| Johnson v Corbyn 21:06 - Nov 19 with 11913 views | bosh67 |
Anyone else watch this car crash on ITV? |  |
| |  |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 12:13 - Nov 27 with 1292 views | stevec |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 12:06 - Nov 27 by Rangersw12 |
Haven't the Tories borrowed around £850 billion in the last 9 years ? |
You've probably seen films about runaway trains, takes a long time to get the brakes to work.
Since 2008 the spending commitments still need to be met and the golden goose ain't fckin laying any more. |  | | |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 12:30 - Nov 27 with 1253 views | DannytheR |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 12:13 - Nov 27 by stevec |
You've probably seen films about runaway trains, takes a long time to get the brakes to work.
Since 2008 the spending commitments still need to be met and the golden goose ain't fckin laying any more. |
Did the golden goose spend those public millions on Joanna Lumley's garden bridge, Steve?
Wonder how many teaching jobs could have been paid for with all those Brexit 50ps... |  | | |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 12:33 - Nov 27 with 1243 views | stevec |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 12:30 - Nov 27 by DannytheR |
Did the golden goose spend those public millions on Joanna Lumley's garden bridge, Steve?
Wonder how many teaching jobs could have been paid for with all those Brexit 50ps... |
Agree, but what you're talking about there Danny is loose change in comparison. | | | |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 12:42 - Nov 27 with 1231 views | DannytheR |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 12:33 - Nov 27 by stevec |
Agree, but what you're talking about there Danny is loose change in comparison. |
Not really a lot of economic literacy in evidence though, eh?
Stripping the budget for state schools and pushing disabled people off benefits is hardly the stuff of genius.
Worth bearing in mind that many of us in London might be voting Labour not because we're elitist luvvies, but because we've already had to settle Boris Johnson's bills for his various cable cars and water cannon. | | | |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 13:49 - Nov 27 with 1167 views | CamberleyR |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 10:35 - Nov 27 by stevec |
Aside of the racism, it's scary how Labour policy is so ill thought through.
Corbyn genuinely didn't have a clue how to fund £58 billion on womens pensions. If by some miracle he got in, it would take less time than Callaghan's or Blair/Browns Labour government to bankrupt the country once more.
The Tories would get back in, then another 10 years of austerity to give the nations bank account some respectability, and then no doubt a new reinvented Labour party to come in and wreck the place all over again.
This cycle needs to stop. Give the Tories a chance to have a go at something other than austerity. If they screw up then kick them out.
I don't know if the young have noticed but whilst they're understandably peeved about their lesser chances of climbing the ladder than we had, it might be worth noting that all the over 60's with their houses, savings and pension funds, largely accumulated them from the kick start we got in the 1980's and that era was overseen by the erm... Tory party. |
Steve, to save you and anyone else again in the future perpetuating the myth that Jim Callaghan's government bankrupted Britain, it didn't. The IMF loan asked for in 1976 was not due to the government's massive spending on public services, it was primarily because of a catastrophic drop of about 20% in the fall of the value of sterling between 1972 and 1976 and the loan was primarily for stabilising the value of the pound to stop it collapsing completely.
The pound had fallen in value due to a number of factors. The incoming Labour government in February 1974 that took over from Heath was given the shittiest of shitty sticks. Just after taking over, the National Institute for Economic & Social Research reported:
"It is not often that a government finds itself confronted with a possibility of a simultaneous failure to achieve all four main policy objectives: Low economic growth (in fact the economy immediately went into recession), full employment (unemployment was heading towards a million and rising), a satisfactory balance of payments, and reasonable, stable prices (inflation was about 8-9%)". Adding fuel to the fire was the recent quadrupling of oil prices in October 1973.
At the time we didn't believe in floating exchange rates but a managed one fearing that depreciation lead to economic instability. High inflation, a current account deficit, weak exports and general economic uncertainty were all putting downward pressure on the value of Sterling.
It was felt at the time that sterling continuing to drop would put further pressure on the high inflation rate so the decision was made to prop the pound up and go to the IMF for the bailout which was given with conditions of higher interest rates and cutting government spending to reduce the budget deficit. Ironically it is seen now that had we used a floating exchange rate at the time that the bailout may not have been needed.
