IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Budget Cuts
Iommi
post Oct 20 2010, 05:56 PM
Post #21


Advanced Member
***

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



Then perhaps we should see the alternative CSR from Labour?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jayjay
post Oct 20 2010, 05:57 PM
Post #22


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,012
Joined: 22-September 09
Member No.: 357



QUOTE (Bloggo @ Oct 20 2010, 11:28 AM) *
You are correct in that there have to be changes made in running the country and the new government is doing it.
Loss of services and jobs is now inevitable thanks to gross mis-management over the last 13 years. Don't blame the coalition for this as they are cleaning up the mess they have inherited.


Who caused the mess and who is clearing it up is a matter of opinion, but how despicable for the Con/Lib back benches to stamp and cheer when the loss of 500,000 jobs was announced. Shame on them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Oct 20 2010, 06:00 PM
Post #23


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



Whoever caused the Global Banking Crisis (I think the clue might be in the title though) it doesn't really matter now.

Because of the measures announced today public services will do less.

Before anyone moans too much, 68% of people eligible to vote in the constituency of Newbury voted for one of the parties in Government.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Newbury Expat_*
post Oct 20 2010, 06:17 PM
Post #24





Guests






QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 10:30 AM) *
When Ed became leader of the Labour party, he made it clear he would not oppose every cut. What he did say was that cuts and reform must be fair. What seems to be happening in London is that a lot of these decisions have been rushed through, leaving some anomalies such as the child benefit. For whatever reason, the Tories have decided to cut deeper and faster than they proposed in the build up to the election. They say the IMF and the IFS have approved the CSR, but the IFS came out straight away calling this review "more regressive than progressive". Cameron points to Ireland as an example. LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM.

The main point of difference is the speed of the reduction. Is it sensible to slash during an unstable economic period? Labour say it isn't, and if we go into recession again, it will prove that they were right.


Sorry Richard, but that is claptrap. At this point another recession may be unavoidable no matter what action is taken.

If something is destined to happen regardless of action, you can't take credit for proposing a course of action other than that taken. All parties in opposition do this, not just Labour, but it doesn't mean people with half a brain can't see such statements for what they are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Oct 20 2010, 06:38 PM
Post #25


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 20 2010, 07:00 PM) *
Before anyone moans too much, 68% of people eligible to vote in the constituency of Newbury voted for one of the parties in Government.

0% put their cross against a coalition option.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Oct 20 2010, 06:45 PM
Post #26


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 20 2010, 07:38 PM) *
0% put their cross against a coalition option.
That's because there's pretty much never a "coalition option" on the ballot paper.

The last one did involve the Liberal Party though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Oct 20 2010, 06:50 PM
Post #27


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 20 2010, 07:45 PM) *
That's because there's pretty much never a "coalition option" on the ballot paper.

Which is my point. You were implying that 68% of eligible Newbury voters wanted what is happening, or happened. Of those 68%; some did, some didn't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 20 2010, 06:51 PM
Post #28


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Newbury Expat @ Oct 20 2010, 06:17 PM) *
Sorry Richard, but that is claptrap. At this point another recession may be unavoidable no matter what action is taken.

If something is destined to happen regardless of action, you can't take credit for proposing a course of action other than that taken. All parties in opposition do this, not just Labour, but it doesn't mean people with half a brain can't see such statements for what they are.


See, if you actually looked at the data (rather than what Murdoch would have you believe), we had the strongest recovery in the first two quarters of this year. It was only after the emergency budget that confidence has once again been destroyed. Osborne said today it was a fair and progressive budget and that the Institute of Fiscal Studies were praising the CSR. Minutes after it was published, the IFS came out and said the CSR was "more regressive than progressive".

Oh and it was nice to see Dickie Benyon waving his paper in the air and cheering too!!!

DISCLAIMER

Despite my suggestions that the Coalition may be risking the economy, I'm not saying Labour do not have part of the blame coming their way. It was a "Global" financial crisis as has been pointed out. The real difference between my personal view and that of the Coalition as to fix the mess is that Ireland ended up a lot worse by cutting to much too soon. Let's hope this decision today does not take us back into recession.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 20 2010, 06:54 PM
Post #29


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 20 2010, 06:38 PM) *
0% put their cross against a coalition option.


I'm more upset that Clegg has sold out on nearly every promise he made. I get coalitions, and sacrificing party goals. But to go against personal pledges and promises is a bit much!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Oct 20 2010, 06:56 PM
Post #30


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 07:51 PM) *
The real difference between my personal view and that of the Coalition as to fix the mess is that Ireland ended up a lot worse by cutting to much too soon. Let's hope this decision today does not take us back into recession.

I don't know, but is it possible that Ireland had no choice? My understanding was that money from external sources was coming to and end. In other words: they had no option but to cut too soon. Perhaps seeds of doubt were already planted regards Ireland's financial stability.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Oct 20 2010, 07:08 PM
Post #31


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 07:54 PM) *
I'm more upset that Clegg has sold out on nearly every promise he made. I get coalitions, and sacrificing party goals. But to go against personal pledges and promises is a bit much!!!
Fine to say in opposition, but didn't Brown offer the Lib Dems a referendum on PR if they formed a coalition with Labour?

He sold out to try and form a coalition and probably would have done more so if returned to power.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 20 2010, 07:19 PM
Post #32


Advanced Member
***

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



No. Brown offered the Lib Dems a refferendum on AV, but was clear that as Labour had a far superior number of seats, they would only be prepared to compromise on issues where there was similar opinion / common ground. With Cameron falling over himself to woo Clegg, how could the Lib Dems resist. Brown also offerred to step aside within a reasonable period of a couple of months to facilitate the deal because Clegg said he wasn't prepared to work with Brown as he had "lost" the election. So why then should he expect people to work with him???

