dissaffected generation who have no hope, no fprospects and no future. These issues are much more than just a number of people losing their jobs.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 12, 2011 18:37:38 GMT 1
But to keep a million people in work on the public payroll will have to be funded from somewhere. . And to keep a million people on benefits will benefit society how exactly ? But it's not just a million people is it ? it's their spouses and dependants. It's their communities and the businesses that rely on those communities in order to survive. Then it's the knock on effects for a decade or so of a dissaffected generation who have no hope, no fprospects and no future. These issues are much more than just a number of people losing their jobs. Hang on a minute, Jamo. While I agree with what you say, the premise of Windsor Shrews' post - basically that one million public sector workers are in non-jobs and are essentially glorified benefit claimants, living off the largesse of the State - is utter b******s and not really worth dignifying with a response.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Mar 12, 2011 18:43:02 GMT 1
Hang on a minute, Jamo. While I agree with what you say, the premise of Windsor Shrews's post - basically that one million public sector workers are in non-jobs and are essentially glorified benefit claimants, living off the largesse of the State - is utter b******s and not really worth dignifying with a response. I agree entirely. but as with all things Windsor there are so many ways to counter his arguments. I just chose one, feel free to point another one out yourself Vote for change don't forget
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Mar 12, 2011 19:16:51 GMT 1
Hang on a minute, Jamo. While I agree with what you say, the premise of Windsor Shrews' post - basically that one million public sector workers are in non-jobs and are essentially glorified benefit claimants, living off the largesse of the State - is utter b******s and not really worth dignifying with a response. That made me laugh out loud......
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Mar 12, 2011 19:28:29 GMT 1
I agree entirely. but as with all things Windsor there are so many ways to counter his arguments. I just chose one, feel free to point another one out yourself Vote for change don't forget I don't think in fairness there was much of an argument to my post, you as always just look for one with anybody who dares to think differently to yourself. Driven by hatred your response is ever condescending, one sided and entirely predictable......shame we all may have learn't something from the thread before the insults ruined it.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 12, 2011 19:47:35 GMT 1
Hang on a minute, Jamo. While I agree with what you say, the premise of Windsor Shrews' post - basically that one million public sector workers are in non-jobs and are essentially glorified benefit claimants, living off the largesse of the State - is utter b******s and not really worth dignifying with a response. That made me laugh out loud...... You're too kind, Sir. But it surely has nothing on your comedic masterpiece from this thread: Or would you raise income tax ? Thus largely rely on the Private sector to fund the mismanagement of the Public sector.Sorry, which sector went tits up in 2008? and was it private or public money which bailed it out? You must have a very strange reading of recent history if you believe we're in 'this mess' because of 'public sector mismanagement'. The mismanagement was entirely on the behalf of the financial sector. The same spivs, gamblers and specultors that provide over half the funding for the Tory party you have such touching faith in!
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Mar 12, 2011 19:54:41 GMT 1
I don't think in fairness there was much of an argument to my post, you as always just look for one with anybody who dares to think differently to yourself. Driven by hatred your response is ever condescending, one sided and entirely predictable......shame we all may have learn't something from the thread before the insults ruined it. Can't quite see an insult...unless you are quoting your reply
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Mar 12, 2011 21:03:09 GMT 1
You're too kind, Sir. But it surely has nothing on your comedic masterpiece from this thread: Or would you raise income tax ? Thus largely rely on the Private sector to fund the mismanagement of the Public sector.Sorry, which sector went tits up in 2008? and was it private or public money which bailed it out? You must have a very strange reading of recent history if you believe we're in 'this mess' because of 'public sector mismanagement'. The mismanagement was entirely on the behalf of the financial sector. The same spivs, gamblers and specultors that provide over half the funding for the Tory party you have such touching faith in![/quote] Well at least this time you haven't translated what I said into complete nonsense, well done. My statement regarding mismanagement was aimed at the Governments past and present - the thinking behind it is that of course we need a public sector but it has to provide quality for input and be balanced against that income. It clearly isn't - there is vast waste and if I may be so bold "over payment" in terms of wages for those "up the ladder". Agree the private sector in particular (International) banking are throughly to blame for most of the mire we are in. Shame Governments past and present didn't/can't get a grip on them don't you agree ? But the question I asked is valid if we retain all the staff how are we going to pay for it ? Who is going to pay for it ? As for touching faith in the Tory party, yes I have more faith in them to get us out of this mess than Labour. But lets get one thing straight I feel they have too much in many areas, they are far from perfect. Comedy ? No way..my family is struggling as are many others in these trying times. Opinions vary - as I say I don't pretend to understand every detail of these issues but I am like you alowed an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Mar 12, 2011 21:24:26 GMT 1
A little article from the Guardian that will lighten the mood..
A TAXMANS REPLY. A real reply from the Inland Revenue. The Guardian newspaper had to ask for special permission to print it. The funniest part of this is imagining the content of the letter sent to the Tax Office which prompted this reply!
Dear Mr Addison,
I am writing to you to express our thanks for your more than prompt reply to our latest communication, and also to answer some of the points you raise. I will address them, as ever, in order.
