Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
interesting tom?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Barry you talk much about cuts, government expenditure, public sector etc. etc. and still you refuse to face up to the fact that none of this really matters - none of it when you take into account the government's environmental measures which will kill our economy.
You suggest that I'm obsessed with the issue but all the words you write on the matter mean absolutely nothing when you take the green obsession into account.
We will have no competitive export trade or anything like it in a few years time. In fact whatever electricity and energy for other forms of power will be rationed sooner than you think.
Basically you deny this in full face of the evidence.
To vilify the lower echelons is one thing but to do that whilst ignoring this issue is rather strange.
Every single aspect of our lives is being affected by this corrupt indoctrination and is leading to our downfall. We have virtually no new power stations coming online whilst some of what we do have are being shut down because the idiot government we have tell us that it will lead to mass extinction and dangerous climate change.
How can you possibly support a bunch of clowns like the conservatives when the believe in such hogwash?
Why not just join the lib dems and be done with it?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
barryw is, philip a real right wing conservative
and you have to applaud his passion to the cause
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Yes Keith, but nevertheless obsessed with a single issue on which I do not fully disagree but take a more balanced and realistic approach.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
philip does tend to go off on one but if you read through his posts carefully he is very correct with the obsession that all parties have with climate change.
there has never been any clear undisputed scientific evidence that the problem is man made, so why are all these billions spent on combatting something that may just be true at a time that we have this massive deficit to sort out?
There was a time when smoking menthol fags was promoted by doctors as good for the lungs. Despite the evidence that had been building.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
bern;
no kind of smoking can be good for you
unless you was on fire and just been put out lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
It seems to me that Barry is the equivalent of the tory blue rinse brigade of yesteryear. Those who merely follow the party line on this and other matters blindly accept the received wisdom from the suits at their party headquarters without question.
Ths is exactly why the tory party is in such disarray and are losing not only core support but are down in the polls.
So do tell us Barry what exactly is this "balanced" approach to this issue? Are you saying that you think it's a crock but we need to throw billions at the problem even though the problem doesn't exist? That isn't balanced it's totally unbalanced much like many of David Cameron's policies.
Cameron reckons he's a eurosceptic - he is nothing of the sort. He talks the talk but lacks the bottle to really take europe head on. He's a paper tiger.
Oh and remember my "obsession" costs no money whatsoever. The government's obsession costs us all hundreds of billions and it's about time they explained their reasons.
Take that fake veto he was supposed to have undertaken for example.
Cuts? I don't see any cuts. If anything all I see is more borrowing.
I see faux outrage in the commons today. It's all an act.
Every single policy he's come out with has involved a U-turn.
The only thing he hasn't U-turned on is his environmental policies and that is I suspect that he surrounds himself with bed wetters and business lobbyists who stand to collect billions.
So do explain in a few sentences your, erm, balanced view of the government's green policies.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
philip
i agree with you on cameron not having bottle and to many u turns
but disagree on your view that there has been no cuts
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
LOL Philip - you clearly do not read my posts and blog properly if you think I just 'follow the party line'. You forget time after time that we have a coalition government not a Conservative one - sadly.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Philip.
One thing I must disagree upon is that "you don't see any cuts"
When Government makes cuts on local authorities, education, health, policing, defence etc.it is passed on to the line of least resistance.
The fact that I keep hearing you and BarryW, keep saying "what cuts" "we have not seen any cuts yet" just proves and re-enforces the fact, that only the worse off, are taking the brunt of these cuts because let me assure you, I can see cuts all around me, affecting me directly and I can see the damage that is being done amongst our communities because of these cuts.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"...many people will face mounting rent arrears or take on unsustainable debt as they desperately try to keep a roof over their head. CCHPR predicts that the increase in homelessness will cost local authorities £120m. And a Comres poll commissioned by Shelter found that three in five (59%) councillors in England believe there will be significant knock-on costs to their local authority as a result of the changes."
From...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/editors-blog/2012/jan/06/new-year-debt-problemsIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The cuts have to be made, but as yet they have not really bitten and even the full range of cuts are less than were imposed by Callaghan after the IMF stepped in. People shout about them before they actually happen.
If you overspend, as the government has been doing since 2001, you have to cut it, there is no other option and it is a cruel deceit for any politician to suggest otherwise. Always it is the big budget items that have to be hit, like welfare, to make the necessary changes.
Neither can you bridge the gap through higher taxes, simply because tax revenues will fall and it would seriously damage growth prospects extracting money from the real economy and reducing spending power, economic growth has to be the larger part of the equation. Only the private sector can get us out of the mess because only they create new income for the treasury and the country, public spending just re-cycles money inefficiently. Right now the domestic economies growth prospects are damaged by what is happening in our major markets making a difficult situation even worse.
