Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 17:19:55 GMT 1
Marcus Do you agree with the two points below? If not I’d like to debate them with you 1 The National Debt has risen under this administration 2.Although the deficit (i.e. net borrowing as a % of GNP) has halved since 2009 /10, it is still over double what it was in the years between 2000 and 2008 Yes, although the points are loaded with a pro left stance. 1. Of course national debt has risen, it will continue to rise too all the time we still have a deficit. I actually think the Tories have lowered this a lot more than Labour would have. 2. In the good years (between 2000-2008) we shouldn't have been running the economy in a deficit, this was a perfect example of Brown and Labour's irresponsible borrowing, at times where we could have been reducing the national debt, we were still spending more than we were making. Don't get me started on the selling of the UK's entire gold reserve when gold was at a record low prices, due to Brown announcing to the market that he was about to offload the entire UK gold reserve - AKA "Brown's Bottom". As much as Milliband is trying to make out things are going badly, I actually think the Tories have done a pretty good job of getting the economy heading in the right direction, considering what they inherited from the previous incumbents. If Labour get back in now, my worry is that we'll go through a time of instability as they try to turn things back to their way of vastly overspending. I don't think a change in direction is a good thing at the moment.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,189
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 1, 2015 17:28:38 GMT 1
Roughly £1.50 in petrol for the example I gave earlier - perhaps they'd get more food - I don't know. Alternatively, maybe they should go to the supermarket, which might be just as long a drive.... Or maybe they're popping in on the way home from work. Out of interest, since you're an expert on the matter - what did you do when you had to live on a £5 per person per week food budget after having an unexpected drop in your income? If it ever happened, even on the most basic of benefits hand outs, I'd prioritise food over drugs, fags, booze and Sky Sports, unlike many in our society nowadays. It's already been shown that a family of 4 can cook at roast chicken dinner, for under £1.25 each. Food is very cheap in the UK, anyone who can't afford it, no matter how badly off are not prioritising their spending properly. Mind you, we live in a society which has to remind the public of even basic things through public service adverts on the radio. We have a society with people too stupid to think for themselves. Money Advisory Service, Check your smoke alarms, How to behave in interviews... etc. At 44p per mile cost to run a car (HMRC official figures), couldn't they walk the 1.5 miles each way to save the fuel money? Seeing as they're that hard up that they are relying on food hand outs to survive? I think 44p per mile is pretty generous. Most likely that will take into account a whole range of factors that don't apply on low incomes. Depreciation will be greater on newer, more expensive cars which presumably aren't driven by users of food banks (and depreciation is a cost that's deferred until you come to replace the car anyway) and I suspect that is a major factor in the 44p figure. What makes you think they're necessarily making a special trip anyway? Couldn't they be popping in on their way back from work? I completely agree that people should prioritise food ahead of booze, fags and a telly - but I suspect that most do. Btw, did you watch the video I posted earlier?
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Apr 1, 2015 17:35:54 GMT 1
if you look hard enough you will find a different 'spin' on every single figure anyone can come up with...
I might even vote for the first politician who actually admits that the world economy is so complicated that he/she has little or no idea how or why it works..
The basic economics students will tell you what they learnt and pretend they make sense of it... the world produces things to buy and sell, once you start buying and selling something that does not actually exist then it becomes very, very vague..
