[alchresearch]

I had a "newspaper" delivered earlier. It actually turned out to be a Labour candidate newsletter but the information was hidden right at the back, after interviews with Eddie Izzard and Prescott and whinges at the local Lib Dems. Seems like Labour's own MPs are ashamed of their party.

[Titanic99]

Originally Posted by anarchist

You will be getting all that whoever wins the election. I know you have your head burried in the sand, but even you cannot have missed that Government debt in running at 80% of taxation income, and that even the idiot Darling is talking about massive cuts in spending.

Brown has bankrupted this country. Future generations will be paying the price for years in higher taxes and reduced services. But at least you will be able to blame the Tories as once again they will be picking up the pieces left by another failed Labour Government. At least Alice Mahon has the sense and decency to get out of that corrupt club.

Why is it that your posts seem to lack consistency of thought?

Some days you come on and show some real good Socialist principles of compassion for the poor and vulnerable; other days you come on and post silly links but add nothing of substance to the discussion.

For today’s offerings you make a post that neither challenges my viewpoint with facts that disprove what I have said, in fact it could be interpreted that you have gone back to your Socialist leanings, in that your reluctance to challenge the principles of what I have posted but instead to focus on the cost of them, implies that you agree with them on principle but you remain unconvinced about whether or not we can afford them (noble principles that they are).

So here we are, one of the wealthiest nations in the world and collectively we cannot afford to treat our sick, or keep our pensioners out of poverty, or policemen and women on the streets, or provide a decent Education for our children, or to give our people a decent living wage.

Are you really saying we cannot afford to do this, or do you just not agree with these issues in principle.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Titanic99

What a good old Tory supporter not wanting to talk about Unemployment, now I wonder why that might be.

You could of course answer the question and tell us why it is that you are getting so excited about the prospects of the Tories winning, could it be any of the following that has gotten your pulses racingnote more than one track on the record)

Maybe the prospect of seeing the sick and disabled waiting months for their operations excites you.

Or could it be those peskey Pensioners are about to be put back into poverty.

Or is it those people benefitting from the minimum wage that may well be about to give it all back to the rich employers.

Maybe the prospect of crime returning to Tory levels excites you.

Or could we demolish all those nice new modern schools and put them back to where they were previously at previously.

Or maybe you want your personal wealth levles back to 1997 levels (forgive me if I don't join you on this one).

Or maybe you haven't had enough sleaze with this government and want to get back to the old days again.

So come one there's plenty to go at there, why are your "political Juices" flowing at the prospect of this despicable little party getting back into power again.

I thought I'd reply to this but then I realised I already have. Maybe we could move the debate slightly further on... I'll repeat it for you.

Great post titanic. There are ostriches out there in awe of your ability to keep your head buried in the sand.

A) From the ONS, 'The claimant count was 1.39 million in February 2009. It is up 138,400 over the previous month and up 595,600 over the year. This is the largest monthly increase in the claimant count since comparable records began in 1971.'
Unemployment is skyrocketing. The fact that the 'growth' in GDP for the last 8 years was a sham is having its inevitable consequence now.

B) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...estigated.html Says it all really.

C) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6089122.stm Waiting lists have indeed gone down. But at what cost?

D) Investment in schools? Investment that has achieved what exactly?

E) Pensioner and child poverty? The most laughable line from a laughable post. As if such a concept had any basis in reality. But while we're on the subject of pensions... http://www.independent.co.uk/money/i...e-1667421.html

[anarchist]

Originally Posted by Titanic99

Why is it that your posts seem to lack consistency of thought?

Well no one could accuse your posts of lacking consistency as you trotted outh exactly the same load of road worn rubbish at least 300 times on this forum.

It is your ability to ignore reality, to brand everyone who does see you own distored view of the world as a Tory, to claim people agree with you when they don't and your inability to see that this government has spent this country into a meltdown that sets you out as something special. The world's only surviving live brain donor.

There is absolutely no point in entering into a debate with you. You do not have the ability to understand any information that isn't Labour Party propoganda. YOU DON'T REALISE THAT NO ONE BUT YOU CARES.

The country is quite happy that the New Labour experiment is over. It failed spectacularly and we will all end up paying the bill for at least 30 years, but at least it will soon be over.

The polls currently suggest the Tories will form the next government with a majority of 64. That will do me. Not that I am a Tory, but because it gets rid of Labour. Once you can accept that, you might be able to move on.

[Titanic99]

Originally Posted by anarchist

Well no one could accuse your posts of lacking consistency as you trotted outh exactly the same load of road worn rubbish at least 300 times on this forum.

Well you could try disproving some of my points or even answering the question.

Once more (just in case you missed it):

Should one of the wealthiest nations in the world be able to finance:

A decent National Health Service
A decent Education system
Be able to keep Pensioners and Children out of poverty
Be able to pay its workers a decent living wage

Or alternatively do you think these causes aren't worth funding.

