MP to accept ‘badly timed’ pay increase

Swindon Advertiser: MPs Justin Tomlinson and Robert Buckland MPs Justin Tomlinson and Robert Buckland

PLANS to award MPs an 11 per cent pay increase in 2015 has been met with a mixed reaction from Swindon’s local elected members.

South Swindon MP Robert Buckland said he would accept the wage rise.

However, North Swindon MP Justin Tomlinson said it is too soon to say as the proposals have still not been confirmed.

Parliamentary watchdog Ipsa is expected to announce on Thursday a recommended rise of £7,600 to the average MP salary of £66,000 currently paid annually – bringing their total up to £74,000 per year.

Ipsa said the extra funding was needed to bring England’s politicians in line with those around Europe.

Mr Buckland said if he was elected again after the 2015 general election, when the pay increase would be brought in, he would accept the bonus to his wage but he would increase the amount of money he donated towards good causes.

He said the principle of an outside body deciding an MPs salary was something he agreed with and one which was important to support.

“I don’t like to talk too much about the causes I support financially but I would look to adjust the amount of money I gave to charity accordingly,” said Mr Buckland.

“In the dark days MPs used to decide their own pay rises which I thought was wrong. It is right that we have an independent body to decide now.

Related links

“I do think the timing has been very poor,” said Mr Buckland. “At a time when lots of people are facing pay freezes and squeezes in their income – the timing has been very bad indeed.”

He added he did not include his views in the consultation being run by Ipsa as he believed MPs’ opinions should be left out of the process and left for the independent body and the public.

Mr Tomlinson said it was crucial to keep the cost of politics down.

“It is absolutely clear that the cost of politics must go down,” said Mr Tomlinson.

“The proposals are still being consulted on and I urge local residents to feed into that because it is absolutely right and proper that we do all we can to make sure the costs go down.”

He added his expenses are £50,000 less than the previous MP’s and he is proud to be transparent about what he spends his money on.

Mr Tomlinson said it would not be correct to comment on whether he would take a pay increase until it was announced MPs would be receiving one.

For more information about Ipsa visit http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/payandpensions/Pages/default.aspx.

Comments (96)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:45am Tue 10 Dec 13

swindon69 says...

Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.
Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments. swindon69

8:11am Tue 10 Dec 13

anotherimigrant says...

And now for something to make you all laugh and chuckle for weeks.

MPs to bring money managing skills to schools. This was in the paper last night.

If these guys worked as hard on our economy as they want us to, we would,nt be in austerity measures and "were all in it together Dave" could give us all a 7.5pc pay rise by lowering taxes by the same amount. Then we would all be in it.

Get your own house in order MP,s, before you lecture us on how we should manage on our lowly wages and not a second house in sight.

Our crap medical services wouldn't need propping up. the hospitals wouldn't be manned by fools who cant speak ENGLISH and can perform simple operations.

Look after these things Tomlinson and Buckland and leave the teaching to TEACHERS.
And now for something to make you all laugh and chuckle for weeks. MPs to bring money managing skills to schools. This was in the paper last night. If these guys worked as hard on our economy as they want us to, we would,nt be in austerity measures and "were all in it together Dave" could give us all a 7.5pc pay rise by lowering taxes by the same amount. Then we would all be in it. Get your own house in order MP,s, before you lecture us on how we should manage on our lowly wages and not a second house in sight. Our crap medical services wouldn't need propping up. the hospitals wouldn't be manned by fools who cant speak ENGLISH and can perform simple operations. Look after these things Tomlinson and Buckland and leave the teaching to TEACHERS. anotherimigrant

8:21am Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Although this latest salary increase is monumentally poorly timed, the whole idea of giving MPs a decent wage is to encourage as many people as possible to be able to be able to stand and to then serve as an MP.

I would actually be all for paying MPs a token £1000 per year... the problem is, left-wing types would NEVER agree to it.

And let's also keep things in perspective, most public sector workers in upper management positions get paid far more of our money than MPs receive and generally do far less work for it.
Although this latest salary increase is monumentally poorly timed, the whole idea of giving MPs a decent wage is to encourage as many people as possible to be able to be able to stand and to then serve as an MP. I would actually be all for paying MPs a token £1000 per year... the problem is, left-wing types would NEVER agree to it. And let's also keep things in perspective, most public sector workers in upper management positions get paid far more of our money than MPs receive and generally do far less work for it. Ringer

8:31am Tue 10 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

For the responsibility involved, they are actually massively underpaid, there are half a dozen Council staff paid more than that and they dont have anywhere near the level of responsibility of an MP and they still have to make cuts and no pay rises for staff etc. In life you tend to get what you pay for, so if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys!!

Someone told me that the managers at Prospect get more than that, so much for a caring charity!
For the responsibility involved, they are actually massively underpaid, there are half a dozen Council staff paid more than that and they dont have anywhere near the level of responsibility of an MP and they still have to make cuts and no pay rises for staff etc. In life you tend to get what you pay for, so if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys!! Someone told me that the managers at Prospect get more than that, so much for a caring charity! house on the hill

8:37am Tue 10 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

I am to boycott any MPs taking this taxpayer funded payrise.
I am to boycott any MPs taking this taxpayer funded payrise. A.Baron-Cohen

8:38am Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

swindon69 wrote:
Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.
The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year.

If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.
[quote][p][bold]swindon69[/bold] wrote: Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.[/p][/quote]The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year. If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it. Ringer

8:40am Tue 10 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Ringer wrote:
Although this latest salary increase is monumentally poorly timed, the whole idea of giving MPs a decent wage is to encourage as many people as possible to be able to be able to stand and to then serve as an MP.

I would actually be all for paying MPs a token £1000 per year... the problem is, left-wing types would NEVER agree to it.

And let's also keep things in perspective, most public sector workers in upper management positions get paid far more of our money than MPs receive and generally do far less work for it.
You might just as well give them bankers bonuses whilst you are at it, maybe you should start a petition to give them CEO salaries too, we should then maybe have the brightest politicians on the planet.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Although this latest salary increase is monumentally poorly timed, the whole idea of giving MPs a decent wage is to encourage as many people as possible to be able to be able to stand and to then serve as an MP. I would actually be all for paying MPs a token £1000 per year... the problem is, left-wing types would NEVER agree to it. And let's also keep things in perspective, most public sector workers in upper management positions get paid far more of our money than MPs receive and generally do far less work for it.[/p][/quote]You might just as well give them bankers bonuses whilst you are at it, maybe you should start a petition to give them CEO salaries too, we should then maybe have the brightest politicians on the planet. A.Baron-Cohen

8:41am Tue 10 Dec 13

Al Smith says...

Ringer wrote:
Although this latest salary increase is monumentally poorly timed, the whole idea of giving MPs a decent wage is to encourage as many people as possible to be able to be able to stand and to then serve as an MP.

I would actually be all for paying MPs a token £1000 per year... the problem is, left-wing types would NEVER agree to it.

And let's also keep things in perspective, most public sector workers in upper management positions get paid far more of our money than MPs receive and generally do far less work for it.
Is your bedroom covered with posters of Tory Toffs like David Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson? Because if your idea ever happened they're the only sort of people who'd be financially able to become MPs, other than those being paid-off by whoever to do their bidding of course.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Although this latest salary increase is monumentally poorly timed, the whole idea of giving MPs a decent wage is to encourage as many people as possible to be able to be able to stand and to then serve as an MP. I would actually be all for paying MPs a token £1000 per year... the problem is, left-wing types would NEVER agree to it. And let's also keep things in perspective, most public sector workers in upper management positions get paid far more of our money than MPs receive and generally do far less work for it.[/p][/quote]Is your bedroom covered with posters of Tory Toffs like David Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson? Because if your idea ever happened they're the only sort of people who'd be financially able to become MPs, other than those being paid-off by whoever to do their bidding of course. Al Smith

8:44am Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Although this latest salary increase is monumentally poorly timed, the whole idea of giving MPs a decent wage is to encourage as many people as possible to be able to be able to stand and to then serve as an MP.

