IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Double dippers, Doom-mongers wrong again
Richard Garvie
post Oct 29 2010, 07:52 PM
Post #41


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



At the end of the day, when the Tories budget measures have been implemented and we are still seeing the groiwth we have now, maybe I'll be able to sleep a lot easier. But as somebody who risks losing their business because of some of these decisions, I feel I'm more than entitled to speak out at the fact they have been rushed and ill thought out. I've said all along that I'm happy to support reform, but it needs to be viable and it can't be the typical Tory ideaology that is slash the public service whatever the cost.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bofem
post Oct 30 2010, 07:48 AM
Post #42


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 485
Joined: 28-May 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 924



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 29 2010, 08:52 PM) *
I feel I'm more than entitled to speak out at the fact they have been rushed and ill thought out. I've said all along that I'm happy to support reform, but it needs to be viable and it can't be the typical Tory ideaology that is slash the public service whatever the cost.


So which is it - ill-thought out or typical Tory ideaology? (sic)

For the record, I'm only 50% happy with what's happening. I'm all for rolling back state interference, but I want my taxes back so I can buy the public services I want myself.

This last bit doesn't seem possible while we've got a £155bn overdraft left to us by Labour.


--------------------
Newbury's #1 ill-informed internet poster
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ozzy
post Nov 1 2010, 11:48 AM
Post #43


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 19-January 10
Member No.: 649



This all comes down to a similar point someone made earlier. Politics has become a farce. 2 parties playing tit for tat.

Are Labour to blame for the deficit? The economy worldwide failed and as result they had to pump money in. Had the Tories been in power at the same time we would still have seen a deficit - no matter how big/small. Labour had to act. I suspect the Tories would have poured money in too given the choice.

Now the Tories are in power and they have to make cut backs to pay the deficit back. Would Labour have made cut backs if they were in power? Yes. Maybe not quite so harshly but they would have made cuts.

In short, whoever is in power is going to have to make difficult decisions. Whether it be to pump money in to keep the country afloat or make huge cuts to pay it back.

In 10 years time more mistakes will have been made by whichever party and someone else will get a go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bloggo
post Nov 1 2010, 11:58 AM
Post #44


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 41



QUOTE (Ozzy @ Nov 1 2010, 12:48 PM) *
This all comes down to a similar point someone made earlier. Politics has become a farce. 2 parties playing tit for tat.

Are Labour to blame for the deficit? The economy worldwide failed and as result they had to pump money in. Had the Tories been in power at the same time we would still have seen a deficit - no matter how big/small. Labour had to act. I suspect the Tories would have poured money in too given the choice.

Now the Tories are in power and they have to make cut backs to pay the deficit back. Would Labour have made cut backs if they were in power? Yes. Maybe not quite so harshly but they would have made cuts.

In short, whoever is in power is going to have to make difficult decisions. Whether it be to pump money in to keep the country afloat or make huge cuts to pay it back.

In 10 years time more mistakes will have been made by whichever party and someone else will get a go.

Sadly I believe you are spot-on. Wouldn't it be great if these well educated, intelligent politicians on both sides could work together when the country is in real financial trouble rather than try and score points off each other at every opportunity.


--------------------
Bloggo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Nov 1 2010, 11:58 AM
Post #45


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



Even if you ignore the bank bail-out, Labour were spending more than they were taking in tax. This meant they had to borrow. As our ability to balance the books gets worse, the cost of borrowing that money goes up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ozzy
post Nov 1 2010, 12:51 PM
Post #46


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 19-January 10
Member No.: 649



QUOTE (Iommi @ Nov 1 2010, 11:58 AM) *
Even if you ignore the bank bail-out, Labour were spending more than they were taking in tax. This meant they had to borrow. As our ability to balance the books gets worse, the cost of borrowing that money goes up.


Ah but you're doing the exact same thing now. Tit bits.

It swings in roundabouts. Even if they were borrowing more despite the bank bail-out, Darling and Brown's bank plan itself did work so that sort of balances the positive and negative. You could go through all the decisions like that.

Take Iraq as an example. Wind back to 2003 and put Cameron in charge. Put the same evidence on the table. Would the Tories have made the same decision? Probably. I don't think they would have not backed the US. I don't think they would have not wanted to have claim to some of that oil.

Difficult decisions come along and people in power make those decisions. Rightly or wrongly those decisions are taken on the best evidence made available and those in power take the decisions to the best of their ability at the time.

Labour got a few wrong and a few right. I'm sure the Tories will do the same.

If in 10 years time you can't find something to heavily criticise the Conservatives on then i'll be amazed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Nov 1 2010, 01:51 PM
Post #47


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Ozzy @ Nov 1 2010, 12:51 PM) *
Ah but you're doing the exact same thing now. Tit bits.

Exact same what? What I said is true. Labour had created a system that they couldn't pay for, without borrowing. That in itself is short-termism and just as mean as what the ConDems are doing now, in my view.

QUOTE (Ozzy @ Nov 1 2010, 12:51 PM) *
It swings in roundabouts. Even if they were borrowing more despite the bank bail-out, Darling and Brown's bank plan itself did work so that sort of balances the positive and negative. You could go through all the decisions like that.

But this thread is about the economy. You can't blame people for the state of the economy if they were not in charge. You can speculate, but it happened on Labour's watch.

QUOTE (Ozzy @ Nov 1 2010, 12:51 PM) *
Take Iraq as an example. Wind back to 2003 and put Cameron in charge. Put the same evidence on the table. Would the Tories have made the same decision? Probably. I don't think they would have not backed the US. I don't think they would have not wanted to have claim to some of that oil.

Difficult decisions come along and people in power make those decisions. Rightly or wrongly those decisions are taken on the best evidence made available and those in power take the decisions to the best of their ability at the time.

Labour got a few wrong and a few right. I'm sure the Tories will do the same.

If in 10 years time you can't find something to heavily criticise the Conservatives on then i'll be amazed.

So would I and I agree, but this thread is about the economy, not those things you list.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ozzy
post Nov 1 2010, 03:51 PM
Post #48


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 19-January 10
Member No.: 649



QUOTE
I don't see any evidence that things would have been any different if the Tories had been in power for the last 5 years.


Sorry I thought we were talking about ifs and buts.

I assumed the general idea of a conversation was to expand it...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Nov 1 2010, 06:34 PM
Post #49


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Ozzy @ Nov 1 2010, 03:51 PM) *
Sorry I thought we were talking about ifs and buts. I assumed the general idea of a conversation was to expand it...

You seemed to be challenging my opinion with an argument already established, albeit off-topic: so were you expanding the discussion or refuting to my point?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 01:59 PM