|
|
|
Post by artysid on Apr 1, 2015 17:35:57 GMT 1
Marcus Do you agree with the two points below? If not I’d like to debate them with you 1 The National Debt has risen under this administration 2.Although the deficit (i.e. net borrowing as a % of GNP) has halved since 2009 /10, it is still over double what it was in the years between 2000 and 2008 Yes, although the points are loaded with a pro left stance. 1. Of course national debt has risen, it will continue to rise too all the time we still have a deficit. I actually think the Tories have lowered this a lot more than Labour would have. 2. In the good years (between 2000-2008) we shouldn't have been running the economy in a deficit, this was a perfect example of Brown and Labour's irresponsible borrowing, at times where we could have been reducing the national debt, we were still spending more than we were making. Don't get me started on the selling of the UK's entire gold reserve when gold was at a record low prices, due to Brown announcing to the market that he was about to offload the entire UK gold reserve - AKA "Brown's Bottom". As much as Milliband is trying to make out things are going badly, I actually think the Tories have done a pretty good job of getting the economy heading in the right direction, considering what they inherited from the previous incumbents. If Labour get back in now, my worry is that we'll go through a time of instability as they try to turn things back to their way of vastly overspending. I don't think a change in direction is a good thing at the moment. Well we can't disagree on point one. On point 2. I would agree governments don't always get the timing right when selling public assets (including publicly owned shares in Banks etc) though of course hindsight is a wonderful thing . I appreciated you would have preferred Labour not to have spent as they did but my recollection is that in 1997 Labour promised financial prudence and indeed over the next term performed far better than the Tory’s had. The next election they promised to increase expenditure on services, I assume the Tory’s promised to spend less. They won the election by a landslide and so started to do what they had promised, but still kept net borrowing at a level comparable with the previous Tory administration until the world recession hit- Indeed much better than between 92-97(Don't forget the Tory's had also taken the deficit up before they started to take it down). So your criticism seems to be that Labour promised to increase services rather than reduce the debt then continued to keep their promise (following which they got re-elected again), rather than doing what you (who I assume voted against them) wanted. Surely that’s what politics is all about? It could also be argued that in the previous years there had been substantial underinvestment in public infra structure e.g. Hospitals, Schools, Transport etc which needed to be redressed. Though it would be hard (for me certainly) to support some of the methods chosen to finance some of this e.g. PFI’s
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 17:37:33 GMT 1
I reckon this will be a 20 pager. Only 3 to go. Just vote UKIP and stop moaning you bastards.
|
|
|
Post by Christ in Shades (art) on Apr 1, 2015 17:40:01 GMT 1
If it ever happened, even on the most basic of benefits hand outs, I'd prioritise food over drugs, fags, booze and Sky Sports, unlike many in our society nowadays. It's already been shown that a family of 4 can cook at roast chicken dinner, for under £1.25 each. Food is very cheap in the UK, anyone who can't afford it, no matter how badly off are not prioritising their spending properly. Mind you, we live in a society which has to remind the public of even basic things through public service adverts on the radio. We have a society with people too stupid to think for themselves. Money Advisory Service, Check your smoke alarms, How to behave in interviews... etc. At 44p per mile cost to run a car (HMRC official figures), couldn't they walk the 1.5 miles each way to save the fuel money? Seeing as they're that hard up that they are relying on food hand outs to survive? Where do you get the idea that people using food banks can afford to run a car? Marcus saw someone one turn up at the food bank in a Merc and an Armani suit!!!
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,189
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 1, 2015 17:43:52 GMT 1
Marcus Do you agree with the two points below? If not I’d like to debate them with you 1 The National Debt has risen under this administration 2.Although the deficit (i.e. net borrowing as a % of GNP) has halved since 2009 /10, it is still over double what it was in the years between 2000 and 2008 Yes, although the points are loaded with a pro left stance. 