After the bailout, the economy started to improve in 1977 and 1978 with steady rates of growth, aided by North Sea oil revenues, inflation falling and the pound appreciating in value. The full value of the $3.9 billion loan wasn't taken and it was repaid by 1979.
If you have an hour to spare, this video here goes into more detail of the economic crisis of 1976 leading to the bailout and is worth a watch.
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-imf-crisis-1976 [Post edited 27 Nov 2019 14:00]
|  |
| |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 14:45 - Nov 27 with 1074 views | connell10 |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 10:56 - Nov 27 by Ned_Kennedys |
Very mature response.
That's another political thread soon to be in the bin then. |
Do you really think i give a f uck mate, the sooner this thread is closed the better! |  |
| AND WHEN I DREAM , I DREAM ABOUT YOU AND WHEN I SCREAM I SCREAM ABOUT YOU!!!!! | | Poll: | best number 10 ever? |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Johnson v Corbyn on 14:56 - Nov 27 with 1058 views | Ned_Kennedys |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 14:45 - Nov 27 by connell10 |
Do you really think i give a f uck mate, the sooner this thread is closed the better! |
How about trying not to click on the thread title and read it then? |  | | |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 15:00 - Nov 27 with 1039 views | TacticalR |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 12:42 - Nov 27 by DannytheR |
Not really a lot of economic literacy in evidence though, eh?
Stripping the budget for state schools and pushing disabled people off benefits is hardly the stuff of genius.
Worth bearing in mind that many of us in London might be voting Labour not because we're elitist luvvies, but because we've already had to settle Boris Johnson's bills for his various cable cars and water cannon. |
And state-funded floozies. |  |
| |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 15:07 - Nov 27 with 1015 views | DannytheR |
"BBC News Press Team
@BBCNewsPR 31m
For those asking when Boris Johnson's interview will take place [with Andrew Neil], we're in ongoing discussions with his team but we haven't yet been able to fix a date"
What a shock.
Still as Johnson's whole life has proved, it's easier to win when you don't play by the same rules. [Post edited 27 Nov 2019 15:07]
| | | |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 15:13 - Nov 27 with 1001 views | CamberleyR |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 15:07 - Nov 27 by DannytheR |
"BBC News Press Team
@BBCNewsPR 31m
For those asking when Boris Johnson's interview will take place [with Andrew Neil], we're in ongoing discussions with his team but we haven't yet been able to fix a date"
What a shock.
Still as Johnson's whole life has proved, it's easier to win when you don't play by the same rules. [Post edited 27 Nov 2019 15:07]
|
Hopefully he'll be as ill prepared for it as he was for his infamous car crash interview with Eddie Mair a few years ago, the one where he told Johnson that "this isn't a Two Ronnies sketch, where you answer the question before last". | |
| |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 15:19 - Nov 27 with 984 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 11:56 - Nov 27 by stevec |
It was, totally the banks, but don't lose sight of what went on before.
Labour were overspending from 2000 to 2007, fine if the golden goose kept laying its eggs, but once it stopped there was no way to meet spending commitments hence this prolonged period of austerity (too long to be fair).
So what caused this over reliance on the golden goose? Basically, Blair and Brown committed a gross act of negligence by handing the keys of the economy over to the banks in the late 1990's.
It was done on a quid pro quo basis, whereby the banks were asked to keep interest rates low (the key to getting re-elected, which they did) and in return the banks had free run to make profits pretty much however they liked. Profits make taxes etc, hence the plan to cover Labour's mental overspend.
So how do banks make money out of low interest rates? Simple, they lend more and at ever increasing amounts. Why lend £100 grand to buy a £120 grand house when you can lend £200 grand which, via supply and demand, forces the house price up to £220 grand.
And that is why, when the market saturated, they carried it on by lending subprime mortgages and the whole fckin roof fell in.
That is the salutary lesson about having a Labour government, they are economically illiterate and it bites everyone on the árse, even after they're long gone and forgotten. |
Yep it's easy and convenient to blame the banks for the recession but as you say Blair and Brown empowered them and failed to regulate them correctly. The Labour government of the day were accountable and ultimately to blame. |  | | |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 15:23 - Nov 27 with 970 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 11:30 - Nov 23 by Watford_Ranger |
That’s how it would be spun, probably. Any deal is effectively damage limitation from the deal we have now. People would have some facts this time to make an informed choice. The Cameron method went horribly wrong so why not be dispassionate about it and let our great electorate decide after the joy of the last three years? |
Because Corbyn is not even offering Leave as an option on the ballot despite 52% of the population voting for it at the 2016 referendum. | | | |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 15:31 - Nov 27 with 950 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 10:35 - Nov 27 by stevec |
Aside of the racism, it's scary how Labour policy is so ill thought through.