This is where I step away from the party line slightly. Some Labour supporters will claim nobody won. The Tories had the most seats, and should have been allowed to go it alone. I have to ask how long the Government will continue if AV is not chosen next year. I will be voting "no", and so will many others from Labour and Tory ranks. Ed Miliband is actually supporting the AV vote, but has said the party will vote against the bill in the house because of the boundary changes. Cameron only added the changes to the bill as he was determined that if he was going to give Clegg AV, he needs to reduce the damage by making the boundaries more "fair" to the Tory party.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Newbury Expat_*
post Oct 20 2010, 09:07 PM
Post #33





Guests






QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 11:51 AM) *
See, if you actually looked at the data (rather than what Murdoch would have you believe), we had the strongest recovery in the first two quarters of this year. It was only after the emergency budget that confidence has once again been destroyed. Osborne said today it was a fair and progressive budget and that the Institute of Fiscal Studies were praising the CSR. Minutes after it was published, the IFS came out and said the CSR was "more regressive than progressive".

Oh and it was nice to see Dickie Benyon waving his paper in the air and cheering too!!!

DISCLAIMER

Despite my suggestions that the Coalition may be risking the economy, I'm not saying Labour do not have part of the blame coming their way. It was a "Global" financial crisis as has been pointed out. The real difference between my personal view and that of the Coalition as to fix the mess is that Ireland ended up a lot worse by cutting to much too soon. Let's hope this decision today does not take us back into recession.


I am aware that the economy had improved earlier in the year, but when it comes to words like recovery and recession, my own preference is to take a longer term approach and I feel that with so many ongoing problems, that the first two quarters was more a dead cat bounce than an actual full on recovery.

I hope to be proved wrong of course but if a recession is going to happen again, I don't think that the policy drawn up in the third/fourth quarters will be the cause (for balance neither will I think of it as the magic that avoided a recession should it be averted).

Why the "Dickie" reference though? It seems unecessary and more than that comes over as petty. Or are we to call you "Dickie" Garvie from this point on?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Oct 20 2010, 09:28 PM
Post #34


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Newbury Expat @ Oct 20 2010, 10:07 PM) *
Why the "Dickie" reference though? It seems unecessary and more than that comes over as petty. Or are we to call you "Dickie" Garvie from this point on?

Agreed, such petty language always lets left wingers down. Having said that; hearing the house in general, having a 'laugh' at our expense was regrettable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 20 2010, 10:05 PM
Post #35


Advanced Member
***

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



"Dickie" is short for Richard, is it not??? I wasn't using petty language, sorry if you thought I was. It's a good job I don't find it offensive when people refer to me in the same way!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Oct 20 2010, 10:15 PM
Post #36


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 11:05 PM) *
"Dickie" is short for Richard, is it not??? I wasn't using petty language.

Of course you were; stop talking cobblers. You meant it in a condescending way. You have shown a lot of energy and enthusiasm, please don't default to the 'familiar' stereotype. rolleyes.gif

Consider it a warning from a potential (currently) floating voter. wink.gif

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 11:05 PM) *
It's a good job I don't find it offensive when people refer to me in the same way!!!

Your a lefty, so you wouldn't; eh? biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Newbury Expat_*
post Oct 20 2010, 11:07 PM
Post #37





Guests






QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 20 2010, 03:05 PM) *
"Dickie" is short for Richard, is it not??? I wasn't using petty language, sorry if you thought I was. It's a good job I don't find it offensive when people refer to me in the same way!!!


I'm probably old fashioned then, as I think it base rudeness to abbreviate someone's name without them opening the door to do so. In political circles Dickie particularly seems to be offensive given the inevitible association with Richard "Tricky Dicky" Nixon.

Taking liberties with someones name is often the thin end of the wedge when it comes to whether there is underlying respect for one's peers or base contempt for one's political allegiances. Just calling it as I see it.

Anyone else need to borrow my high horse for a bit? laugh.gif


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Oct 21 2010, 07:10 AM
Post #38


Advanced Member
***

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



I don't think you are. If one is to be taken seriously as politician, I think it is important to treat your peers with commensurate respect. Otherwise it makes one look flippant which is a poor attribute to have as a politician.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 21 2010, 07:11 AM
Post #39


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Newbury Expat @ Oct 20 2010, 11:07 PM) *
I'm probably old fashioned then, as I think it base rudeness to abbreviate someone's name without them opening the door to do so. In political circles Dickie particularly seems to be offensive given the inevitible association with Richard "Tricky Dicky" Nixon.

Taking liberties with someones name is often the thin end of the wedge when it comes to whether there is underlying respect for one's peers or base contempt for one's political allegiances. Just calling it as I see it.

Anyone else need to borrow my high horse for a bit? laugh.gif


Can I borrow it? Honestly, I get called Dickie, ****, Rick, Ricky... the lot!!! I did try to use it in a "good old buddy Dickie" way, pointing out that if he was there waving his papers it must be ok. If anyone is genuinely offended, I'm sorry. I can see now how you may see it as me trying to score a point.

Jeesh, you want to here what some of the Liberals have been calling me!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Oct 21 2010, 07:15 AM
Post #40


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 21 2010, 08:11 AM) *
Can I borrow it? Honestly, I get called Dickie, ****, Rick, Ricky... the lot!!! I did try to use it in a "good old buddy Dickie" way, pointing out that if he was there waving his papers it must be ok. If anyone is genuinely offended, I'm sorry. I can see now how you may see it as me trying to score a point.

It is not about offence; I couldn't care less. Only that there will be some that read that and then wonder about what lies beneath your apparent altruistic exterior.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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 - 10:25 AM