I would actually be all for paying MPs a token £1000 per year... the problem is, left-wing types would NEVER agree to it.

And let's also keep things in perspective, most public sector workers in upper management positions get paid far more of our money than MPs receive and generally do far less work for it.
You might just as well give them bankers bonuses whilst you are at it, maybe you should start a petition to give them CEO salaries too, we should then maybe have the brightest politicians on the planet.
Er, I just said I'm all for cutting MPs salaries. I know English isn't your first language, but do try to read things properly before launching into your bizarre rants.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Although this latest salary increase is monumentally poorly timed, the whole idea of giving MPs a decent wage is to encourage as many people as possible to be able to be able to stand and to then serve as an MP. I would actually be all for paying MPs a token £1000 per year... the problem is, left-wing types would NEVER agree to it. And let's also keep things in perspective, most public sector workers in upper management positions get paid far more of our money than MPs receive and generally do far less work for it.[/p][/quote]You might just as well give them bankers bonuses whilst you are at it, maybe you should start a petition to give them CEO salaries too, we should then maybe have the brightest politicians on the planet.[/p][/quote]Er, I just said I'm all for cutting MPs salaries. I know English isn't your first language, but do try to read things properly before launching into your bizarre rants. Ringer

8:46am Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Al Smith wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Although this latest salary increase is monumentally poorly timed, the whole idea of giving MPs a decent wage is to encourage as many people as possible to be able to be able to stand and to then serve as an MP.

I would actually be all for paying MPs a token £1000 per year... the problem is, left-wing types would NEVER agree to it.

And let's also keep things in perspective, most public sector workers in upper management positions get paid far more of our money than MPs receive and generally do far less work for it.
Is your bedroom covered with posters of Tory Toffs like David Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson? Because if your idea ever happened they're the only sort of people who'd be financially able to become MPs, other than those being paid-off by whoever to do their bidding of course.
Exactly.

Which is why it makes me laugh when your Marxist chums moan about MPs being given higher salaries.

£74k isn't actually a very high salary in the scheme of things. I know several plumbers and electricians who earn more than that.
[quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Although this latest salary increase is monumentally poorly timed, the whole idea of giving MPs a decent wage is to encourage as many people as possible to be able to be able to stand and to then serve as an MP. I would actually be all for paying MPs a token £1000 per year... the problem is, left-wing types would NEVER agree to it. And let's also keep things in perspective, most public sector workers in upper management positions get paid far more of our money than MPs receive and generally do far less work for it.[/p][/quote]Is your bedroom covered with posters of Tory Toffs like David Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson? Because if your idea ever happened they're the only sort of people who'd be financially able to become MPs, other than those being paid-off by whoever to do their bidding of course.[/p][/quote]Exactly. Which is why it makes me laugh when your Marxist chums moan about MPs being given higher salaries. £74k isn't actually a very high salary in the scheme of things. I know several plumbers and electricians who earn more than that. Ringer

8:46am Tue 10 Dec 13

Davethered says...

What a self righteous pair of smugs toffs , when I questioned buckland about the bedroom tax , he said he fully supported it and the welfare budget cuts. Now he wants to accept a huge pay rise. This is one person you will not be getting a vote from any more , never again will I vote Tory. All for the rich , and s0d the poor ,let them suffer .
What a self righteous pair of smugs toffs , when I questioned buckland about the bedroom tax , he said he fully supported it and the welfare budget cuts. Now he wants to accept a huge pay rise. This is one person you will not be getting a vote from any more , never again will I vote Tory. All for the rich , and s0d the poor ,let them suffer . Davethered

8:46am Tue 10 Dec 13

msw says...

I wish someone would pay me £66,000 + to waffle and post leaflets through my door with more waffle on them. Action reaps rewards, not waffle. That rise is simply an insult on us all !!!! Get in the real world.
I wish someone would pay me £66,000 + to waffle and post leaflets through my door with more waffle on them. Action reaps rewards, not waffle. That rise is simply an insult on us all !!!! Get in the real world. msw

8:49am Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Davethered wrote:
What a self righteous pair of smugs toffs , when I questioned buckland about the bedroom tax , he said he fully supported it and the welfare budget cuts. Now he wants to accept a huge pay rise. This is one person you will not be getting a vote from any more , never again will I vote Tory. All for the rich , and s0d the poor ,let them suffer .
Don't worry, your Labour MPs will merrily accept the pay rise as well.

What do you think of union leaders, such as Bob Crow, who pay themselves TWICE what the MPs higher salary will be?

You deluded socialists do make me laugh.
[quote][p][bold]Davethered[/bold] wrote: What a self righteous pair of smugs toffs , when I questioned buckland about the bedroom tax , he said he fully supported it and the welfare budget cuts. Now he wants to accept a huge pay rise. This is one person you will not be getting a vote from any more , never again will I vote Tory. All for the rich , and s0d the poor ,let them suffer .[/p][/quote]Don't worry, your Labour MPs will merrily accept the pay rise as well. What do you think of union leaders, such as Bob Crow, who pay themselves TWICE what the MPs higher salary will be? You deluded socialists do make me laugh. Ringer

9:00am Tue 10 Dec 13

ging999 says...

Ringer wrote:
Davethered wrote:
What a self righteous pair of smugs toffs , when I questioned buckland about the bedroom tax , he said he fully supported it and the welfare budget cuts. Now he wants to accept a huge pay rise. This is one person you will not be getting a vote from any more , never again will I vote Tory. All for the rich , and s0d the poor ,let them suffer .
Don't worry, your Labour MPs will merrily accept the pay rise as well.

What do you think of union leaders, such as Bob Crow, who pay themselves TWICE what the MPs higher salary will be?

You deluded socialists do make me laugh.
The lovely Mr. Crow, as well as being paid £150k+ for calling strikes, also lives in a council house, so depriving one of his communist mates a house.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davethered[/bold] wrote: What a self righteous pair of smugs toffs , when I questioned buckland about the bedroom tax , he said he fully supported it and the welfare budget cuts. Now he wants to accept a huge pay rise. This is one person you will not be getting a vote from any more , never again will I vote Tory. All for the rich , and s0d the poor ,let them suffer .[/p][/quote]Don't worry, your Labour MPs will merrily accept the pay rise as well. What do you think of union leaders, such as Bob Crow, who pay themselves TWICE what the MPs higher salary will be? You deluded socialists do make me laugh.[/p][/quote]The lovely Mr. Crow, as well as being paid £150k+ for calling strikes, also lives in a council house, so depriving one of his communist mates a house. ging999

9:06am Tue 10 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Ringer wrote:
Davethered wrote:
What a self righteous pair of smugs toffs , when I questioned buckland about the bedroom tax , he said he fully supported it and the welfare budget cuts. Now he wants to accept a huge pay rise. This is one person you will not be getting a vote from any more , never again will I vote Tory. All for the rich , and s0d the poor ,let them suffer .
Don't worry, your Labour MPs will merrily accept the pay rise as well.

What do you think of union leaders, such as Bob Crow, who pay themselves TWICE what the MPs higher salary will be?

You deluded socialists do make me laugh.
You seem to have a lot of issues with a lot of people.....
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davethered[/bold] wrote: What a self righteous pair of smugs toffs , when I questioned buckland about the bedroom tax , he said he fully supported it and the welfare budget cuts. Now he wants to accept a huge pay rise. This is one person you will not be getting a vote from any more , never again will I vote Tory. All for the rich , and s0d the poor ,let them suffer .[/p][/quote]Don't worry, your Labour MPs will merrily accept the pay rise as well. What do you think of union leaders, such as Bob Crow, who pay themselves TWICE what the MPs higher salary will be? You deluded socialists do make me laugh.[/p][/quote]You seem to have a lot of issues with a lot of people..... A.Baron-Cohen

9:07am Tue 10 Dec 13

towny_gurl says...

