Zingari Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 I'm sure you're right Larry , but why didn't Merv the swerve say something/ do something before it all went tits up ? surely he wields tremendous power ? maybe he did though , i'm not sure
l444ry Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 I'm sure you're right Larry , but why didn't Merv the swerve say something/ do something before it all went tits up ? surely he wields tremendous power ? maybe he did though , i'm not sure When he took a sip of water during his speech, I swear he resembled a Lizard......
Zingari Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 When he took a sip of water during his speech, I swear he resembled a Lizard...... everyone thinks they're a chameleon these days
dave the caveman Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 How do I know so? Because the Bank of England are sure of it. DavieG's report states that Mervyn King yesterday told the Treasury Select Committee: "that the billions spent bailing out the banks and the need for public spending cuts were the fault of the financial services sector". I think that closes the debate. Unless you have, like George Osborne, Jo the Hat and Webbo, fallen off the edge of reason. Not arguing politically either way, but actually, Phillip Inman of the Guardian wrote what you quoted. If such a quote could have been directly attributed to Mervyn King, it would have been written in bold and surrounded in fairy lights by the Guardian. They probably would have done a week long feature on it. As it is, they've just taken a quote which could have meant many things and gave it their favoured choice of context. What else would you expect? I'd be interested to read the full speech and see what the actual context was, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be available and a quick scan of other news sources delivers not even a brief report on this supposed revelation, which is probably quite telling.
Webbo Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 The right wing (and those who’ve fallen over the right wing edge) love to claim that the current crisis was not caused by bankers. George Osborne, Jon the Hat and Webbo are included in their number. According to these people it’s all Labour’s fault. Which indicates extraordinary faith on their part on the power of they UK and social democracy, but it is also absolutely wrong. How do I know so? Because the Bank of England are sure of it. DavieG's report states that Mervyn King yesterday told the Treasury Select Committee: "that the billions spent bailing out the banks and the need for public spending cuts were the fault of the financial services sector". I think that closes the debate. Unless you have, like George Osborne, Jo the Hat and Webbo, fallen off the edge of reason. Answer me this, if all this, the banking crisis and the global downturn happened under a Conservative govt would you have blamed the Tories?
l444ry Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 Answer me this, if all this, the banking crisis and the global downturn happened under a Conservative govt would you have blamed the Tories? You answer me this: Do you think the Tories would be cutting the welfare state if there hadn't been a credit crunch? I rest my case........
Zingari Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 is this a game of answering questions with another question ? oh damn , now i'm doing it
Webbo Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 You answer me this: Do you think the Tories would be cutting the welfare state if there hadn't been a credit crunch? I rest my case........ Still not answered my question. Anyhoo to answer your question, I certainly hope that the Tories would have cut welfare state spending, it is/was totally out of control. It was still rising during 15 years of growth and should have been tackled by Labour ,as they promised, during the 97 election.
l444ry Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 Still not answered my question. Anyhoo to answer your question, I certainly hope that the Tories would have cut welfare state spending, it is/was totally out of control. It was still rising during 15 years of growth and should have been tackled by Labour ,as they promised, during the 97 election. Can't answer hypothetical questions, Webbo. And you do agree that the Tories would cut the welfare state on ideoligical grounds. Couldn't be hiding behind a fictitious smokescreen could they? It's all unravelling nicely.........
CKB Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 I agree that that most of us haven't got a clue as to who is really to blame and who we should be venting our anger towards . I do ....Matty Fryatt!!
Webbo Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 Can't answer hypothetical questions, Webbo. And you do agree that the Tories would cut the welfare state on ideoligical grounds. Couldn't be hiding behind a fictitious smokescreen could they? It's all unravelling nicely......... You've just asked me to answer a hypothetical. But don't bother to answer my question we all know you would, In your mind if David Cameron scratches his arse it's all part of a plot against the working classes. There is nothing wrong with cutting welfare for idealogical reason. It's a shocking waste of money and a shocking waste of lives. If you're happy to see generations of people rot on the dole then you don't care about ordinary people as much as you pretend.