1. Of course national debt has risen, it will continue to rise too all the time we still have a deficit. I actually think the Tories have lowered this a lot more than Labour would have. 2. In the good years (between 2000-2008) we shouldn't have been running the economy in a deficit, this was a perfect example of Brown and Labour's irresponsible borrowing, at times where we could have been reducing the national debt, we were still spending more than we were making. Don't get me started on the selling of the UK's entire gold reserve when gold was at a record low prices, due to Brown announcing to the market that he was about to offload the entire UK gold reserve - AKA "Brown's Bottom". As much as Milliband is trying to make out things are going badly, I actually think the Tories have done a pretty good job of getting the economy heading in the right direction, considering what they inherited from the previous incumbents. If Labour get back in now, my worry is that we'll go through a time of instability as they try to turn things back to their way of vastly overspending. I don't think a change in direction is a good thing at the moment. I agree with you here, other than to point out that it's not a Tory government, it's a Tory led coalition. It's debatable whether we'd be better or worse off under a Tory majority government, although a tax cut of £805pa for basic rate taxpayers instead of a tax cut of £540000 from inherited wealth.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,189
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 1, 2015 17:58:42 GMT 1
Yes, although the points are loaded with a pro left stance. 1. Of course national debt has risen, it will continue to rise too all the time we still have a deficit. I actually think the Tories have lowered this a lot more than Labour would have. 2. In the good years (between 2000-2008) we shouldn't have been running the economy in a deficit, this was a perfect example of Brown and Labour's irresponsible borrowing, at times where we could have been reducing the national debt, we were still spending more than we were making. Don't get me started on the selling of the UK's entire gold reserve when gold was at a record low prices, due to Brown announcing to the market that he was about to offload the entire UK gold reserve - AKA "Brown's Bottom". As much as Milliband is trying to make out things are going badly, I actually think the Tories have done a pretty good job of getting the economy heading in the right direction, considering what they inherited from the previous incumbents. If Labour get back in now, my worry is that we'll go through a time of instability as they try to turn things back to their way of vastly overspending. I don't think a change in direction is a good thing at the moment. Well we can't disagree on point one. On point 2. I would agree governments don't always get the timing right when selling public assets (including publicly owned shares in Banks etc) though of course hindsight is a wonderful thing . I appreciated you would have preferred Labour not to have spent as they did but my recollection is that in 1997 Labour promised financial prudence and indeed over the next term performed far better than the Tory’s had. The next election they promised to increase expenditure on services, I assume the Tory’s promised to spend less. They won the election by a landslide and so started to do what they had promised, but still kept net borrowing at a level comparable with the previous Tory administration until the world recession hit- Indeed much better than between 92-97(Don't forget the Tory's had also taken the deficit up before they started to take it down). So your criticism seems to be that Labour promised to increase services rather than reduce the debt then continued to keep their promise (following which they got re-elected again), rather than doing what you (who I assume voted against them) wanted. Surely that’s what politics is all about? It could also be argued that in the previous years there had been substantial underinvestment in public infra structure e.g. Hospitals, Schools, Transport etc which needed to be redressed. Though it would be hard (for me certainly) to support some of the methods chosen to finance some of this e.g. PFI’s If only Labour had kept their promise on tuition fees.... Come to think of it, if only they'd not changed their minds about PFI, after opposing it so vociferously when John Major's government were in power. To be fair though, you make a good point. I wonder though, how much people trusted Gordon Brown's promise of the end of boom and bust. Either way, Labour's decision to run the economy at a deficit even when the economy was doing well (and deregulate the banks, although at least he admits that was a mistake) has left us in a far worse position than we needed to be. Of course the deficit during an economic slump is greater than during an economic boom! There shouldn't be a deficit at all during the boom years!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 18:01:03 GMT 1
I reckon this will be a 20 pager. Only 3 to go. Just vote UKIP and stop moaning you bastards. Why would you vote UKIP?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 18:04:14 GMT 1
Only 3 to go. Just vote UKIP and stop moaning you bastards. Why would you vote UKIP? I'm not, I'm not voting. But they haven't had as much air time as the other failures so wanted to give balance.
|
|
|
Post by mickydombat on Apr 1, 2015 18:07:43 GMT 1
Why wouldn't you vote for a party that wants Britain out of uk and jobs for British people and speak common sense which is I admit sadly lacking on here most of the time.
|
|
ligament
Darren Bullock Terrier
[M0:10] those were the days........
Posts: 874
|
Post by ligament on Apr 1, 2015 18:09:21 GMT 1
why not?
|
|
|
Post by mickydombat on Apr 1, 2015 18:22:28 GMT 1
Ok out of EU was distracted by some labouring outside.
|
|
|
Post by workshyfop on Apr 1, 2015 19:24:36 GMT 1
Ok out of EU was distracted by some labouring outside. Bet they were filthy immigrants stealing our jobs too ...