A lot of MP's are saying that the pay increase has been awarded by an independent body, but when an independent body said that fireman of which my husband was one should get an higher than inflation pay rise the government refused to honour it.

Due to illness, I am his full time carer. Like many full time stay at home carers, it has robbed me of my health and my wealth but the government only gives people like me £56 per week to survive, but look at what MP's are rubbing their hands at getting.

As a civil servant of which MP's are too, I was not allowed a second home £400 a month home food allowance or travel allowance.
A lot of MP's are saying that the pay increase has been awarded by an independent body, but when an independent body said that fireman of which my husband was one should get an higher than inflation pay rise the government refused to honour it. Due to illness, I am his full time carer. Like many full time stay at home carers, it has robbed me of my health and my wealth but the government only gives people like me £56 per week to survive, but look at what MP's are rubbing their hands at getting. As a civil servant of which MP's are too, I was not allowed a second home £400 a month home food allowance or travel allowance. towny_gurl

9:22am Tue 10 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Although this latest salary increase is monumentally poorly timed, the whole idea of giving MPs a decent wage is to encourage as many people as possible to be able to be able to stand and to then serve as an MP.

I would actually be all for paying MPs a token £1000 per year... the problem is, left-wing types would NEVER agree to it.

And let's also keep things in perspective, most public sector workers in upper management positions get paid far more of our money than MPs receive and generally do far less work for it.
You might just as well give them bankers bonuses whilst you are at it, maybe you should start a petition to give them CEO salaries too, we should then maybe have the brightest politicians on the planet.
Er, I just said I'm all for cutting MPs salaries. I know English isn't your first language, but do try to read things properly before launching into your bizarre rants.
Very tactful Ringer....but nevermind the cheap insult, you really failed to get the point.
MPs accepting this payrise put themselves at odds with voters and do show their lack empathy with the daily struggles of the people.
This is not about left or public servants, and we all know you love nothing more than to have a dig at them, this is about the declining positive influence of elected representatives and their lack of connection with the realities affecting the daily lives of voters, the two combined rendering the House of Commons as relevant as the House of Lords.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Although this latest salary increase is monumentally poorly timed, the whole idea of giving MPs a decent wage is to encourage as many people as possible to be able to be able to stand and to then serve as an MP. I would actually be all for paying MPs a token £1000 per year... the problem is, left-wing types would NEVER agree to it. And let's also keep things in perspective, most public sector workers in upper management positions get paid far more of our money than MPs receive and generally do far less work for it.[/p][/quote]You might just as well give them bankers bonuses whilst you are at it, maybe you should start a petition to give them CEO salaries too, we should then maybe have the brightest politicians on the planet.[/p][/quote]Er, I just said I'm all for cutting MPs salaries. I know English isn't your first language, but do try to read things properly before launching into your bizarre rants.[/p][/quote]Very tactful Ringer....but nevermind the cheap insult, you really failed to get the point. MPs accepting this payrise put themselves at odds with voters and do show their lack empathy with the daily struggles of the people. This is not about left or public servants, and we all know you love nothing more than to have a dig at them, this is about the declining positive influence of elected representatives and their lack of connection with the realities affecting the daily lives of voters, the two combined rendering the House of Commons as relevant as the House of Lords. A.Baron-Cohen

9:27am Tue 10 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Ringer wrote:
swindon69 wrote:
Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.
The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year.

If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.
Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindon69[/bold] wrote: Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.[/p][/quote]The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year. If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down. A.Baron-Cohen

9:40am Tue 10 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

All in it together eh. Vote out any mp who excepts this money.
All in it together eh. Vote out any mp who excepts this money. Davey Gravey

9:41am Tue 10 Dec 13

SockPuppet says...

In a time where most people have received pay cuts in real terms with no rise or lower than inflation rises it demonstrates how out of touch politicians are with the country.

The pay rise is not deserved and ill timed. It would make more sense for a smaller increment per year as other public service workers have received.
I believe the last one was 1% .
In a time where most people have received pay cuts in real terms with no rise or lower than inflation rises it demonstrates how out of touch politicians are with the country. The pay rise is not deserved and ill timed. It would make more sense for a smaller increment per year as other public service workers have received. I believe the last one was 1% . SockPuppet

9:57am Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Davethered wrote:
What a self righteous pair of smugs toffs , when I questioned buckland about the bedroom tax , he said he fully supported it and the welfare budget cuts. Now he wants to accept a huge pay rise. This is one person you will not be getting a vote from any more , never again will I vote Tory. All for the rich , and s0d the poor ,let them suffer .
Don't worry, your Labour MPs will merrily accept the pay rise as well.

What do you think of union leaders, such as Bob Crow, who pay themselves TWICE what the MPs higher salary will be?

You deluded socialists do make me laugh.
You seem to have a lot of issues with a lot of people.....
That's because there are a lot of idiots around.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davethered[/bold] wrote: What a self righteous pair of smugs toffs , when I questioned buckland about the bedroom tax , he said he fully supported it and the welfare budget cuts. Now he wants to accept a huge pay rise. This is one person you will not be getting a vote from any more , never again will I vote Tory. All for the rich , and s0d the poor ,let them suffer .[/p][/quote]Don't worry, your Labour MPs will merrily accept the pay rise as well. What do you think of union leaders, such as Bob Crow, who pay themselves TWICE what the MPs higher salary will be? You deluded socialists do make me laugh.[/p][/quote]You seem to have a lot of issues with a lot of people.....[/p][/quote]That's because there are a lot of idiots around. Ringer

9:59am Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
swindon69 wrote:
Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.
The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year.

If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.
Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.
Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year?

That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindon69[/bold] wrote: Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.[/p][/quote]The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year. If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.[/p][/quote]Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year? That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received. Ringer

10:04am Tue 10 Dec 13

Amberflame says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
All in it together eh. Vote out any mp who excepts this money.
Every last one of them will take the pay rise
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: All in it together eh. Vote out any mp who excepts this money.[/p][/quote]Every last one of them will take the pay rise Amberflame

10:07am Tue 10 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

SockPuppet wrote:
In a time where most people have received pay cuts in real terms with no rise or lower than inflation rises it demonstrates how out of touch politicians are with the country.

The pay rise is not deserved and ill timed. It would make more sense for a smaller increment per year as other public service workers have received.
I believe the last one was 1% .
Very good and sensible idea, personally I would like to see MPs pay linked to GDP growth and unemployment.
[quote][p][bold]SockPuppet[/bold] wrote: In a time where most people have received pay cuts in real terms with no rise or lower than inflation rises it demonstrates how out of touch politicians are with the country. The pay rise is not deserved and ill timed. It would make more sense for a smaller increment per year as other public service workers have received. I believe the last one was 1% .[/p][/quote]Very good and sensible idea, personally I would like to see MPs pay linked to GDP growth and unemployment. A.Baron-Cohen

10:09am Tue 10 Dec 13

nigelej says...

Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
swindon69 wrote:
Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.
The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year.

If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.
Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.
Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year?

That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.
The 5.2%increase was linked to inflation which the government set . If inflation was 1% at the time that is what they would have paid . Now there is no increase in benefits until after 2015 unless you are on a pension . For any mp who excepts this increase conservative,liberal
s,or labour .should be ashamed of themselves lead by example and we might just believe you .
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindon69[/bold] wrote: Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.[/p][/quote]The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year. If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.[/p][/quote]Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year? That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.[/p][/quote]The 5.2%increase was linked to inflation which the government set . If inflation was 1% at the time that is what they would have paid . Now there is no increase in benefits until after 2015 unless you are on a pension . For any mp who excepts this increase conservative,liberal s,or labour .should be ashamed of themselves lead by example and we might just believe you . nigelej

10:20am Tue 10 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
swindon69 wrote:
Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.
The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year.