We have a difficult balancing act to get things moving but one thing is certain, spending more, increasing the deficit and adding to borrowing will only make a bad situation worse and will increase the level of cuts when they inevitably have to happen. It would certainly lead to higher interest rates that we all have to pay including the government, increasing further the deficit and damaging economic growth - a unholy cycle that many families will be familiar with when credit cards get out of control.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
I'm not necessarily calling for cuts I'm merely pointing out that the UK is borrowing more even though the government promised that it would cut it's borrowing.
What worries me is that there is no growth strategy. None.
In fact what is deeply concerning is that the government is adopting a decline strategy not least by way of it's environmental policies. That is why I keep banging on about it. It's probably the most important issue today.
It merely makes our economy hamstrung and uncompetitive compared to the rest of the world. Remember the climate change act and the soon to be enacted carbon price floor is the same as putting a sign on the white cliffs saying "UK closed for business".
I'm still waiting for Barry's balanced view on this. I won't be holding my breath.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
A fair estimation of the situation Barry, as seen from a high vantage point by somebody who benefits directly from the apparent inefficiency of the public-spend re-cycling of money. [the selflessness is noted]
So far...so what?
"an unholy cycle"
-Council Housing. This has paid for itself over the years, but seems to be too risky/inefficient/against the avowed ideology of all Political Partys capable of forming a Government. In addition to this, the rents are geared to match those of the private sector.
-Private sector rented accommodation. This IS the preferred way to go as viewed by past (and future?) Governments of all hues. This also ties-in with the House Purchase Market, through buy-to-let. [Why worry about one mortgage when you can have many mortgages and have your tenants do the worrying?]
So, the Private Sector sets the rent for all tenants. This same sector has a business plan that 'requires' high rents at the outset and steady and substantial incremental rises in rents ad-infinitum. The tenant then has the choice of paying a high rent or getting a mortgage of their own, this then inflates the market, house prices rise, the buy-to-let owners can then cash-in on their (now) empty properties.
While it is plain to see where the money goes. Where is the money to come from? The very first thing we hear in response to this question is that taxes cannot rise. There is then heard a muffled-waffling that the Private Sector is sure to lower rents. (??) In the mean-time those in rented accommodation face the stark choice of lowering their living standards towards zero, accruing greater debt or swallowing hard and renting smaller or more squalid accommodation (far from home?).
And so...if we disregard all and any talk of increased taxes. What can be done to lower the spend, but have less impact on the tenants in the rented sector? [It must be noted that as they cannot afford the rent they will not be able to afford a mortgage, so increased building, on brown-field or green-field, for sale is pointless]
The answer at the moment is not to bother worrying over any of this, just let the market take care of it.
BUT
Just as those with their credit-card problems may have to avail themselves of soup kitchens while keeping their spending down so there should be an avenue of relief for those who pay rent. As the Landlord will not take the same hint as the supermarket the Landlord will have to be made aware that he too has benefited in an overly generous fashion over the same period of past Government Largesse as the Teacher with their pension, as the public worker with their wages and rents should be capped.
Taxes too should rise. I hear otherwise, but know better.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW
About 4 or 5 million or maybe even more, would not agree with your comments on cuts "as yet they have not really bitten" or "People shout about them before they actually happen" in your #94 post.
Ok, you have convinced me, that you, are completely unaware of these cuts that are crippling parts of our society but many are struggling to survive these cuts, that you seem to think are a myth.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - 4 or 5 million - even 50 million, cannot change the economic reality.
Better economic stewardship since 1997 would have avoided a structural deficit developing as early as 2005, if so then there would be no need for cuts and put the UK in a strong position at the start of the cyclical slowdown in 2007. The problem was that Brown believed his own conceit, in his own words he claimed he had - 'banned boom and bust' and ran the economy as if he really had (a bit like King Canute....). There is the crux of the problem made worse by his spending slight of hand using off-balance sheet funding of revenue disguised as capital starting in 1997. All a matter of record and you cannot change the rules of economics, however you may wish otherwise, 1 plus 1 equals 2 and always will do.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW,
your #98 post'
As you put my name at the start of your last post, then I assume that it was meant for me but everything in that post has no reflection, what so-ever, with my post #97.
You say "cuts have not bitten yet"
I am trying to tell you that they "have"
My point is that simple.
Going off on one of your obscure rants about Brown & King Canute, has nothing to do what so-ever about whether the cuts are biting or not biting.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
garyc
do you realy expect anything else?
the cuts are happening and they are biting
and we have only just begun(98%more to come)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
