|
Post by bertymax on May 29, 2011 11:34:44 GMT 1
Whilst watching BBC news yesterday morning it was Nice to hear that in these difficult times David Cameron only spent £600,000 of tax payers money decorating Downing St when he moved in. What a guy. Vote Conservative.
|
|
|
Post by cypher on May 29, 2011 11:43:22 GMT 1
***** PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE POSTING *****
PM spends £30,000 on flat upgrades
Published on Saturday 28 May 2011 11:01
David Cameron has spent the entire £30,000 budget available to him annually for upkeep and improvements to his Downing Street flat, it has emerged.
Officials stressed that the costs charged to the taxpayer did not cover furniture, fixtures and fittings, but things like electrics, plumbing, structural alterations and decorating.
Additional costs in the refit of the flat at Number 11 - where the Camerons live with their three children - beyond the £30,000 publicly funded allowance were met by the family.
But the Prime Minister was accused by a Labour MP of failing to lead by example when the public sector is facing massive cuts.
The first pictures of a new kitchen installed in the flat emerged this week when Mr Cameron's wife Samantha showed US First Lady Michelle Obama her home.
Tom Watson, a Labour backbencher, claimed that Downing Street had refused his requests for more detailed information about the refurbishment costs.
"Good prime ministers lead by example," he told the BBC. " david Cameron says the public sector should tighten belts and come clean where taxpayers' money is spent. Yet when it comes to the Downing Street flat, we see a refusal to answer even basic questions on costs. He has now been forced to admit it cost at least £30,000 to refurbish his grace and favour home - more than a policeman's salary. Are we really all in this together?"
It has also emerged that another £653,192.34 was spent last year on the offices and reception rooms of Downing Street. It included external and internal renovation work, including cabling, plumbing and energy efficiency improvements.
Number 10 said that the programme of work to the official Downing Street quarters had been set in train by the previous Labour government. A spokesman said: "This programme of work is still ongoing. Downing Street is a Grade I listed building. As such it requires a certain level of maintenance. The Prime Minister has paid for changes to the flat out of his own pocket, beyond the annual maintenance budget threshold."
Similar figures were spent on the flat by Mr Cameron's predecessor as prime minister, Gordon Brown. He spent £28,150 in 2007/8, £27,083 in 2008/09 and £29,389 in 2009.10.
Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2011, All Rights Reserved.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 29, 2011 11:43:50 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by cypher on May 29, 2011 11:49:11 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 29, 2011 11:53:50 GMT 1
Money is Debt - Without debt there is NO MONEY. The only way for the economy to grow is for more debt to be created. Don't think you're quite on message there, Tory boy
|
|
|
Post by bertymax on May 29, 2011 11:55:37 GMT 1
Hey Cypher, maybe BBC should get its facts right then me old pal, That £653,192 was the figure they quoted and they stated quite clearly THAT was taxpayers money, i aint talking bout thae £30,000 you rushed to defend. As for yr money is debt riddle, you should get a job with George with that school of thought!
|
|
|
Post by cypher on May 29, 2011 12:02:11 GMT 1
Hey Cypher, maybe BBC should get its facts right then me old pal, That £653,192 was the figure they quoted and they stated quite clearly THAT was taxpayers money, i aint talking bout thae £30,000 you rushed to defend. As for yr money is debt riddle, you should get a job with George with that school of thought! You misrepresented the facts in the story to further your own political slant, hence the thread title, the facts speak for themselves and thus your headline is clearly wrong! Regards money is debt - you obviously have no idea how Fractional Reserve Banking and the Fiat Money system works - Please watch this video, you may be surprised to find that the money in your pocket is debt, and without debt, there would be no money in your pocket. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544#
|
|
|
Post by bertymax on May 29, 2011 12:11:24 GMT 1
Dude...im worried about you! as for money in my pocket, well there aint much of that since tories got in. Once again, i fail to see how i misrepresented anything, the source of the story was the BBC, they clearly stated that Cameron spent £650,000 of taxpayers money renovating downing st. What have i misrepresented?! Are you telling me he didnt spend it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2011 12:11:50 GMT 1
Hey Cypher, maybe BBC should get its facts right then me old pal, That £653,192 was the figure they quoted and they stated quite clearly THAT was taxpayers money, i aint talking bout thae £30,000 you rushed to defend. As for yr money is debt riddle, you should get a job with George with that school of thought! You misrepresented the facts in the story to further your own political slant, hence the thread title, the facts speak for themselves and thus your headline is clearly wrong! Regards money is debt - you obviously have no idea how Fractional Reserve Banking and the Fiat Money system works - Please watch this video, you may be surprised to find that the money in your pocket is debt, and without debt, there would be no money in your pocket. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544#do you know Sean Broseley? anyway, more good news from this loserous government www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13498998a price worth paying cypher?