If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.
Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.
Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year?

That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.
Maybe you would like a return of Hoovervilles?
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindon69[/bold] wrote: Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.[/p][/quote]The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year. If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.[/p][/quote]Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year? That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.[/p][/quote]Maybe you would like a return of Hoovervilles? A.Baron-Cohen

10:21am Tue 10 Dec 13

mjey says...

Fortunately it's their first and last time as the mp's :)
Fortunately it's their first and last time as the mp's :) mjey

10:30am Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

nigelej wrote:
Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
swindon69 wrote:
Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.
The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year.

If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.
Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.
Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year?

That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.
The 5.2%increase was linked to inflation which the government set . If inflation was 1% at the time that is what they would have paid . Now there is no increase in benefits until after 2015 unless you are on a pension . For any mp who excepts this increase conservative,liberal

s,or labour .should be ashamed of themselves lead by example and we might just believe you .
Yes... and you still received a 5.2% increase in the money you're handed by everyone else, the vast majority of whom haven't received a pay rise of ANY kind in many years.

Since Labour took us into the economic meltdown, in fact.
[quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindon69[/bold] wrote: Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.[/p][/quote]The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year. If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.[/p][/quote]Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year? That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.[/p][/quote]The 5.2%increase was linked to inflation which the government set . If inflation was 1% at the time that is what they would have paid . Now there is no increase in benefits until after 2015 unless you are on a pension . For any mp who excepts this increase conservative,liberal s,or labour .should be ashamed of themselves lead by example and we might just believe you .[/p][/quote]Yes... and you still received a 5.2% increase in the money you're handed by everyone else, the vast majority of whom haven't received a pay rise of ANY kind in many years. Since Labour took us into the economic meltdown, in fact. Ringer

10:32am Tue 10 Dec 13

Davethered says...

Ringer wrote:
Davethered wrote:
What a self righteous pair of smugs toffs , when I questioned buckland about the bedroom tax , he said he fully supported it and the welfare budget cuts. Now he wants to accept a huge pay rise. This is one person you will not be getting a vote from any more , never again will I vote Tory. All for the rich , and s0d the poor ,let them suffer .
Don't worry, your Labour MPs will merrily accept the pay rise as well.

What do you think of union leaders, such as Bob Crow, who pay themselves TWICE what the MPs higher salary will be?

You deluded socialists do make me laugh.
you need to get your head out of your ar$e , one day like me you may fall on hard times , I've worked non stop for the past 35 years without a day off , due to no fault of my own I am now unable to work . I tried to have a decent conversation with buckland , but he just knocked me down and made me feel like cr4p. Maybe you will be put out of work soon and you can find out for yourself what it's like to go from a very well paid job to living on peanuts
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davethered[/bold] wrote: What a self righteous pair of smugs toffs , when I questioned buckland about the bedroom tax , he said he fully supported it and the welfare budget cuts. Now he wants to accept a huge pay rise. This is one person you will not be getting a vote from any more , never again will I vote Tory. All for the rich , and s0d the poor ,let them suffer .[/p][/quote]Don't worry, your Labour MPs will merrily accept the pay rise as well. What do you think of union leaders, such as Bob Crow, who pay themselves TWICE what the MPs higher salary will be? You deluded socialists do make me laugh.[/p][/quote]you need to get your head out of your ar$e , one day like me you may fall on hard times , I've worked non stop for the past 35 years without a day off , due to no fault of my own I am now unable to work . I tried to have a decent conversation with buckland , but he just knocked me down and made me feel like cr4p. Maybe you will be put out of work soon and you can find out for yourself what it's like to go from a very well paid job to living on peanuts Davethered

10:37am Tue 10 Dec 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

house on the hill wrote:
For the responsibility involved, they are actually massively underpaid, there are half a dozen Council staff paid more than that and they dont have anywhere near the level of responsibility of an MP and they still have to make cuts and no pay rises for staff etc. In life you tend to get what you pay for, so if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys!!

Someone told me that the managers at Prospect get more than that, so much for a caring charity!
They may be under paid, but many are very under qualified as well.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: For the responsibility involved, they are actually massively underpaid, there are half a dozen Council staff paid more than that and they dont have anywhere near the level of responsibility of an MP and they still have to make cuts and no pay rises for staff etc. In life you tend to get what you pay for, so if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys!! Someone told me that the managers at Prospect get more than that, so much for a caring charity![/p][/quote]They may be under paid, but many are very under qualified as well. LordAshOfTheBrake

10:49am Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Davethered wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Davethered wrote:
What a self righteous pair of smugs toffs , when I questioned buckland about the bedroom tax , he said he fully supported it and the welfare budget cuts. Now he wants to accept a huge pay rise. This is one person you will not be getting a vote from any more , never again will I vote Tory. All for the rich , and s0d the poor ,let them suffer .
Don't worry, your Labour MPs will merrily accept the pay rise as well.

What do you think of union leaders, such as Bob Crow, who pay themselves TWICE what the MPs higher salary will be?

You deluded socialists do make me laugh.
you need to get your head out of your ar$e , one day like me you may fall on hard times , I've worked non stop for the past 35 years without a day off , due to no fault of my own I am now unable to work . I tried to have a decent conversation with buckland , but he just knocked me down and made me feel like cr4p. Maybe you will be put out of work soon and you can find out for yourself what it's like to go from a very well paid job to living on peanuts
You like the idea of people on not very much money contributing to Bob Crow's £145,000 per year salary then?

I'm also not quite sure what point you're trying to make. You had a well paid job but didn't bother saving anything for the future, or that you had a well paid job and now you're not working you expect everyone else to hand you the same level of income?
[quote][p][bold]Davethered[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davethered[/bold] wrote: What a self righteous pair of smugs toffs , when I questioned buckland about the bedroom tax , he said he fully supported it and the welfare budget cuts. Now he wants to accept a huge pay rise. This is one person you will not be getting a vote from any more , never again will I vote Tory. All for the rich , and s0d the poor ,let them suffer .[/p][/quote]Don't worry, your Labour MPs will merrily accept the pay rise as well. What do you think of union leaders, such as Bob Crow, who pay themselves TWICE what the MPs higher salary will be? You deluded socialists do make me laugh.[/p][/quote]you need to get your head out of your ar$e , one day like me you may fall on hard times , I've worked non stop for the past 35 years without a day off , due to no fault of my own I am now unable to work . I tried to have a decent conversation with buckland , but he just knocked me down and made me feel like cr4p. Maybe you will be put out of work soon and you can find out for yourself what it's like to go from a very well paid job to living on peanuts[/p][/quote]You like the idea of people on not very much money contributing to Bob Crow's £145,000 per year salary then? I'm also not quite sure what point you're trying to make. You had a well paid job but didn't bother saving anything for the future, or that you had a well paid job and now you're not working you expect everyone else to hand you the same level of income? Ringer

10:52am Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
swindon69 wrote:
Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.
The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year.

If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.
Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.
Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year?

That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.
Maybe you would like a return of Hoovervilles?
As I said, benefits have risen by 5.2% in the last 18 months.

Also, please, spare the laughable hyperbole. Benefits in this country are amongst the most generous in the world, hence so many immigrants - such as yourself - arrive here in their millions.