I'm intrigued to know what you think!

[Titanic99]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I thought I'd reply to this but then I realised I already have. Maybe we could move the debate slightly further on... I'll repeat it for you.

I was only trying to understand what it is about the prospect of a Tory Government that has got Tonkaboys political juices going.

He doesn't seem to want to answer the question though despite me trying to help him/her out a bit.

[L00b]

Originally Posted by Titanic99

Should one of the wealthiest nations in the world be able to finance
A decent National Health Service

The "nation" doesn't finance it, tax payers finance it and the government manages the financing (taxation level and resource expenditure).

Originally Posted by Titanic99

A decent Education system

The "nation" doesn't finance it, etc. See above.

Originally Posted by Titanic99

Be able to keep Pensioners and Children out of poverty

The "nation" doesn't finance it, etc. See above.

Moreover, keeping children out of poverty necessarily implies keeping their parents out of poverty. The tax payers can give and give, however it strikes me that it's the government's job to ensure that those funds are best used by recipients, rather than dilapidated on unhealthy addictions (to the detriment of offspring care and education).

Originally Posted by Titanic99

Be able to pay its workers a decent living wage

The "nation" doesn't (and should never) finance it, employers do.

Originally Posted by Titanic99

Or alternatively do you think these causes aren't worth funding.

The question is not that they are worth funding or not (because that's a moral question devoid of resource management considerations), the issue is that they are impossible to fund, when considering the expected (utopian) level of service/standards for each of these against the available resources and commitments (that's the tax management question).

Seems to me you're making quite a case against NuLabour's resource management record, indeed

[anarchist]

Originally Posted by Titanic99

Well you could try disproving some of my points or even answering the question.

Once more (just in case you missed it):

Should one of the wealthiest nations in the world be able to finance:
A decent National Health Service
A decent Education system
Be able to keep Pensioners and Children out of poverty
Be able to pay its workers a decent living wage

Or alternatively do you think these causes aren't worth funding.

I'm intrigued to know what you think!

Ooops 301!



Just regarding your point about wealthy nation and these wonderful services that the TAX PAYERS have funded.


The UK national debt is the total amount of money the British government owes to the private sector.

At the end of December 2008, UK public sector net debt was £697.5 billion. (or 47% of National GDP) - Source: Office National Statistics.

National Debt as a % of GDP has increased from 30% in 2002 to 37 % in 2007. This was despite the long period of economic expansion. It is primarily due to the governments decision to increase spending on health and education. There has also been a marked rise in social security spending.

National Debt has increased sharply in the past 12 months because of:

* Slowing Economy (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits)
* Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS and other banks.

The Nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley and Government purchase of shares in major banks like HBOS will cause even more borrowing. It is estimated National debt will rise to 45% of National Debt by April 2009

It is way above the government’s sustainable investment rule of 40% maximum.

However, it is argued that UK’s national debt is actually a lot higher. This is because national debt should include pension contributions and private finance initiatives PFI which the government are obliged to pay.

The Centre for Policy Studies argues that the real national debt is actually £1,340 billion, which is 103.5 per cent of GDP. This figure includes all the public sector pension liabilities such as pensions, and Private Finance Initiative contracts e.t.c (Northern Rock liabilities).

Another problem is that with the financial crisis, the government have added an extra £500bn of potential liabilities. Note: the Government has offered to back mortgage securities. They are unlikely to spend this money. But, in theory the government could be liable for extra debts of upto £500bn. If we include this bailout package as a contingent liability National debt would be well over 100% of GDP.

Problems of National Debt

1. Interest Payments. The cost of paying interest on the government’s debt is very high. In 2008 Debt interest payments will be £31 billion a year (est 2.5% of GDP). In 2009, they will be £35 billion (similar to defence budget). Public sector debt interest payments could be be the 4th highest department after social security, health and education.
This is actually out of date as the deficit is far higher than the idiot Darling estimated. The interest repayments will therefore be far higher.

2. Higher Taxes in the future.
3. Crowding out of private sector investment / spending
4. The debt problem will only get worse as an ageing population places greater strain on the UK’s pension liabilities. (demographic time bomb)
5. Negative impact on Exchange Rate. ( DID YOU SPOT THAT ONE as exchange rates dropped about 25%)..

[Titanic99]

Originally Posted by L00b

The "nation" doesn't finance it, tax payers finance it and the government manages the financing (taxation level and resource expenditure).

The "nation" doesn't finance it, etc. See above.

The "nation" doesn't finance it, etc. See above.

Moreover, keeping children out of poverty necessarily implies keeping their parents out of poverty. The tax payers can give and give, however it strikes me that it's the government's job to ensure that those funds are best used by recipients, rather than dilapidated on unhealthy addictions (to the detriment of offspring care and education).