Corbyn genuinely didn't have a clue how to fund £58 billion on womens pensions. If by some miracle he got in, it would take less time than Callaghan's or Blair/Browns Labour government to bankrupt the country once more.
The Tories would get back in, then another 10 years of austerity to give the nations bank account some respectability, and then no doubt a new reinvented Labour party to come in and wreck the place all over again.
This cycle needs to stop. Give the Tories a chance to have a go at something other than austerity. If they screw up then kick them out.
I don't know if the young have noticed but whilst they're understandably peeved about their lesser chances of climbing the ladder than we had, it might be worth noting that all the over 60's with their houses, savings and pension funds, largely accumulated them from the kick start we got in the 1980's and that era was overseen by the erm... Tory party. |
I'm bored of that cycle too. A Labour government wastes money then a Tory government introduces austerity only for the next Labour government to overspend again. Either give the Tories a chance to build on the shoots of recovery they planted or give someone new a chance. What we don't need is another Labour government taking us to the economic brink again. | | | |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 16:42 - Nov 27 with 881 views | DWQPR |
This Labour Party is about as disingenuous as a political party could get, talk about buying votes. The latest being the WASPI women. I mean let’s out this into perspective. The decision to raise the state pension age for women was taken in 1995 and would commence in 2010. It was as much about reducing the costs for public finances as it was about equality for men and women. I’ve heard those ‘effected’ bleating that they didn’t have time to prepare for retiring later! Christ those born in April 1954 had an extra five years, had time to make five years more NI contributions to ensure maximum pension benefit and if they had taken time off work to raise a family they could have applied for dispensation up to 15 years to account for this.
The change was tapered as well meaning that those who were born in April 1950 had their retirements deferred by no more than a month, May 1950, two months and so on and so forth. They have never paid a higher rate than men to deserve an earlier retirement and the only reasoning for retiring early at 60 was an out dated thought that it was because they were women. And the poor souls only went and rubbed it in by living longer than men on average and thus getting pension income for longer!
So for me this latest electoral bribe by Labour is a complete and utter waste of £58billion. Still the WASPI’s will soon be joining us all in paying it back by increased taxation, and certainly not just for the so called wealthy above £80k a year. |  |
| |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 17:29 - Nov 27 with 825 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 16:42 - Nov 27 by DWQPR |
This Labour Party is about as disingenuous as a political party could get, talk about buying votes. The latest being the WASPI women. I mean let’s out this into perspective. The decision to raise the state pension age for women was taken in 1995 and would commence in 2010. It was as much about reducing the costs for public finances as it was about equality for men and women. I’ve heard those ‘effected’ bleating that they didn’t have time to prepare for retiring later! Christ those born in April 1954 had an extra five years, had time to make five years more NI contributions to ensure maximum pension benefit and if they had taken time off work to raise a family they could have applied for dispensation up to 15 years to account for this.
The change was tapered as well meaning that those who were born in April 1950 had their retirements deferred by no more than a month, May 1950, two months and so on and so forth. They have never paid a higher rate than men to deserve an earlier retirement and the only reasoning for retiring early at 60 was an out dated thought that it was because they were women. And the poor souls only went and rubbed it in by living longer than men on average and thus getting pension income for longer!