'Hoovervilles', yeah, OK, when people who don't work are handed housing benefit worth up to £1600 per month? Don't make me laugh.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindon69[/bold] wrote: Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.[/p][/quote]The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year. If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.[/p][/quote]Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year? That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.[/p][/quote]Maybe you would like a return of Hoovervilles?[/p][/quote]As I said, benefits have risen by 5.2% in the last 18 months. Also, please, spare the laughable hyperbole. Benefits in this country are amongst the most generous in the world, hence so many immigrants - such as yourself - arrive here in their millions. 'Hoovervilles', yeah, OK, when people who don't work are handed housing benefit worth up to £1600 per month? Don't make me laugh. Ringer

11:24am Tue 10 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
swindon69 wrote:
Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.
The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year.

If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.
Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.
Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year?

That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.
Maybe you would like a return of Hoovervilles?
As I said, benefits have risen by 5.2% in the last 18 months.

Also, please, spare the laughable hyperbole. Benefits in this country are amongst the most generous in the world, hence so many immigrants - such as yourself - arrive here in their millions.

'Hoovervilles', yeah, OK, when people who don't work are handed housing benefit worth up to £1600 per month? Don't make me laugh.
Another great xenophobic post from Ringer.......
Benefits are currently a necessary evil to keep consumption up (consumer based Economy) and maintain social order. When the recovery is secured, benefits should be phased down but until then we are stuck in an interventionist cycle. The same applies to banking, where the Fed, the BoE and ECB are all stimulating the financial system by injecting billions in QE every month.....and I will not even mention the extraordinary program of Nationalisations undertaken.
Yes Benefits in this country are generous but these are mostly paid to Brits that are too lazy to get off their backsides or do jobs that they think are below their "greatbritishness"
The great majority of immigrants are working and doing jobs that locals cannot or will not do! They come in this country having had their healthcare and education paid for by their country of origin, they come in the UK having cost nothing to the exchequer and paying taxes into the system.
For someone claiming to be smart, you do show a great lack of understanding, Daily Fail reader by any chance?!?
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindon69[/bold] wrote: Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.[/p][/quote]The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year. If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.[/p][/quote]Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year? That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.[/p][/quote]Maybe you would like a return of Hoovervilles?[/p][/quote]As I said, benefits have risen by 5.2% in the last 18 months. Also, please, spare the laughable hyperbole. Benefits in this country are amongst the most generous in the world, hence so many immigrants - such as yourself - arrive here in their millions. 'Hoovervilles', yeah, OK, when people who don't work are handed housing benefit worth up to £1600 per month? Don't make me laugh.[/p][/quote]Another great xenophobic post from Ringer....... Benefits are currently a necessary evil to keep consumption up (consumer based Economy) and maintain social order. When the recovery is secured, benefits should be phased down but until then we are stuck in an interventionist cycle. The same applies to banking, where the Fed, the BoE and ECB are all stimulating the financial system by injecting billions in QE every month.....and I will not even mention the extraordinary program of Nationalisations undertaken. Yes Benefits in this country are generous but these are mostly paid to Brits that are too lazy to get off their backsides or do jobs that they think are below their "greatbritishness" The great majority of immigrants are working and doing jobs that locals cannot or will not do! They come in this country having had their healthcare and education paid for by their country of origin, they come in the UK having cost nothing to the exchequer and paying taxes into the system. For someone claiming to be smart, you do show a great lack of understanding, Daily Fail reader by any chance?!? A.Baron-Cohen

11:36am Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
swindon69 wrote:
Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.
The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year.

If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.
Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.
Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year?

That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.
Maybe you would like a return of Hoovervilles?
As I said, benefits have risen by 5.2% in the last 18 months.

Also, please, spare the laughable hyperbole. Benefits in this country are amongst the most generous in the world, hence so many immigrants - such as yourself - arrive here in their millions.

'Hoovervilles', yeah, OK, when people who don't work are handed housing benefit worth up to £1600 per month? Don't make me laugh.
Another great xenophobic post from Ringer.......
Benefits are currently a necessary evil to keep consumption up (consumer based Economy) and maintain social order. When the recovery is secured, benefits should be phased down but until then we are stuck in an interventionist cycle. The same applies to banking, where the Fed, the BoE and ECB are all stimulating the financial system by injecting billions in QE every month.....and I will not even mention the extraordinary program of Nationalisations undertaken.
Yes Benefits in this country are generous but these are mostly paid to Brits that are too lazy to get off their backsides or do jobs that they think are below their "greatbritishne
ss"
The great majority of immigrants are working and doing jobs that locals cannot or will not do! They come in this country having had their healthcare and education paid for by their country of origin, they come in the UK having cost nothing to the exchequer and paying taxes into the system.
For someone claiming to be smart, you do show a great lack of understanding, Daily Fail reader by any chance?!?
That was a party political broadcast by an immigrant.

Funny, you accuse me of 'xenophobia' (simply because I point out that immigrants come to the UK in their millions, which they do) and then have a pop at British people.

People who have been gracious enough to allow the likes of you to emigrate here and reap the economic benefits of doing so.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindon69[/bold] wrote: Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.[/p][/quote]The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year. If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.[/p][/quote]Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year? That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.[/p][/quote]Maybe you would like a return of Hoovervilles?[/p][/quote]As I said, benefits have risen by 5.2% in the last 18 months. Also, please, spare the laughable hyperbole. Benefits in this country are amongst the most generous in the world, hence so many immigrants - such as yourself - arrive here in their millions. 'Hoovervilles', yeah, OK, when people who don't work are handed housing benefit worth up to £1600 per month? Don't make me laugh.[/p][/quote]Another great xenophobic post from Ringer....... Benefits are currently a necessary evil to keep consumption up (consumer based Economy) and maintain social order. When the recovery is secured, benefits should be phased down but until then we are stuck in an interventionist cycle. The same applies to banking, where the Fed, the BoE and ECB are all stimulating the financial system by injecting billions in QE every month.....and I will not even mention the extraordinary program of Nationalisations undertaken. Yes Benefits in this country are generous but these are mostly paid to Brits that are too lazy to get off their backsides or do jobs that they think are below their "greatbritishne ss" The great majority of immigrants are working and doing jobs that locals cannot or will not do! They come in this country having had their healthcare and education paid for by their country of origin, they come in the UK having cost nothing to the exchequer and paying taxes into the system. For someone claiming to be smart, you do show a great lack of understanding, Daily Fail reader by any chance?!?[/p][/quote]That was a party political broadcast by an immigrant. Funny, you accuse me of 'xenophobia' (simply because I point out that immigrants come to the UK in their millions, which they do) and then have a pop at British people. People who have been gracious enough to allow the likes of you to emigrate here and reap the economic benefits of doing so. Ringer

11:53am Tue 10 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
swindon69 wrote:
Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.
The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year.

If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.
Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.
Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year?

That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.
Maybe you would like a return of Hoovervilles?
As I said, benefits have risen by 5.2% in the last 18 months.

Also, please, spare the laughable hyperbole. Benefits in this country are amongst the most generous in the world, hence so many immigrants - such as yourself - arrive here in their millions.

'Hoovervilles', yeah, OK, when people who don't work are handed housing benefit worth up to £1600 per month? Don't make me laugh.
Another great xenophobic post from Ringer.......
Benefits are currently a necessary evil to keep consumption up (consumer based Economy) and maintain social order. When the recovery is secured, benefits should be phased down but until then we are stuck in an interventionist cycle. The same applies to banking, where the Fed, the BoE and ECB are all stimulating the financial system by injecting billions in QE every month.....and I will not even mention the extraordinary program of Nationalisations undertaken.
Yes Benefits in this country are generous but these are mostly paid to Brits that are too lazy to get off their backsides or do jobs that they think are below their "greatbritishne

ss"
The great majority of immigrants are working and doing jobs that locals cannot or will not do! They come in this country having had their healthcare and education paid for by their country of origin, they come in the UK having cost nothing to the exchequer and paying taxes into the system.
For someone claiming to be smart, you do show a great lack of understanding, Daily Fail reader by any chance?!?
That was a party political broadcast by an immigrant.