Firstly, I must take issue with your description of our last as a "begging letter". It might perhaps more properly be referred to as a "tax demand". This is how we at the Inland Revenue have always, for reasons of accuracy, traditionally referred to such documents.
Secondly, your frustration at our adding to the "endless stream of crapulent whining and panhandling vomited daily through the letterbox on to the doormat" has been noted. However, whilst I have naturally not seen the other letters to which you refer I would cautiously suggest that their being from "pauper councils, Lombardy pirate banking houses and p**sant gas-mongerers" might indicate that your decision to "file them next to the toilet in case of emergencies" is at best a little ill-advised. In common with my own organisation, it is unlikely that the senders of these letters do see you as a "lackwit bumpkin" or, come to that, a "sodding charity". More likely they see you as a citizen of Great Britain, with a responsibility to contribute to the upkeep of the nation as a whole.
Which brings me to my next point. Whilst there may be some spirit of truth in your assertion that the taxes you pay "go to shore up the canker-blighted, toppling folly that is the Public Services", a moment's rudimentary calculation ought to disabuse you of the notion that the government in any way expects you to "stump up for the whole damned party" yourself. The estimates you provide for the Chancellor's disbursement of the funds levied by taxation, whilst colourful, are, in fairness, a little off the mark. Less than you seem to imagine is spent on "junkets for Bunterish lickspittles" and " dancing Whores" whilst far more than you have accounted for is allocated to, for example, "that box-ticking facade of a university system."
A couple of technical points arising from direct queries:
1. The reason we don't simply write "Muggins" on the envelope has to do with the vagaries of the postal system;
2. You can rest assured that "sucking the very marrow of those with nothing else to give" has never been considered as a practice because even if the Personal Allowance didn't render it irrelevant, the sheer medical logistics involved would make it financially unviable.
I trust this has helped. In the meantime, whilst I would not in any way wish to influence your decision one way or the other, I ought to point out that even if you did choose to "give the whole foul jamboree up and go and live in India" you would still owe us the money.
Please send it to us by Friday.
Yours sincerely,
H J Lee Customer Relations Inland Revenue
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 12, 2011 21:50:42 GMT 1
You're too kind, Sir. But it surely has nothing on your comedic masterpiece from this thread: Or would you raise income tax ? Thus largely rely on the Private sector to fund the mismanagement of the Public sector.Sorry, which sector went tits up in 2008? and was it private or public money which bailed it out? You must have a very strange reading of recent history if you believe we're in 'this mess' because of 'public sector mismanagement'. The mismanagement was entirely on the behalf of the financial sector. The same spivs, gamblers and specultors that provide over half the funding for the Tory party you have such touching faith in! [Well at least this time you haven't translated what I said into complete nonsense, well done. Cheers. [My statement regarding mismanagement was aimed at the Governments past and present - the thinking behind it is that of course we need a public sector but it has to provide quality for input and be balanced against that income. It clearly isn't - there is vast waste and if I may be so bold "over payment" in terms of wages for those "up the ladder". Agree the private sector in particular (International) banking are throughly to blame for most of the mire we are in. Shame Governments past and present didn't/can't get a grip on them don't you agree ? Yes. [But the question I asked is valid if we retain all the staff how are we going to pay for it ? Who is going to pay for it ? Even if I accept your premise that the public sector needs shrinking, I don't think making redundancies in the hope that the private sector will pick up the slack is the answer. If the recovery genuinely happens, then surely there will be decent jobs and opportunities in the private sector that will tempt public sector workers and the economy can be re-balanced over a longer period of time, without needing to increase the benefits bill or inflict the misery of unemployment on hundreds of thousands of people. [As for touching faith in the Tory party, yes I have more faith in them to get us out of this mess than Labour. But lets get one thing straight I feel they have too much in many areas, they are far from perfect. Comedy ? No way..my family is struggling as are many others in these trying times. Opinions vary - as I say I don't pretend to understand every detail of these issues but I am like you alowed an opinion. Yes, and believe it or not I respect the opinion of anyone who looks at all the available facts and comes to their own conclusion, even if it differs quite wildly from my own. I don't hate anyone for having a dfferent opinion, but I do hate what this government is trying to do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2011 1:10:48 GMT 1
We are the angry mob, we read the papers everyday, we like who we like, we hate who we hate, but we're all so easily swayed
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Mar 13, 2011 10:11:44 GMT 1
We are the angry mob, we read the papers everyday, we like who we like, we hate who we hate, but we're all so easily swayed Can you send that to windsor as a P.M. ? it may help him to calm down abit.
|
|
|
Post by keithyshrew25 on Mar 13, 2011 15:28:14 GMT 1
Instead of more pointless moaning will someone come up with an alternative? Should the Lib Dems have sided with noone and left us without a ruling party, thus making it more difficult for anything to get passed through parliament?
Or should the ConDems have ignored the state of our economy and let the idiotic TU's wild threats bully them into running our economy further into the ground?
It's easy to complain from your livining room, finding the right answer is a lot more difficult
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 13, 2011 16:14:28 GMT 1
|
|