MooseBreath Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 I think that proves my point quite nicely, doesn't it?
cityfanlee23 Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 The thing that worries more than any policy, is the fact not a single leader wants to reform the monetary system, Which is single handedly the main cause of poverty, Homelessness, Poverty, Inflation, And every issue we have in todays Britain. I voted tory because they manage the decline better than anyone, but make no mistake this is a decline, don't let them fool you with talk of economic progress, yes it's progress, but it's only temporary. The current monetary system means no matter what party you vote for, we are all going to end up in the same train crash, But different parties take you on different tracks to the crash. When all is said and done, our entire UK debt including household debt, puts our national debt at 900% of GDP. To put it bluntly, WE. ARE. ****ED. We need an alternative monetary system, and my advice to anybody who is still paying off a mortgage, get your house paid off as early as possible. because you'll be in big trouble in the next 5-10 years if you don't.
Rincewind Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 I think that proves my point quite nicely, doesn't it?
MooseBreath Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 The thing that worries more than any policy, is the fact not a single leader wants to reform the monetary system, Which is single handedly the main cause of poverty, Homelessness, Poverty, Inflation, And every issue we have in todays Britain. I voted tory because they manage the decline better than anyone, but make no mistake this is a decline, don't let them fool you with talk of economic progress, yes it's progress, but it's only temporary. The current monetary system means no matter what party you vote for, we are all going to end up in the same train crash, But different parties take you on different tracks to the crash. When all is said and done, our entire UK debt including household debt, puts our national debt at 900% of GDP. To put it bluntly, WE. ARE. ****ED. We need an alternative monetary system, and my advice to anybody who is still paying off a mortgage, get your house paid off as early as possible. because you'll be in big trouble in the next 5-10 years if you don't. Tinfoilhat.jpg
cityfanlee23 Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 Tinfoilhat.jpg MIND CONTROL Unfortunately what I've said is fact rather than paranoia or a conspiracy theory, our Government are in a cycle where they seem to think the cause of the problem is the solution. Just create a bigger bubble than the last one in the hope it won't burst! - 1987 crash, - .com bubble, - Housing bubble. - Now the stimulus bubble.
SMX11 Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 MIND CONTROL Unfortunately what I've said is fact rather than paranoia or a conspiracy theory, our Government are in a cycle where they seem to think the cause of the problem is the solution. Just create a bigger bubble than the last one in the hope it won't burst! - 1987 crash, - .com bubble, - Housing bubble. - Now the stimulus bubble. Yup clueless central bankers are being goverment lapdogs. Zero interest rates and QE infinity will lead us to the wall.
cityfanlee23 Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 Yup clueless central bankers are being goverment lapdogs. Zero interest rates and QE infinity will lead us to the wall. Personally I'd say it's clueless government being central bankers lapdogs. Bankers control the country, until we take away the power for private banks to create fiat currency from nothing, we will never control the problem, I think politicians know the situation we are in, deep shit, they just do all they can to make sure it does not break under their watch. The only person to take the banks on in the past 100 years was John F Kennedy, and weeks before executive order 11110 was passed (which took the power to print money away from the private federal reserve) assassinated. Around 93% of all currency globally is now fiat and created from nothing. 97% of the uk money supply are just accountancy figures, 2.2 trillion money supply, less than £60bn in cash and coins. We are in serious serious trouble. A researcher went to the Bank of England and asked them if they could explain how money was created, they simply replied "no"
cityfanlee23 Posted 27 October 2015 Posted 27 October 2015 I fully believe in economic freedom, and markets controlling prices, supply and demand of goods, but I do NOT agree with private banks controlling how bank enters the economy and manipulates everything. We need govenment run banks that control the supply of money and how it's created, to be used democratically for the benefit of the people, rather than the Rothschild family, who of course control EVERYTHING to do with money.
leicsmac Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 As this is the first time this has happened in a very long time, I find it amusing that many contributors on here are more concerned with making sure the HoL can't do this kind of thing again than thinking about exactly why they would take such a drastic and near-unprecedented step in the first place.
Merging Cultures Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 This is the role of the HOL. It's only by convention that they haven't done if for a while. I don't have a problem with the policy they delayed and at the same time I like the checks and balances.