Funny, you accuse me of 'xenophobia' (simply because I point out that immigrants come to the UK in their millions, which they do) and then have a pop at British people.

People who have been gracious enough to allow the likes of you to emigrate here and reap the economic benefits of doing so.
I think you got it all twisted in your little head.
Whether I am jewish, german, black or Asian is irrelevant to this argument.
Benefits are necessary at this point to secure an economic recovery, that is currently too fragile to do away with poor people spending their entire benefits into the system.
You can moan as much as you like, immigrants are keeping this country afloat and provide a cheap and skilled workforce to employers, giving these companies a competitive edge in the global Economy.
My wife is a teacher, and I can tell you, it would take 50 years at least 2 generations to change the mentality of parents and kids towards education and hard work, competition. Until then, immigrants will have to fill the gaps.
It is no secret why Asians and black african kids score on average better than their white british counterparts, it is down to attitude, culture and good parenting skills.
It starts with respect and this is something that lacks a lot in many people.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindon69[/bold] wrote: Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.[/p][/quote]The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year. If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.[/p][/quote]Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year? That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.[/p][/quote]Maybe you would like a return of Hoovervilles?[/p][/quote]As I said, benefits have risen by 5.2% in the last 18 months. Also, please, spare the laughable hyperbole. Benefits in this country are amongst the most generous in the world, hence so many immigrants - such as yourself - arrive here in their millions. 'Hoovervilles', yeah, OK, when people who don't work are handed housing benefit worth up to £1600 per month? Don't make me laugh.[/p][/quote]Another great xenophobic post from Ringer....... Benefits are currently a necessary evil to keep consumption up (consumer based Economy) and maintain social order. When the recovery is secured, benefits should be phased down but until then we are stuck in an interventionist cycle. The same applies to banking, where the Fed, the BoE and ECB are all stimulating the financial system by injecting billions in QE every month.....and I will not even mention the extraordinary program of Nationalisations undertaken. Yes Benefits in this country are generous but these are mostly paid to Brits that are too lazy to get off their backsides or do jobs that they think are below their "greatbritishne ss" The great majority of immigrants are working and doing jobs that locals cannot or will not do! They come in this country having had their healthcare and education paid for by their country of origin, they come in the UK having cost nothing to the exchequer and paying taxes into the system. For someone claiming to be smart, you do show a great lack of understanding, Daily Fail reader by any chance?!?[/p][/quote]That was a party political broadcast by an immigrant. Funny, you accuse me of 'xenophobia' (simply because I point out that immigrants come to the UK in their millions, which they do) and then have a pop at British people. People who have been gracious enough to allow the likes of you to emigrate here and reap the economic benefits of doing so.[/p][/quote]I think you got it all twisted in your little head. Whether I am jewish, german, black or Asian is irrelevant to this argument. Benefits are necessary at this point to secure an economic recovery, that is currently too fragile to do away with poor people spending their entire benefits into the system. You can moan as much as you like, immigrants are keeping this country afloat and provide a cheap and skilled workforce to employers, giving these companies a competitive edge in the global Economy. My wife is a teacher, and I can tell you, it would take 50 years at least 2 generations to change the mentality of parents and kids towards education and hard work, competition. Until then, immigrants will have to fill the gaps. It is no secret why Asians and black african kids score on average better than their white british counterparts, it is down to attitude, culture and good parenting skills. It starts with respect and this is something that lacks a lot in many people. A.Baron-Cohen

12:02pm Tue 10 Dec 13

nigelej says...

Ringer wrote:
nigelej wrote:
Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
swindon69 wrote:
Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.
The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year.

If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.
Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.
Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year?

That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.
The 5.2%increase was linked to inflation which the government set . If inflation was 1% at the time that is what they would have paid . Now there is no increase in benefits until after 2015 unless you are on a pension . For any mp who excepts this increase conservative,liberal


s,or labour .should be ashamed of themselves lead by example and we might just believe you .
Yes... and you still received a 5.2% increase in the money you're handed by everyone else, the vast majority of whom haven't received a pay rise of ANY kind in many years.

Since Labour took us into the economic meltdown, in fact.
Fact labour didnt take us into meltdown the banks did .and this current government wanted to to let them have more freedom under labour fact. What have this lot done to the banks nothing fact . What have they done to the Nhs crippled it ,what have they done to there promise of 100,0000 immigrants being taken out of the cou try nothing . Oh and if you want to know why the benefits bill is so high ask Ian Duncan Smith why he as wasted £104 million of the tax payers money . Have a moan about that because that's worth a moan . The man should be sacked let alone have a rise .
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nigelej[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindon69[/bold] wrote: Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.[/p][/quote]The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year. If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.[/p][/quote]Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year? That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.[/p][/quote]The 5.2%increase was linked to inflation which the government set . If inflation was 1% at the time that is what they would have paid . Now there is no increase in benefits until after 2015 unless you are on a pension . For any mp who excepts this increase conservative,liberal s,or labour .should be ashamed of themselves lead by example and we might just believe you .[/p][/quote]Yes... and you still received a 5.2% increase in the money you're handed by everyone else, the vast majority of whom haven't received a pay rise of ANY kind in many years. Since Labour took us into the economic meltdown, in fact.[/p][/quote]Fact labour didnt take us into meltdown the banks did .and this current government wanted to to let them have more freedom under labour fact. What have this lot done to the banks nothing fact . What have they done to the Nhs crippled it ,what have they done to there promise of 100,0000 immigrants being taken out of the cou try nothing . Oh and if you want to know why the benefits bill is so high ask Ian Duncan Smith why he as wasted £104 million of the tax payers money . Have a moan about that because that's worth a moan . The man should be sacked let alone have a rise . nigelej

12:16pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

@nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust.

Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.
@nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust. Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it. Ringer

12:28pm Tue 10 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Ringer wrote:
@nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust.

Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.
Give it a rest Ringer, the financial crisis hit every single western Economies, and all parties equally, in the US under the republicans (right) in the UK under Labour (Left) in France under RPR (Right) etc....
The financial crisis on 2007/2008 was a global financial issue and still is a problem that is managed by the central Banks.
The very nature of Capitalism is cyclical (boom and bust), we had crashes before and we will have crashes in the future no matter which party is in charge, unless we turn to Communism....
We certainly didn't hear you complain when your house doubled in value under Labour, so take some distance and think a little before making such silly political rants.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust. Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.[/p][/quote]Give it a rest Ringer, the financial crisis hit every single western Economies, and all parties equally, in the US under the republicans (right) in the UK under Labour (Left) in France under RPR (Right) etc.... The financial crisis on 2007/2008 was a global financial issue and still is a problem that is managed by the central Banks. The very nature of Capitalism is cyclical (boom and bust), we had crashes before and we will have crashes in the future no matter which party is in charge, unless we turn to Communism.... We certainly didn't hear you complain when your house doubled in value under Labour, so take some distance and think a little before making such silly political rants. A.Baron-Cohen

12:39pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Alan B'stard says...

Double their salaries.

They do the hardest job in the world.
Double their salaries. They do the hardest job in the world. Alan B'stard

1:17pm Tue 10 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
For the responsibility involved, they are actually massively underpaid, there are half a dozen Council staff paid more than that and they dont have anywhere near the level of responsibility of an MP and they still have to make cuts and no pay rises for staff etc. In life you tend to get what you pay for, so if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys!!

Someone told me that the managers at Prospect get more than that, so much for a caring charity!
They may be under paid, but many are very under qualified as well.
That has always been a very big issue of mine. They need no ability, qualification, knowledge or experience to become one and we wonder why we are in this mess!!!!
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: For the responsibility involved, they are actually massively underpaid, there are half a dozen Council staff paid more than that and they dont have anywhere near the level of responsibility of an MP and they still have to make cuts and no pay rises for staff etc. In life you tend to get what you pay for, so if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys!! Someone told me that the managers at Prospect get more than that, so much for a caring charity![/p][/quote]They may be under paid, but many are very under qualified as well.[/p][/quote]That has always been a very big issue of mine. They need no ability, qualification, knowledge or experience to become one and we wonder why we are in this mess!!!! house on the hill

1:19pm Tue 10 Dec 13

twasadawf says...