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 29, 2011 12:20:29 GMT 1
But are you saying that a recovery which hinges on people taking on more personal debt is fair or even moral? Is it fair that a crisis caused by a meltdown in the financial sector is being paid for by the majority, while the bankers coin it in. And are you admitting that capitalism itsef is a flawed, crisis prone system, with an inherent boom and bust cycle?
|
|
|
Post by cypher on May 29, 2011 12:21:37 GMT 1
Dude...im worried about you! as for money in my pocket, well there aint much of that since tories got in. Once again, i fail to see how i misrepresented anything, the source of the story was the BBC, they clearly stated that Cameron spent £650,000 of taxpayers money renovating downing st. What have i misrepresented?! Are you telling me he didnt spend it? The thread title clearly is anti Tory - and does not represent the facts of the story, if you dig into the strory, it was Labour who instigated the renovation works on 10 Downing Street, and Gordon Brown spent nearly £30k per year of tax payers money on the Downing Street flat whilst in office - 'Were In This Together' headline is clearly aimed at smearing the Tory party as wasting tax payers money, when clearly it was labour who signed the contracts for the renovations on the Grade 1 Listed building, but, lets be honest here the cost will be considerably more than renovating a modern property so is £650k really that much to spend on the most iconic seat of power in the world, or should we let it fall into disrepair and show the UK as a weak and declining economy?
|
|
|
Post by MarkRowley on May 29, 2011 12:22:15 GMT 1
Interesting story Matron and a challenge to get people back to work in a recessionary climate. The usual selective reading on your part again though I fear " The IPPR political think tank's analysis of official data suggested there were now 850,000 people who had been jobless for at least 12 months.........The IPPR report said the rate of long-term unemployment began to rise sharply from the start of 2009 " Can we just clarify who was in charge until May 2010 when all of these 850,000 people referred to will have lost their jobs?
|
|
|
Post by cypher on May 29, 2011 12:27:24 GMT 1
But are you saying that a recovery which hinges on people taking on more personal debt is fair or even moral? Is it fair that a crisis caused by a meltdown in the financial sector is being paid for by the majority, while the bankers coin it in. And are you admitting that capitalism itself is a flawed, crisis prone system, with an inherent boom and bust cycle? The FIAT money system is corrupt and should be replaced by a money system backed by real value such as gold and silver - Your paper money has no value because it is not backed by real wealth like gold and silver, it is just debt, a promise to pay, the sooner people wake up to this the sooner we can get back to generating real wealth. Even the bank of england Governor has recently proposed that the fractional reserve system be replaced. www.zerohedge.com/article/bank-england-head-mervyn-king-proposes-eliminating-fractional-reserve-bankingI would highly recommend that people who have FIAT wealth, convert their paper money into real wealth like gold and silver because the time is fast approaching when the entire global financial system is going to come tumbling down, the money in your pocket will be worthless, the US is in terminal decline and its financial system / economy will crash very soon, bringing the worlds banking systems and economies down with it, theres also the EU crisis to worry about too. We are heading for some very dangerous times. PS. Make sure you take physical possession of your gold and silver otherwise your wealth will again be worthless as just like the banking system, the paper traded gold and silver does not exist and 99% of people who thought they had safeguarded their wealth in metals will not be able to take physical possession when the crash comes. Physical possession of precious metals (ie. In your hand) is the ONLY way to preserve your Fiat wealth.
|
|
|
Post by bertymax on May 29, 2011 12:50:35 GMT 1
Cypher, you seem to make alot of Brown spending 30k on upgrades to Downing st yet defend Cameron's 652K. you also appear to lay the blame for this at Brown's door in stating he signed the contracts, as if cameron couldn't wriggle out of this commitment. my point was given the tories like to make out that we are all in this together, some are obviously in it from whilst sitting in a nice newly furnished home funded by the taxpayer. Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street are state of the art properties yet You make it sound as if Camerons are living in a squat!
As for the facts of the story, once again, the facts seem pretty clear to me, cameron spent £652k of taxpayers money on a refurb to Downing st when the public are expected to take the brunt of huge cuts in public spending. Regardless of my political persuasion, i think that is wrong. If you dont then thats yr call.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 29, 2011 14:17:57 GMT 1
It's not a fiat money system. Not in the sense that a noticeable proportion of money in the economy is fiat money. Instead the largest part of the stock of money is created in the private sector as a debt in return for the promise to pay. In fact it would be a better abstraction of the current reality to think of it as a pure credit money system or economy.