So for me this latest electoral bribe by Labour is a complete and utter waste of £58billion. Still the WASPI’s will soon be joining us all in paying it back by increased taxation, and certainly not just for the so called wealthy above £80k a year. |
I honestly don’t know where to start  |  |
| |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 17:43 - Nov 27 with 804 views | R_from_afar |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 15:19 - Nov 27 by Benny_the_Ball |
Yep it's easy and convenient to blame the banks for the recession but as you say Blair and Brown empowered them and failed to regulate them correctly. The Labour government of the day were accountable and ultimately to blame. |
But at the time, the Conservatives were arguing in favour or regulating them even less.... |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 18:50 - Nov 27 with 744 views | francisbowles |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 16:42 - Nov 27 by DWQPR |
This Labour Party is about as disingenuous as a political party could get, talk about buying votes. The latest being the WASPI women. I mean let’s out this into perspective. The decision to raise the state pension age for women was taken in 1995 and would commence in 2010. It was as much about reducing the costs for public finances as it was about equality for men and women. I’ve heard those ‘effected’ bleating that they didn’t have time to prepare for retiring later! Christ those born in April 1954 had an extra five years, had time to make five years more NI contributions to ensure maximum pension benefit and if they had taken time off work to raise a family they could have applied for dispensation up to 15 years to account for this.
The change was tapered as well meaning that those who were born in April 1950 had their retirements deferred by no more than a month, May 1950, two months and so on and so forth. They have never paid a higher rate than men to deserve an earlier retirement and the only reasoning for retiring early at 60 was an out dated thought that it was because they were women. And the poor souls only went and rubbed it in by living longer than men on average and thus getting pension income for longer!
So for me this latest electoral bribe by Labour is a complete and utter waste of £58billion. Still the WASPI’s will soon be joining us all in paying it back by increased taxation, and certainly not just for the so called wealthy above £80k a year. |
Just to add to the pension facts, a woman born in February 1953 got her pension at age 62 years and 10 months but a woman born in May 1953 had to wait until she was 66 years.
The latter did get a higher state pension but the earlier had the opportunity to defer hers which would probably get close to or even reach that level within the the three years or alternatively deferring can be taken as a lump sum. | | | |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 20:20 - Nov 27 with 675 views | Watford_Ranger |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 15:23 - Nov 27 by Benny_the_Ball |
Because Corbyn is not even offering Leave as an option on the ballot despite 52% of the population voting for it at the 2016 referendum. |
He’s offering something akin to the glorious Norway deal promoted by Lord Farage before the referendum. | | | |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 21:05 - Nov 27 with 649 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 20:20 - Nov 27 by Watford_Ranger |
He’s offering something akin to the glorious Norway deal promoted by Lord Farage before the referendum. |
He's proposing to negotiate a deal that keeps the UK in the Customs Union and the Single Market but, as we've already seen, you can't cherry pick with the EU so with those come freedom of movement of people and EU sovereignty. In short, Corbyn's 2nd referendum ballot choice would be between 'Sort of Remain' v. 'Remain'. If he believes in democracy and is genuinely neutral then he would add 'Leave' to the ballot paper. | | | |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 21:14 - Nov 27 with 638 views | Watford_Ranger |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 21:05 - Nov 27 by Benny_the_Ball |
He's proposing to negotiate a deal that keeps the UK in the Customs Union and the Single Market but, as we've already seen, you can't cherry pick with the EU so with those come freedom of movement of people and EU sovereignty. In short, Corbyn's 2nd referendum ballot choice would be between 'Sort of Remain' v. 'Remain'. If he believes in democracy and is genuinely neutral then he would add 'Leave' to the ballot paper. |
Leave was on the last ballot paper. It didn’t mention unnecessarily cnting the country off in the process. | | | |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 03:51 - Nov 28 with 577 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 21:14 - Nov 27 by Watford_Ranger |
Leave was on the last ballot paper. It didn’t mention unnecessarily cnting the country off in the process. |
So was Remain even though no one in this country voted to join the EU in the first place.
Personally I think that Parliament should respect the result of the 2016 referendum but if we must have a 2nd one then 'Leave' should be the first option on the ballot paper. Anything less is an affront to democracy. [Post edited 28 Nov 2019 4:06]
| | | |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 06:03 - Nov 28 with 551 views | QPR_Jim |
| Johnson v Corbyn on 03:51 - Nov 28 by Benny_the_Ball |
So was Remain even though no one in this country voted to join the EU in the first place.
Personally I think that Parliament should respect the result of the 2016 referendum but if we must have a 2nd one then 'Leave' should be the first option on the ballot paper. Anything less is an affront to democracy. [Post edited 28 Nov 2019 4:06]
|
Out of interest do you consider the Boris/ May deal leaving or does it need to be no deal in order to be a proper leave? |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