|
|
|
Post by HuddsTerrier on Apr 1, 2015 20:16:03 GMT 1
EuropeThe Tory’s took us into Europe after they had negotiated the terms of our entry including the transfer of powers from Parliament, and Immigration. Thereafter it was Mrs Thatcher (despite her anti Europe image) who transferred more powers to Europe(e.g. through the Single European Act of 1986 and the Maastricht Treaty) than any Prime Minister before or since. ImmigrationHistorically Immigration has always been a feature of this country’s economic life. Current immigration can be divided into two categories - controllable immigration (e.g. from non EEC countries), and uncontrollable (i.e. from the EEC) immigration. Non EEC Immigration The active encouragement of post war large scale Immigration of predominantly low skilled black people and Asians began in the late 50’s early 60’s under the then Tory administration. The single major influx (of highly skilled, well educated, entrepreneurial Ugandan Asians) took place in the early 70’s again when a Tory administration was in power. Controllable immigration has actually increased under this current Tory administration. It is speculative to say whether the situation would have differed significantly under Labour, I doubt it, but what is fact is that anyone who voted for this government believing they would reduce immigration has been let down. EEC immigration A direct result of the Tory’s negotiating the terms of, and taking us into the EEC. Essentially migration within the EEC cannot be controlled unless we leave it. When politicians make promises about controlling it (other than those who would take us out of the EEC) they are lying. Labour could have delayed but not prevented immigration from the new East European Member States but again immigration from within the EEC has continued to rise under this administration. Underlining the immigration debate is the ironic possibility that given a falling birth rate and longer life expectancy, future governments whether we stay in the EEC or not, may be faced with the prospect of having to attract large numbers of economically active immigrants to sustain the economic growth needed to support an ageing population. Undoubtably the Tories took us into Europe (and sorted a rebate) but why are Labour so against a referendum on Europe? Maybe because Labour are scared the outcome of a referendum will be to leave Just because you don't fancy the outcome doesn't mean you can suppress democracy! next they will say English voters can't have the same rights as Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish voters... oh that's right they don't and Labour like it that way!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 21:25:57 GMT 1
Yes, although the points are loaded with a pro left stance. 1. Of course national debt has risen, it will continue to rise too all the time we still have a deficit. I actually think the Tories have lowered this a lot more than Labour would have. 2. In the good years (between 2000-2008) we shouldn't have been running the economy in a deficit, this was a perfect example of Brown and Labour's irresponsible borrowing, at times where we could have been reducing the national debt, we were still spending more than we were making. Don't get me started on the selling of the UK's entire gold reserve when gold was at a record low prices, due to Brown announcing to the market that he was about to offload the entire UK gold reserve - AKA "Brown's Bottom". As much as Milliband is trying to make out things are going badly, I actually think the Tories have done a pretty good job of getting the economy heading in the right direction, considering what they inherited from the previous incumbents. If Labour get back in now, my worry is that we'll go through a time of instability as they try to turn things back to their way of vastly overspending. I don't think a change in direction is a good thing at the moment. Well we can't disagree on point one. On point 2. I would agree governments don't always get the timing right when selling public assets (including publicly owned shares in Banks etc) though of course hindsight is a wonderful thing . I appreciated you would have preferred Labour not to have spent as they did but my recollection is that in 1997 Labour promised financial prudence and indeed over the next term performed far better than the Tory’s had. The next election they promised to increase expenditure on services, I assume the Tory’s promised to spend less. They won the election by a landslide and so started to do what they had promised, but still kept net borrowing at a level comparable with the previous Tory administration until the world recession hit- Indeed much better than between 92-97(Don't forget the Tory's had also taken the deficit up before they started to take it down). So your criticism seems to be that Labour promised to increase services rather than reduce the debt then continued to keep their promise (following which they got re-elected again), rather than doing what you (who I assume voted against them) wanted. Surely that’s what politics is all about? It could also be argued that in the previous years there had been substantial underinvestment in public infra structure e.g. Hospitals, Schools, Transport etc which needed to be redressed. Though it would be hard (for me certainly) to support some of the methods chosen to finance some of this e.g. PFI’s The timing of selling our gold was not bad timing, Brown assured a record low price of gold before he sold it. Google "Brown's bottom" and you'll understand what a monumental financial screw up he was.
|
|
|
Post by hotshot on Apr 1, 2015 21:31:56 GMT 1
I'm will be voting for Jason McCartney and the Conservatives not because he is a town fan but because he is a good MP and because Labour seem intent on spend spend spend so will not get my vote even though according to some socialists on here, they seem to think Labour have a god given right to the working class vote.