Nor is it a fractional reserve banking system employing the money multiplier. In fact the reality of the system is that money created as debt in the private sector does not rely upon the prior creation of narrow money (notes and coins in circulation, notes and coins in the banks' vaults and the banks' reserves at the Bank of England). Instead the money is advanced and then banks work out their reserves from there, i.e. loans drive deposits rather than the other way round.
Quantitative easing is the injection of narrow money (fiat money if you prefer) into an overwhelmingly credit money system. This explains the stupidity of quantitative easing. When first floated in the USA it was suggested that this process would get the economy going again because it would see further new credit (money) created in the private sector. That didn't happen because a large amount of credit had already been created prior to the explosion of the present economic crisis. The money instead is being used to repair the balance sheets of banks entirely reliant upon state support to be able to function. In so doing it has inflated prices because of the cheap/free money in banks' hands.
The put your money in silver and gold line is part of the nonsense. Let's put our money in physical assets that actually don't produce anything, but stuff that goes up and down in price with demand.
We need physical inputs of capital and labour time to produce use values and economic surplus. To the extent that debt is created to productive ends then the lenders will not get all the money.
Repayment of debt does not destroy money, but takes it temporary out of circulation until it is lent again. This is the confusion that can occur between the stock of money and the flow, or the economic turnover of money.
Aggregate incomes (profits and wages) partly depend upon the turnover period between the financing of production and the sale of that production to recoup costs and profits (the latter being the physical surplus in monetary form and owned by capitalists). The historic carve up of national income between wages and profits implies the turnover period is substantially less than a year. And so monetary incomes are substantially more than the stock of money which has circulated more the once (and perhaps a number of times) over a time period, say one year.
A credit crunch is a sudden drop in the circulation and creation of private sector credit (money). This means that the scope for the creation of monetary profits is diminished as the period of economic turnover extends. The preservation of some level of monetary profits requires a reduction of the share of wages in national income. Principally through unemployment and under-employment (people accepting part-time work when they are seeking full time work). It is also manifest in the capitalist control of the production process. We can understand many of the policy statements by the government in this light, and similarly the influx of immigrant workers in 2010.
The present economic crisis is about the control of the production (productive of monetary profits) process and the nationalisation of the private losses of banks involved in Ponzi scheme lending. Not the current PM's current kitchen makeover.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 29, 2011 14:31:13 GMT 1
Can we just clarify who was in charge until May 2010 when all of these 850,000 people referred to will have lost their jobs? The City of London.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2011 17:33:13 GMT 1
Can we just clarify who was in charge until May 2010 when all of these 850,000 people referred to will have lost their jobs? Many thousands of people lost their jobs under Labour Mark. That's the way of the world, difference is that now they can't find new work because of the policies of the tory government. So tell me. Is it a price worth paying. Yes or No?
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on May 29, 2011 17:45:13 GMT 1
Many thousands of people lost their jobs under Labour Mark. That's the way of the world, difference is that now they can't find new work because of the policies of the tory government. So tell me. Is it a price worth paying. Yes or No? Mate you couldn't be more blinkered if you were a troglodite looking throught the eye of a needle with a squint..... Your quote dictates that anybody losing a job under the previous lot ( who are completely blameless for any of the woes we suffer today tommorow or have done in the past) would get another job straight away......laughable really. At least try and look at both sides of the situation mate....no thought not....onwards comrades....hate..hate..hate
|
|
|
Post by aldo on May 29, 2011 18:01:33 GMT 1
How can anyone argue in favour of any of the three main political parties? It's people like you lot, arguing over your favourite liars and theives and voting for them that keeps us unhappy. Be careful who you vote for, the wrong thief may get in! LMAO!!