The "nation" doesn't (and should never) finance it, employers do.

The question is not that they are worth funding or not (because that's a moral question devoid of resource management considerations), the issue is that they are impossible to fund, when considering the expected (utopian) level of service/standards for each of these against the available resources and commitments (that's the tax management question).

Seems to me you're making quite a case against NuLabour's resource management record, indeed

I think you make some very reasonable points that should be debated a bit more:

Let's look at the facts as we know them:

More money has been spent on the NHS and improvements in waiting times have been seen.

More Police Officers and PCO'S are on the street and reduction in crime levels has been seen.

An awful lot of investment in modernising schools has been undertaken with minimal improvements.

The introduction of Pension and Child Tax Credit has undoubtedly brought a lot of people out of poverty, but at a great cost.

The minimum wage has given a lot of people a decent wage at a cost to the profits of employers.

So we all agree improvements have been made at a significant cost.

The debate though is two-fold, do we want to see all of the above after the next election and if the answer is yes then how is it to be funded.

Now this is the debate that isn't happening with some of our posters, I have no problem with people coming on and saying I agree with these in principle but as we cannot afford them then we need to cut back a bit; I do have a problem with the posters who come on and complain about the state of these areas and blame the Government for them, when it is obvious to an idiot that they are in a significantly better position than they were under the last Government.

But back to the debate, if we think these things are worth preserving and improving then we have to fund them, I happen to think they are worth preserving and improving and I believe that additional taxation should be imposed on the better off to partially finance them, other areas like Welfare for example should be reformed to help with the funding of them as well.

But at the very least lets have a grown-up debate about whether or not we want them in the first place.

[anarchist]

Originally Posted by Titanic99

it is obvious to an idiot that they are in a significantly better position than they were under the last Government.

There you are titanic. You are always claiming I agree with you. Well on that point I do. You are that idiot.

[Titanic99]

Originally Posted by anarchist

Ooops 301!



Just regarding your point about wealthy nation and these wonderful services that the TAX PAYERS have funded.


The UK national debt is the total amount of money the British government owes to the private sector.

At the end of December 2008, UK public sector net debt was £697.5 billion. (or 47% of National GDP) - Source: Office National Statistics.

National Debt as a % of GDP has increased from 30% in 2002 to 37 % in 2007. This was despite the long period of economic expansion. It is primarily due to the governments decision to increase spending on health and education. There has also been a marked rise in social security spending.

National Debt has increased sharply in the past 12 months because of:

* Slowing Economy (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits)
* Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS and other banks.

The Nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley and Government purchase of shares in major banks like HBOS will cause even more borrowing. It is estimated National debt will rise to 45% of National Debt by April 2009

It is way above the government’s sustainable investment rule of 40% maximum.

However, it is argued that UK’s national debt is actually a lot higher. This is because national debt should include pension contributions and private finance initiatives PFI which the government are obliged to pay.

The Centre for Policy Studies argues that the real national debt is actually £1,340 billion, which is 103.5 per cent of GDP. This figure includes all the public sector pension liabilities such as pensions, and Private Finance Initiative contracts e.t.c (Northern Rock liabilities).

Another problem is that with the financial crisis, the government have added an extra £500bn of potential liabilities. Note: the Government has offered to back mortgage securities. They are unlikely to spend this money. But, in theory the government could be liable for extra debts of upto £500bn. If we include this bailout package as a contingent liability National debt would be well over 100% of GDP.

Problems of National Debt

1. Interest Payments. The cost of paying interest on the government’s debt is very high. In 2008 Debt interest payments will be £31 billion a year (est 2.5% of GDP). In 2009, they will be £35 billion (similar to defence budget). Public sector debt interest payments could be be the 4th highest department after social security, health and education.
This is actually out of date as the deficit is far higher than the idiot Darling estimated. The interest repayments will therefore be far higher.

2. Higher Taxes in the future.
3. Crowding out of private sector investment / spending
4. The debt problem will only get worse as an ageing population places greater strain on the UK’s pension liabilities. (demographic time bomb)
5. Negative impact on Exchange Rate. ( DID YOU SPOT THAT ONE as exchange rates dropped about 25%)..

You fail to mention that we are either the 5th or 6th richest nation in the world (depending on which financial body you want to use), is there a reason for this?

Anyway, once again.

Are you opposed in principle to one of the richest nations in the world providing decent medical care, Education and Pensions to its citizens or do you believe we should give this money back to the rich so they can do with it whatever they please.

[anarchist]

Originally Posted by titanic99

you fail to mention that we are either the 5th or 6th richest nation in the world (depending on which financial body you want to use), is there a reason for this?

Anyway, once again.

Are you opposed in principle to one of the richest nations in the world providing decent medical care, education and pensions to its citizens or do you believe we should give this money back to the rich so they can do with it whatever they please.