MooseBreath Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 As this is the first time this has happened in a very long time, I find it amusing that many contributors on here are more concerned with making sure the HoL can't do this kind of thing again than thinking about exactly why they would take such a drastic and near-unprecedented step in the first place. We know why, it's because they don't like the changes to tax credits. They as individuals have decided that they don't like something and have overruled the democratically elected government. It doesn't really matter what the issue is, it's the principle that matters. As if government's weren't already unaccountable enough, we now don't know whether anything we vote for will ever make it past the HOL. It works both ways as well, what happens when the HOL recognises the scale of public debt and starts blocking public expenditure? What's their stance on anything? Does anybody know? A bunch of vicars have taken over the country. It's absurd.
leicsmac Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 We know why, it's because they don't like the changes to tax credits. They as individuals have decided that they don't like something and have overruled the democratically elected government. It doesn't really matter what the issue is, it's the principle that matters. As if government's weren't already unaccountable enough, we now don't know whether anything we vote for will ever make it past the HOL. It works both ways as well, what happens when the HOL recognises the scale of public debt and starts blocking public expenditure? What's their stance on anything? Does anybody know? A bunch of vicars have taken over the country. It's absurd. Once again, given how long it has been since this last happened, I would posit that the issue is very important indeed. The HoL certainly thought so...enough to warrant this kind of extreme action, anyway. There should always be numerous checks and balances within any government. Like many people I'm not wild about the unelected part either (nor the overly religious and less academic makeup of a large area of that house), but legislation should not be solely at the whim of a majority government provided they can get enough of their members to vote for it. That being said, I'm not sure what the ideal solution to such a problem is...another elected house would just compound the problem rather than giving a solution.
Webbo Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 Once again, given how long it has been since this last happened, I would posit that the issue is very important indeed. The HoL certainly thought so...enough to warrant this kind of extreme action, anyway. There should always be numerous checks and balances within any government. Like many people I'm not wild about the unelected part either (nor the overly religious and less academic makeup of a large area of that house), but legislation should not be solely at the whim of a majority government provided they can get enough of their members to vote for it. That being said, I'm not sure what the ideal solution to such a problem is...another elected house would just compound the problem rather than giving a solution. It hasn't happened before because A)the balance of power in the chamber has changed and B)the Tory peers have always followed the rules.
leicsmac Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 It hasn't happened before because A)the balance of power in the chamber has changed and B)the Tory peers have always followed the rules. So what's changed? Less Tory peers? Or peers in general feeling more disagreeable for whatever reason?
Webbo Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 So what's changed? Less Tory peers? Or peers in general feeling more disagreeable for whatever reason? More liberal peers since the coalition govt and left of centre politicians always think they're above the rules.
Captain... Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 Didn't the same thing happen to the fox hunting bill? And the terrorist detention bill? Or am I remembering things wrong?
Captain... Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 All the people up in arms are yet to explain the purpose of the House of Lords if it is not to block legislation and send it back to the commons to be amended then why have it?
Guest Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 How did they? There wasn't an official vote that I'm aware of? OMG! You change the goalposts to suit yourself. Waste of time discussing.
Guest Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 Having never claimed them I don't know the ins and outs but I'm led to believe that he was proposing to change the eligibility criteria but not the pay out. I suppose you could see that as effectively cutting them but in any case Cameron didn't say he wasn't going to make changes to tax credits. He didn't say he wasn't going to execute the unemployed - that's not how it works.
MooseBreath Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 OMG! You change the goalposts to suit yourself. Waste of time discussing. Cool
Guest Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 We know why, it's because they don't like the changes to tax credits. They as individuals have decided that they don't like something and have overruled the democratically elected government. It doesn't really matter what the issue is, it's the principle that matters. As if government's weren't already unaccountable enough, we now don't know whether anything we vote for will ever make it past the HOL. It works both ways as well, what happens when the HOL recognises the scale of public debt and starts blocking public expenditure? What's their stance on anything? Does anybody know? A bunch of vicars have taken over the country. It's absurd. They have the right to "overrule" so that must have been agreed by the "democratically elected govt." If it was against the law then they couldn't have. Have a word with yourself.
Guest Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 It hasn't happened before because A)the balance of power in the chamber has changed and B)the Tory peers have always followed the rules. But they haven't broken any rules.
Guest Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 More liberal peers since the coalition govt and left of centre politicians always think they're above the rules. So peers brought in by a con led govt. And once again now rule/law has been broken. That is the HoL, democratically given power and right. Not having it seems like a good solution. Freedom to abuse power. What if Corbyn gets in?
MooseBreath Posted 28 October 2015 Posted 28 October 2015 They have the right to "overrule" so that must have been agreed by the "democratically elected govt." If it was against the law then they couldn't have. Have a word with yourself. It's quite clear that there was an implicit agreement that they wouldn't interfere which has now been broken. That obviously changes the game.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.