I guess that is why they hated Margaret Thatcher so much because many of her aspirational home owning policies proved hugely popular to working people!!
Every time Labour leave leave office it's left to the Tories to have to sort out the mess they leave the country in. A successful economy is the only way to provide all the extra funding on public services and you don't get that without allowing 'wealth creation' a concept seemingly alien to the Labour Party who strike me as very anti business and aspiration these days.
Vote Conservative for aspiration and a brighter future for all!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 21:45:48 GMT 1
Labour buy votes by spending money we don't have.its there only policy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 22:48:33 GMT 1
I'm will be voting for Jason McCartney and the Conservatives not because he is a town fan but because he is a good MP and because Labour seem intent on spend spend spend so will not get my vote even though according to some socialists on here, they seem to think Labour have a god given right to the working class vote. I guess that is why they hated Margaret Thatcher so much because many of her aspirational home owning policies proved hugely popular to working people!! Every time Labour leave leave office it's left to the Tories to have to sort out the mess they leave the country in. A successful economy is the only way to provide all the extra funding on public services and you don't get that without allowing 'wealth creation' a concept seemingly alien to the Labour Party who strike me as very anti business and aspiration these days. Vote Conservative for aspiration and a brighter future for all! Thatcher's aspirational home owning policies has left a desperate need for social housing and council run houses. We're in the midst of a housing crisis, especially in the south east and home associations have certainly not been the answer as they're in it for the money. Governments, both Tory and Labour have failed to build the houses that this nation requires in the past 30 years. As for the extra funding for public services, you won't be seeing that under the Tories anytime soon. Huge cuts expected and they don't dare detail them before the election. As a constituent of the Colne Valley guess how many public libraries will that constituency will have unless funding is found? ONE - Meltham and that is down to volunteers. A valuable public service destroyed. Let's not mention another valuable service in the Royal Mail being sold off under this government for far less than it's actual worth and the benefactors of that sale... Or the re-privatisation of the profitable East Coast Main Line. Labour being anti-business is also a myth. Clearly you woke up this morning and saw the front page of The Telegraph. Yet many small businesses are still angry about the rise in VAT, the thing David Cameron promised not to do in 2009. They're not anti business, they just wish to tax bigger businesses more since corporation tax in this country is one of the lowest in the world. As for Mr McCartney. He's an affable chap but not that good an MP. The two previous MPs for the Colne Valley Mountford (LAB) and Riddick (CON) did a hell of a lot more for it's constituents. He loves a good photo opportunity though.
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Apr 1, 2015 23:08:48 GMT 1
Yeah Thatcher was the darling of the working classes as I remember ..... Jeez
|
|
|
Post by hotshot on Apr 2, 2015 1:52:21 GMT 1
I'm will be voting for Jason McCartney and the Conservatives not because he is a town fan but because he is a good MP and because Labour seem intent on spend spend spend so will not get my vote even though according to some socialists on here, they seem to think Labour have a god given right to the working class vote. I guess that is why they hated Margaret Thatcher so much because many of her aspirational home owning policies proved hugely popular to working people!! Every time Labour leave leave office it's left to the Tories to have to sort out the mess they leave the country in. A successful economy is the only way to provide all the extra funding on public services and you don't get that without allowing 'wealth creation' a concept seemingly alien to the Labour Party who strike me as very anti business and aspiration these days. Vote Conservative for aspiration and a brighter future for all! Thatcher's aspirational home owning policies has left a desperate need for social housing and council run houses. We're in the midst of a housing crisis, especially in the south east and home associations have certainly not been the answer as they're in it for the money. Governments, both Tory and Labour have failed to build the houses that this nation requires in the past 30 years. As for the extra funding for public services, you won't be seeing that under the Tories anytime soon. Huge cuts expected and they don't dare detail them before the election. As a constituent of the Colne Valley guess how many public libraries will that constituency will have unless funding is found? ONE - Meltham and that is down to volunteers. A valuable public service destroyed. Let's not mention another valuable service in the Royal Mail being sold off under this government for far