302!!!!!!!!

[Titanic99]

Originally Posted by anarchist

There you are titanic. You are always claiming I agree with you. Well on that point I do. You are that idiot.

Why don't you try contributing something to the debate, you could start by answering the basic question you've been asked many times.

[Titanic99]

Originally Posted by anarchist

302!!!!!!!!

What's that then, the number of times you have avoided answering this question.

[anarchist]

Originally Posted by Titanic99

You fail to mention that we are either the 5th or 6th richest nation in the world (depending on which financial body you want to use), is there a reason for this?

Well 23rd actually. You must be looking at the pre Brown listings.

http://www.aneki.com/countries.php?table=fb129&measure=GDP%20per%20capi ta&unit=$&order=&dependency=independent&number=10 0

Country GDP per capita
1 Liechtenstein $118,000
2 Qatar $101,000
3 Luxembourg $85,100
4 Kuwait $60,800
5 Norway $57,500
6 Brunei $54,100
7 Singapore $52,900
8 United States $48,000
9 Ireland $47,800
10 San Marino $46,100
11 Iceland $42,600
12 Netherlands $41,300
13 Switzerland $40,900
14 United Arab Emirates $40,400
15 Canada $40,200
16 Austria $39,600
17 Sweden $39,600
18 Australia $39,300
19 Denmark $38,900
20 Andorra $38,800
21 Finland $38,400
22 Belgium $38,300
23 United Kingdom $37,400

Also bear in mind that GDP has been permenantly damaged by Browns policies and GDP is way below that on this list and is estimated to be permanently reduced by at least 4%.


Anyhow. You evidently have nothing better to do than post the same old garbage in the forlorn hope that you will persuade 74% of the population that they have got it wrong. I have a life and am off into Derbyshire to get the rays and support the economy.

[tonkatoy]

I note that new unemployment figures are due out today with predictions that at least 130,000 will be added in the month.

A good statistic to bury in the bad news that is the budget.

I bet the forum ostrich will keep his head buried as usual.

[anarchist]

Well the budget today showed that this government is unfit to run a bath let alone a country.

The projections that Darling put forward for the UKs future growth had the experts aghast. This was not reality. It was desperate figures plucked from fantasy land to try to make the budget balance.

It was a farce.

This is from tomorrow's Sun

And last night experts queued up to pour scorn on his claim that his tax hikes will save Britain from disaster.

They pointed out his forecasts of economic growth by 2011 of 3.5 per cent a year are WILDLY optimistic and may never happen.


Mr Darling admitted Britain is up to its eyeballs in debt and borrowing will hit a historic £175billion this year.

National debt will double to a staggering £1.4TRILLION — which would mean saddling every new child born with lifelong debt of £22,500.

The UK will have to borrow more in the next two years than every single British government has done in history.

This will add a mammoth £703billion to our debts over the next five years.

[tonkatoy]

I think Robert Peston took the words out of my mouth when he summed up his feelings regarding the budget.

Quote..

I haven't written much about one element of what I said early this morning I would be keeping an eye on, namely the credibility of the chancellor's growth forecasts.

That's because Stephanie Flanders has been highlighting all the reasons why the Treasury's expectations of a pretty sharp economic recovery may be far too optimistic.

If growth turns out over months and years to be even a bit lower than the Treasury expects - and many economists expect growth to be significantly lower - that would imply that the government will be borrowing even more, the public-sector debt will approach 100% of national income and it'll take even longer than seven years for debt as a proportion of GDP to start falling again.

Yuk and yikes.


Yes. Yuk and yikes indeed...

[anarchist]

You could have predicted it from the moment Darling opened his stupid gob.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6148726.ece


The decision to bring the increase forward breaks a key pledge in Tony Blair's 2005 manifesto not to raise either the basic or top rate of income tax during this Parliament, and represents a clear break with New Labour's emphasis on rewarding enterprise.

It brought immediate warnings from the City that highly-paid individuals would move to countries with more progressive tax regimes, as happened under Labour in the 1970s



Alex Henderson, tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said today's tax hike could see the City's high-earners flee to lower tax locations such as Ireland and Switzerland. He said that a reduction in tax relief on pension contributions for those earning over £150,000 would hit the self-employed and small businesses especially hard.

"Unfortunately, the Chancellor seems to have ignored the knowledge economy entirely," Mr Henderson told The Times.

"This has got to reduce the UK's attractiveness as a place to do the kind of business that requires highly-skilled and correspondingly highly-paid individuals, whether that is people choosing to go overseas or - the hidden cost - people who never come here at all."

[foxy lady]

Evan Davies summed it up this morning with his question to Alister Darling.

He asked what advice he might give to a Conservative Chancellor who was faced with plugging the enormous black hole left in the countries finances by the Labour Government.

Darling did not answer.