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 29, 2011 18:33:50 GMT 1
Can we just clarify who was in charge until May 2010 when all of these 850,000 people referred to will have lost their jobs? The City of London. Exactly. Which provides over 50% of Tory funding. Anyone who thought a vote for the Tories was a 'vote for change' is helplessly deluded. Which brings us back round to your recent 'two cheeks of the same arse' comment. Aldo - agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on May 29, 2011 19:15:26 GMT 1
Interesting story Matron and a challenge to get people back to work in a recessionary climate. The usual selective reading on your part again though I fear " The IPPR political think tank's analysis of official data suggested there were now 850,000 people who had been jobless for at least 12 months.........The IPPR report said the rate of long-term unemployment began to rise sharply from the start of 2009 " Can we just clarify who was in charge until May 2010 when all of these 850,000 people referred to will have lost their jobs? Mark I suspect you are the one looking at the story through blue glasses, you seem to have failed to read this paragraph, "The IPPR report said the rate of long-term unemployment began to rise sharply from the start of 2009, having fallen significantly during the late 1990s and the rest of the 2000s." Yes it increased in 2009 there was a thing called a world recession which was all caused by GB . The question now is what are the ConDems doing about it: Axed EMA, future jobs fund and the regional development agency. What have they replaced these with SFA. Look at Hull 44 unemployed for every vacancy. The thing is the country is in the and I and I suspect many in the population no longer care why we are in this mess but worry how we are going to get out of it. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13578420Unfortunately 3 people who have never done a days real work just ain't capable of understanding how the average man lives. I dont know the answer but I dont believe keeping millions on the dole is the answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2011 19:25:44 GMT 1
Many thousands of people lost their jobs under Labour Mark. That's the way of the world, difference is that now they can't find new work because of the policies of the tory government. So tell me. Is it a price worth paying. Yes or No? Mate you couldn't be more blinkered if you were a troglodite looking throught the eye of a needle with a squint..... Your quote dictates that anybody losing a job under the previous lot ( who are completely blameless for any of the woes we suffer today tommorow or have done in the past) would get another job straight away......laughable really. At least try and look at both sides of the situation mate....no thought not....onwards comrades....hate..hate..hate nice lecture but anyway, will you answer the question. is mass unemployment a price worth paying? no, thought not.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on May 30, 2011 18:25:55 GMT 1
All in together well someone should tell the Chief Executives of FTSE top 100 companies pay rises of 32% when your average guy if he is lucky enough to still be in a job is seeing his disposable income fall by 4%. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13588114
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2011 18:34:04 GMT 1
All in together well someone should tell the Chief Executives of FTSE top 100 companies pay rises of 32% when your average guy if he is lucky enough to still be in a job is seeing his disposable income fall by 4%. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13588114Who from the government is to blame for that then. PS, I have just given myself a 50% payrise, and all my workers a 3% raise.................
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on May 30, 2011 19:32:46 GMT 1
All in together well someone should tell the Chief Executives of FTSE top 100 companies pay rises of 32% when your average guy if he is lucky enough to still be in a job is seeing his disposable income fall by 4%. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13588114Who from the government is to blame for that then. PS, I have just given myself a 50% payrise, and all my workers a 3% raise................. Where did I suggest that the Government were to blame. Rather that talking about who is to blame we should be talking about the policies needed to kick start the economy into growth. Notice the BCC has just downgraded its forecast
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2011 19:49:42 GMT 1
Just your using the quote by some political leader!! rather than keeping it purely private sector, you may not have said it, but by christ it was certainly implied!!
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on May 30, 2011 20:34:56 GMT 1
Just your using the quote by some political leader!! rather than keeping it purely private sector, you may not have said it, but by christ it was certainly implied!! Just maybe it was to do with the title of this thread. If I wanted to blame anyone besides the greedy capitalist I would definitely said it. Cameron et al are in my opinion to blame for the current rates of unemployment, inflation and growth but unfortunately I can't blame them for chief executive pay.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on May 30, 2011 20:59:38 GMT 1
All in together well someone should tell the Chief Executives of FTSE top 100 companies pay rises of 32% when your average guy if he is lucky enough to still be in a job is seeing his disposable income fall by 4%. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13588114Who from the government is to blame for that then. PS, I have just given myself a 50% payrise, and all my workers a 3% raise................. Well I wish you all the best with that but there is some grim economic news coming into the public domain in the next 10 days
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 31, 2011 12:53:02 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by froggy on May 31, 2011 18:02:23 GMT 1
Just your using the quote by some political leader!! rather than keeping it purely private sector, you may not have said it, but by christ it was certainly implied!! Just maybe it was to do with the title of this thread. If I wanted to blame anyone besides the greedy capitalist I would definitely said it. Cameron et al are in my opinion to blame for the current rates of unemployment, inflation and growth but unfortunately I can't blame them for chief executive pay. Hi Ed quick question...if you are apportioning blame for this mess or parts thereof of to the incumbent Government. Can I ask you do you blame (you like blame don't you Ed) the last government for anything ?
|
|