Unit Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 My mum's been put on risk notice for the second time in a year, I don't think she's too fond of the cuts.
l444ry Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 You've just asked me to answer a hypothetical. But don't bother to answer my question we all know you would, In your mind if David Cameron scratches his arse it's all part of a plot against the working classes. There is nothing wrong with cutting welfare for idealogical reason. It's a shocking waste of money and a shocking waste of lives. If you're happy to see generations of people rot on the dole then you don't care about ordinary people as much as you pretend. Dear oh dear, Webbo......you get worse!!! All I would say regarding the "public debt" is: Public sector debt in 1946 was 250% of GDP. Today it's 57.6%. In 1946 we started building the NHS. Ttoday the Tories are about to dismantle it. Make of that what you will......
lcfc"weasel" Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 Congratulations on the very well paid career you are clearly planning to have. Well done you. What is it - Doctor? Lawyer? Banker? I do like a man with aspirations. What the fvck you going on with. I want to go to uni. do my BSc in Computer Science at Edinburgh Uni. or Imperial College then do a masters at the opposite institution then hopefully do a PHD at whichever I prefer, that aspirational enough for you? Don't see why I have to justify myself to you but there you have it, my plan for further education, if you want to know my lifetime plan, do ask I'll core you to death with how I'm gonna make my millions.
orangecity23 Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 Dear oh dear, Webbo......you get worse!!! All I would say regarding the "public debt" is: Public sector debt in 1946 was 250% of GDP. Today it's 57.6%. In 1946 we started building the NHS. Ttoday the Tories are about to dismantle it. Make of that what you will...... Can't think of anything that would have made public sector borrowing massive in 1946. Oh wait - the Second World War.
Jon the Hat Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 Guff Did you read my post? Financial crises = banks, huge national debt and deficit = Labour. It isn't hard. If we had one but not the other we would have probably been ok. Both and we are where we are. As you say the Govt had little power over the first, buts complete control over the second.
l444ry Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 Can't think of anything that would have made public sector borrowing massive in 1946. Oh wait - the Second World War. 9 years before Einstein died as well....
Webbo Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 Ah.....another deficit denier!! You're not making any sense but I'm guessing this is a pathetic attempt to wind me up. I'd hate to be you, you live in a world of hate and fantasy. You're obsessed with trying to prove that Labour never ever did anything wrong/incompetently, despite all evidence to the contrary and that the Tories only exist to do evil.At least I can accept some things that Labour have done have been good and not everything the Tories have done has turned out for the best. Lighten up man ffs. Do you think anybody reading this or any other thread we've commented on have changed their mind about anything? Labour lost the last election ,deservedly so. Get over it. Nothing you write on here will change that or bring forward the next election any sooner.
Jon the Hat Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 What the fvck you going on with. I want to go to uni. do my BSc in Computer Science at Edinburgh Uni. or Imperial College then do a masters at the opposite institution then hopefully do a PHD at whichever I prefer, that aspirational enough for you? Don't see why I have to justify myself to you but there you have it, my plan for further education, if you want to know my lifetime plan, do ask I'll core you to death with how I'm gonna make my millions. You don't have to justify yourself to me. I was just curious as to why you think Uni will cost you more. If you achieve that it might. For most people it will cost nothing like.
orangecity23 Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 Borrowing was massive after the war because we'd borrowed shed loads of money (largely from America) to pay for it. Planes, tanks and ships don't grow on trees. Comparing borrowing then to now is daft. A more sensible comparison would be to compare the 70s to now, as both are periods of (relative) peace, as opposed to the biggest world changing event of modern history, which completely distorts the picture. After the war, times were austere for a long time. There was rationing until the mid 50s. So I don't know what point you're trying to make - it's not as if there weren't any cuts after the war to save money, and made by a Labour government.
l444ry Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 Borrowing was massive after the war because we'd borrowed shed loads of money (largely from America) to pay for it. Planes, tanks and ships don't grow on trees. Comparing borrowing then to now is daft. A more sensible comparison would be to compare the 70s to now, as both are periods of (relative) peace, as opposed to the biggest world changing event of modern history, which completely distorts the picture. After the war, times were austere for a long time. There was rationing until the mid 50s. So I don't know what point you're trying to make - it's not as if there weren't any cuts after the war to save money, and made by a Labour government. The one that is clearly indicated in the original post. Despite public debt being 250% of GDP in 1946 the government started building the welfare state. In 2011 and the public debt being 56% of GDP, the present government is cutting everything not nailed down. Is that any clearer?
FoxyPV Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 Orange - the British are at war at the moment and it has cost billions upon billions. Only this war was not against fascism but for oil and Neo-con ideology. The USSR nearly bankrupted itself fighting in Afghanistan and the british govt has not learned from history and is aiming to do the same to itself.
lcfc"weasel" Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 You don't have to justify yourself to me. I was just curious as to why you think Uni will cost you more. If you achieve that it might. For most people it will cost nothing like. Valid, I see what you was trying to say now, I read it in a more accusatory way than it was meant.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.