less than it's actual worth and the benefactors of that sale... Or the re-privatisation of the profitable East Coast Main Line. Labour being anti-business is also a myth. Clearly you woke up this morning and saw the front page of The Telegraph. Yet many small businesses are still angry about the rise in VAT, the thing David Cameron promised not to do in 2009. They're not anti business, they just wish to tax bigger businesses more since corporation tax in this country is one of the lowest in the world. As for Mr McCartney. He's an affable chap but not that good an MP. The two previous MPs for the Colne Valley Mountford (LAB) and Riddick (CON) did a hell of a lot more for it's constituents. He loves a good photo opportunity though. You make your points well! As for The Chippendale have a look at this documentary backs up my statement that she was liked amongst a lot of the working class and actually hated by a lot of the upper class establishment. MARGARET THATCHER - Death of a Revolutionary - CH4
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,189
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 2, 2015 6:59:29 GMT 1
Labour buy votes by spending money we don't have.its there only policy No it isn't. They have the 'making pointlessly restrictive laws' policy as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 11:31:52 GMT 1
I'm will be voting for Jason McCartney and the Conservatives not because he is a town fan but because he is a good MP and because Labour seem intent on spend spend spend so will not get my vote even though according to some socialists on here, they seem to think Labour have a god given right to the working class vote. I guess that is why they hated Margaret Thatcher so much because many of her aspirational home owning policies proved hugely popular to working people!! Every time Labour leave leave office it's left to the Tories to have to sort out the mess they leave the country in. A successful economy is the only way to provide all the extra funding on public services and you don't get that without allowing 'wealth creation' a concept seemingly alien to the Labour Party who strike me as very anti business and aspiration these days. Vote Conservative for aspiration and a brighter future for all! Before you go banging on about Thatcher being aspirational I'd encourage you to have a read of this. I found this link last year and although it's a fair old slog you might get the view that right to buy wasn't so great... www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n01/james-meek/where-will-we-liveEqually there was a documentary a few months back around foreign investment in UK property/land & it wasn't restricted to commercial property or London/South East. This was wealth from the emerging economic nations coming to property fairs to buy up pockets of the UK. An alarming context was the number of local authorities from all over the country who had stands to sell off their assets to these investors (presumably to offset the cuts they continue to face). It was slightly symbolic (for me at least) of our Empire days slowly going into reverse & although I can't envisage a day when we'd be raped & pillaged, on an economic scale, less and less of this country will belong to the people and it will be the wealthiest on a more global scale that will call the shots for taking that nice country walk or visiting our heritage sites... The point here is simply that people ridicule suggestions that things happening today are set in stone and triggered by events and in times that are still relevant, hence the reason Thatcher remains a divisive figure. The "move on and get over it" brigade need to think beyond the end of their own noses...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 14:35:25 GMT 1
I agree with you here, other than to point out that it's not a Tory government, it's a Tory led coalition. It's debatable whether we'd be better or worse off under a Tory majority government, although a tax cut of £805pa for basic rate taxpayers instead of a tax cut of £540000 from inherited wealth. You're right. I often forget that the Lib Dem's are part of it too at times. The raising of the personal allowance has benefited the lower paid by a reasonable amount and as far as I remember, the Lib Dems were the ones who championed this. It's gone up from £6,475 in 2010 to £10,600 this year, meaning no tax is paid on the first £883 a month now, rather than the 2010 amount of £539. Making minimum wage and all basic rate tax payers £825 a year better off than under Labour taxation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 21:03:25 GMT 1
I'm will be voting for Jason McCartney and the Conservatives not because he is a town fan but because he is a good MP and because Labour seem intent on spend spend spend so will not get my vote even though according to some socialists on here, they seem to think Labour have a god given right to the working class vote. I guess that is why they hated Margaret Thatcher so much because many of her aspirational home owning policies proved hugely popular to working people!! Every time Labour leave leave office it's left to the Tories to have to sort out the mess they leave the country in. A successful economy is the only way to provide all the extra funding on public services and you don't get that without allowing 'wealth creation' a concept seemingly alien to the Labour Party who strike me as very anti business and aspiration these days. Vote Conservative for aspiration and a brighter future for all! Thatcher's aspirational home owning policies has left a desperate need for social housing and council run houses. We're in the midst of a housing crisis, especially in the south east and home associations have certainly not been the answer as they're in it for the money. Governments, both Tory and Labour have failed to build the houses that this nation requires in the past 30 years. As for the extra funding for public services, you won't be seeing that under the Tories anytime soon. Huge cuts expected and they don't dare detail them before the election. As a constituent of the Colne Valley guess how many public libraries will that constituency will have unless funding is found? ONE - Meltham and that is down to volunteers. A valuable public service destroyed. Let's not mention another valuable service in the Royal Mail being sold off under this government for far less than it's actual worth and the benefactors of that sale... Or the re-privatisation of the profitable East Coast Main Line. Labour being anti-business is also a myth. Clearly you woke up this morning and saw the front page of The Telegraph. Yet many small businesses are still angry about the rise in VAT, the thing David Cameron promised not to do in 2009. They're not anti business, they just wish to tax bigger businesses more since corporation tax in this country is one of the lowest in the world. As for Mr McCartney. He's an affable chap but not that good an MP. The two previous MPs for the Colne Valley Mountford (LAB) and Riddick (CON) did a hell of a lot more for it's constituents. He loves a good photo opportunity though. Why is it up to the Government to build and provide you with a house? Boy I don't miss that attitude.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,189
|
Post by Tinpot on Apr 2, 2015 21:15:59 GMT 1
You prefer people to live/die on the street?
|
|
|
Post by Christ in Shades (art) on Apr 2, 2015 21:53:15 GMT 1
Thatcher's aspirational home owning policies has left a desperate need for social housing and council run houses. We're in the midst of a housing crisis, especially in the south east and home associations have certainly not been the answer as they're in it for the money. Governments, both Tory and Labour have failed to build the houses that this nation requires in the past 30 years. As for the extra funding for public services, you won't be seeing that under the Tories anytime soon. Huge cuts expected and they don't dare detail them before the election. As a constituent of the Colne Valley guess how many public libraries will that constituency will have unless funding is found? ONE - Meltham and that is down to volunteers. A valuable public service destroyed. Let's not mention another valuable service in the Royal Mail being sold off under this government for far less than it's actual worth and the benefactors of that sale... Or the re-privatisation of the profitable East Coast Main Line. Labour being anti-business is also a myth. Clearly you woke up this morning and saw the front page of The Telegraph. Yet many small businesses are still angry about the rise in VAT, the thing David Cameron promised not to do in 2009. They're not anti business, they just wish to tax bigger businesses more since corporation tax in this country is one of the lowest in the world. As for Mr McCartney. He's an affable chap but not that good an MP. The two previous MPs for the Colne Valley Mountford (LAB) and Riddick (CON) did a hell of a lot more for it's constituents. He loves a good photo opportunity though. Why is it up to the Government to build and provide you with a house? Boy I don't miss that attitude. Come in mate you're having a shocker. You do understand why council houses and social housing was first built in the 50's don't you? And that there is still a need for social housing and you do know also you can also buy your council house?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 21:55:37 GMT 1
You prefer people to live/die on the street? I prefer people that can work go out and get off their lazy backsides and earn what they have instead if sponging off other people their entire lives. A safety net is not supposed to be a way of life. Private industry can provide houses if people go out and work for a living.
|
|
|
Post by Christ in Shades (art) on Apr 2, 2015 22:01:45 GMT 1
You prefer people to live/die on the street? I prefer people that can work go out and get off their lazy backsides and earn what they have instead if sponging off other people their entire lives. A safety net is not supposed to be a way of life. Private industry can provide houses if people go out and work for a living. They don't build affordable housing 150k for a house isn't affordable!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 22:23:43 GMT 1
I know all about purchasing council houses. My parents did that in the 80s.
If there is a market private builders will build. If you have decent credit you can get a mortgage.
I have no problem with a safety net but it should be a hand up not a hand out.
|
|