Would have been interesting if the Ipsa had made the award performance related and some MP's had there wage's cut by 11% think we might have heard alot more from them, as for the wage increase it could be paid for by reducing the total number of MP's that so say represent the fool's that live in this country
Would have been interesting if the Ipsa had made the award performance related and some MP's had there wage's cut by 11% think we might have heard alot more from them, as for the wage increase it could be paid for by reducing the total number of MP's that so say represent the fool's that live in this country twasadawf

2:30pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

I'd quite happily campaign for our MPs' wages to be tripled if they could get their heads together and sort out these dangerously misguided judiciary that plague our local court rooms:

is.gd/nZG39a

What an absolute disgrace.

And, for those who think MPs are paid too much, the average salary for our 'learned' judiciary is around £130,000.

Now let's talk about overpayment and wasted money for people who spend all day actively working against our best interests.
I'd quite happily campaign for our MPs' wages to be tripled if they could get their heads together and sort out these dangerously misguided judiciary that plague our local court rooms: is.gd/nZG39a What an absolute disgrace. And, for those who think MPs are paid too much, the average salary for our 'learned' judiciary is around £130,000. Now let's talk about overpayment and wasted money for people who spend all day actively working against our best interests. Ringer

3:01pm Tue 10 Dec 13

trolley dolley says...

The prospect Hospice was mentioned in these comments.

If you look at the Accounts at Companies House for 2012 you will see.

Average number of full time employees 116
Staff costs £3,782,978 (£3.8 Million)
Employees earning £60k to £80k 3

Just thought I would put the record straight.
The prospect Hospice was mentioned in these comments. If you look at the Accounts at Companies House for 2012 you will see. Average number of full time employees 116 Staff costs £3,782,978 (£3.8 Million) Employees earning £60k to £80k 3 Just thought I would put the record straight. trolley dolley

3:19pm Tue 10 Dec 13

benzss says...

Ringer wrote:
@nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust.

Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.
Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust. Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.[/p][/quote]Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway. benzss

3:41pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust.

Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.
Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.
That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen.

If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust. Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.[/p][/quote]Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.[/p][/quote]That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen. If that's not Labour's failure, what is it? Ringer

3:52pm Tue 10 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust.

Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.
Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.
That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen.

If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?
Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA.
I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust. Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.[/p][/quote]Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.[/p][/quote]That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen. If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?[/p][/quote]Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA. I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories A.Baron-Cohen

4:08pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust.

Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.
Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.
That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen.

If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?
Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA.
I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories
As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander.

It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault.

Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia.

The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008.

That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown.

NEVER AGAIN.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust. Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.[/p][/quote]Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.[/p][/quote]That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen. If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?[/p][/quote]Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA. I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories[/p][/quote]As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander. It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault. Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia. The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008. That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown. NEVER AGAIN. Ringer

4:31pm Tue 10 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust.

Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.
Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.
That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen.

If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?
Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA.
I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories
As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander.

It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault.

Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia.

The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008.

That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown.

NEVER AGAIN.
"The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global "
I think this says it all about your knowledge and level of understanding of the financial system and Macroeconomics.
I do not need to tell you what grade you would be getting with such a pearl in your essay on economics.....
Your comments should clearly come with a warning for the kids reading this paper LOL
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust. Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.[/p][/quote]Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.[/p][/quote]That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen. If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?[/p][/quote]Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA. I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories[/p][/quote]As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander. It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault. Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia. The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008. That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown. NEVER AGAIN.[/p][/quote]"The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global " I think this says it all about your knowledge and level of understanding of the financial system and Macroeconomics. I do not need to tell you what grade you would be getting with such a pearl in your essay on economics..... Your comments should clearly come with a warning for the kids reading this paper LOL A.Baron-Cohen

4:32pm Tue 10 Dec 13

benzss says...

Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust.

Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.
Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.
That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen.

If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?
Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA.
I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories
As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander.

It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault.

Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia.

The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008.

That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown.

NEVER AGAIN.
Right, was the previous administration not also complicit in the apparent dearth of regulation in financial sector? Would the Tories have done anything differently? Ideologically, I don't think the Tories and New Labour were economically that far apart, in any case. And, further to your other comments in this thread, New Labour were many things but socialist is not one of them.

In essence, both parties are adopting propagandist explanations for the crisis. As you say, Labour suggest it was an unavoidable global crisis (only somewhat true) and the Tories blame 10+ years of Labour mismanagement (only somewhat true).
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust. Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.[/p][/quote]Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.[/p][/quote]That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen. If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?[/p][/quote]Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA. I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories[/p][/quote]As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander. It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault. Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia. The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008. That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown. NEVER AGAIN.[/p][/quote]Right, was the previous administration not also complicit in the apparent dearth of regulation in financial sector? Would the Tories have done anything differently? Ideologically, I don't think the Tories and New Labour were economically that far apart, in any case. And, further to your other comments in this thread, New Labour were many things but socialist is not one of them. In essence, both parties are adopting propagandist explanations for the crisis. As you say, Labour suggest it was an unavoidable global crisis (only somewhat true) and the Tories blame 10+ years of Labour mismanagement (only somewhat true). benzss

4:40pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust.

Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.
Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.
That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen.

If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?
Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA.
I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories
As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander.

It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault.

Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia.

The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008.

That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown.

NEVER AGAIN.
Right, was the previous administration not also complicit in the apparent dearth of regulation in financial sector? Would the Tories have done anything differently? Ideologically, I don't think the Tories and New Labour were economically that far apart, in any case. And, further to your other comments in this thread, New Labour were many things but socialist is not one of them.

In essence, both parties are adopting propagandist explanations for the crisis. As you say, Labour suggest it was an unavoidable global crisis (only somewhat true) and the Tories blame 10+ years of Labour mismanagement (only somewhat true).
It's utterly irrelevant trying to second guess what the Tories might have done 5 years ago.

The only thing that matters is what Labour FAILED to do after having been in office for 11 years.

But, then, it's nothing new, Labour governments always bring this nation's economy to its knees. It's what they do.

As for Politicrat's nonsense, he noticeably fails to deny that vast areas of the world were untouched by what he's still trying to pretend was a 'global' crisis. Labour have lied about it for the past 5 years and, sadly, some people with very limited knowledge prefer to just believe those lies.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust. Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.[/p][/quote]Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.[/p][/quote]That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen. If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?[/p][/quote]Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA. I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories[/p][/quote]As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander. It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault. Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia. The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008. That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown. NEVER AGAIN.[/p][/quote]Right, was the previous administration not also complicit in the apparent dearth of regulation in financial sector? Would the Tories have done anything differently? Ideologically, I don't think the Tories and New Labour were economically that far apart, in any case. And, further to your other comments in this thread, New Labour were many things but socialist is not one of them. In essence, both parties are adopting propagandist explanations for the crisis. As you say, Labour suggest it was an unavoidable global crisis (only somewhat true) and the Tories blame 10+ years of Labour mismanagement (only somewhat true).[/p][/quote]It's utterly irrelevant trying to second guess what the Tories might have done 5 years ago. The only thing that matters is what Labour FAILED to do after having been in office for 11 years. But, then, it's nothing new, Labour governments always bring this nation's economy to its knees. It's what they do. As for Politicrat's nonsense, he noticeably fails to deny that vast areas of the world were untouched by what he's still trying to pretend was a 'global' crisis. Labour have lied about it for the past 5 years and, sadly, some people with very limited knowledge prefer to just believe those lies. Ringer

4:49pm Tue 10 Dec 13

benzss says...

Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust.

Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.
Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.
That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen.

If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?
Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA.
I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories
As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander.

It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault.

Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia.

The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008.

That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown.

NEVER AGAIN.
Right, was the previous administration not also complicit in the apparent dearth of regulation in financial sector? Would the Tories have done anything differently? Ideologically, I don't think the Tories and New Labour were economically that far apart, in any case. And, further to your other comments in this thread, New Labour were many things but socialist is not one of them.

In essence, both parties are adopting propagandist explanations for the crisis. As you say, Labour suggest it was an unavoidable global crisis (only somewhat true) and the Tories blame 10+ years of Labour mismanagement (only somewhat true).
It's utterly irrelevant trying to second guess what the Tories might have done 5 years ago.

The only thing that matters is what Labour FAILED to do after having been in office for 11 years.

But, then, it's nothing new, Labour governments always bring this nation's economy to its knees. It's what they do.

As for Politicrat's nonsense, he noticeably fails to deny that vast areas of the world were untouched by what he's still trying to pretend was a 'global' crisis. Labour have lied about it for the past 5 years and, sadly, some people with very limited knowledge prefer to just believe those lies.
It's not really irrelevant, as you're aiming specifically at Labour when, really, the failure - to the extent that there was one - should be attributed to successive governments from the 80s to the 00s. All of them deregulated, recognised and to an extent encouraged the growth of the financial sector because of its obvious significance to the national economy at large. Yes, Labour were caught with their pants down, but I find it disingenuous to suggest they were uniquely and specifically at fault.

Can you explain what actions exactly Labour could have taken to minimise the effect of the financial crisis?
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust. Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.[/p][/quote]Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.[/p][/quote]That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen. If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?[/p][/quote]Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA. I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories[/p][/quote]As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander. It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault. Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia. The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008. That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown. NEVER AGAIN.[/p][/quote]Right, was the previous administration not also complicit in the apparent dearth of regulation in financial sector? Would the Tories have done anything differently? Ideologically, I don't think the Tories and New Labour were economically that far apart, in any case. And, further to your other comments in this thread, New Labour were many things but socialist is not one of them. In essence, both parties are adopting propagandist explanations for the crisis. As you say, Labour suggest it was an unavoidable global crisis (only somewhat true) and the Tories blame 10+ years of Labour mismanagement (only somewhat true).[/p][/quote]It's utterly irrelevant trying to second guess what the Tories might have done 5 years ago. The only thing that matters is what Labour FAILED to do after having been in office for 11 years. But, then, it's nothing new, Labour governments always bring this nation's economy to its knees. It's what they do. As for Politicrat's nonsense, he noticeably fails to deny that vast areas of the world were untouched by what he's still trying to pretend was a 'global' crisis. Labour have lied about it for the past 5 years and, sadly, some people with very limited knowledge prefer to just believe those lies.[/p][/quote]It's not really irrelevant, as you're aiming specifically at Labour when, really, the failure - to the extent that there was one - should be attributed to successive governments from the 80s to the 00s. All of them deregulated, recognised and to an extent encouraged the growth of the financial sector because of its obvious significance to the national economy at large. Yes, Labour were caught with their pants down, but I find it disingenuous to suggest they were uniquely and specifically at fault. Can you explain what actions exactly Labour could have taken to minimise the effect of the financial crisis? benzss

4:51pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Hmmmf says...

Who here would not accept a payrise if it were offered to them?
(Excluding Union members who might refuse on the grounds they always want more than they're offered, of course).
Who here would not accept a payrise if it were offered to them? (Excluding Union members who might refuse on the grounds they always want more than they're offered, of course). Hmmmf

4:58pm Tue 10 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust.

Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.
Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.
That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen.

If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?
Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA.
I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories
As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander.

It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault.

Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia.

The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008.

That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown.

NEVER AGAIN.
Right, was the previous administration not also complicit in the apparent dearth of regulation in financial sector? Would the Tories have done anything differently? Ideologically, I don't think the Tories and New Labour were economically that far apart, in any case. And, further to your other comments in this thread, New Labour were many things but socialist is not one of them.

In essence, both parties are adopting propagandist explanations for the crisis. As you say, Labour suggest it was an unavoidable global crisis (only somewhat true) and the Tories blame 10+ years of Labour mismanagement (only somewhat true).
It's utterly irrelevant trying to second guess what the Tories might have done 5 years ago.

The only thing that matters is what Labour FAILED to do after having been in office for 11 years.

But, then, it's nothing new, Labour governments always bring this nation's economy to its knees. It's what they do.

As for Politicrat's nonsense, he noticeably fails to deny that vast areas of the world were untouched by what he's still trying to pretend was a 'global' crisis. Labour have lied about it for the past 5 years and, sadly, some people with very limited knowledge prefer to just believe those lies.
To be fair, several of the countries you listed were indeed affected. They were lucky that they also have a strong base in manufacturing, mining and other such industries to fall back on which mitigated against the effects.

Meanwhile in Britain successive governments both blue and red did their absolute best to destroy manufacturing in this country. While none of them are to blame for people borrowing more money than they could afford to pay back, they're all to blame for betting all our futures on the one trick pony that is the financial sector.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust. Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.[/p][/quote]Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.[/p][/quote]That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen. If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?[/p][/quote]Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA. I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories[/p][/quote]As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander. It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault. Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia. The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008. That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown. NEVER AGAIN.[/p][/quote]Right, was the previous administration not also complicit in the apparent dearth of regulation in financial sector? Would the Tories have done anything differently? Ideologically, I don't think the Tories and New Labour were economically that far apart, in any case. And, further to your other comments in this thread, New Labour were many things but socialist is not one of them. In essence, both parties are adopting propagandist explanations for the crisis. As you say, Labour suggest it was an unavoidable global crisis (only somewhat true) and the Tories blame 10+ years of Labour mismanagement (only somewhat true).[/p][/quote]It's utterly irrelevant trying to second guess what the Tories might have done 5 years ago. The only thing that matters is what Labour FAILED to do after having been in office for 11 years. But, then, it's nothing new, Labour governments always bring this nation's economy to its knees. It's what they do. As for Politicrat's nonsense, he noticeably fails to deny that vast areas of the world were untouched by what he's still trying to pretend was a 'global' crisis. Labour have lied about it for the past 5 years and, sadly, some people with very limited knowledge prefer to just believe those lies.[/p][/quote]To be fair, several of the countries you listed were indeed affected. They were lucky that they also have a strong base in manufacturing, mining and other such industries to fall back on which mitigated against the effects. Meanwhile in Britain successive governments both blue and red did their absolute best to destroy manufacturing in this country. While none of them are to blame for people borrowing more money than they could afford to pay back, they're all to blame for betting all our futures on the one trick pony that is the financial sector. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

5:01pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Hmmmf wrote:
Who here would not accept a payrise if it were offered to them?
(Excluding Union members who might refuse on the grounds they always want more than they're offered, of course).
Excellent work, Sir.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: Who here would not accept a payrise if it were offered to them? (Excluding Union members who might refuse on the grounds they always want more than they're offered, of course).[/p][/quote]Excellent work, Sir. Ringer

5:05pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust.

Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.
Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.
That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen.

If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?
Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA.
I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories
As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander.

It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault.

Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia.

The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008.

That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown.

NEVER AGAIN.
Right, was the previous administration not also complicit in the apparent dearth of regulation in financial sector? Would the Tories have done anything differently? Ideologically, I don't think the Tories and New Labour were economically that far apart, in any case. And, further to your other comments in this thread, New Labour were many things but socialist is not one of them.

In essence, both parties are adopting propagandist explanations for the crisis. As you say, Labour suggest it was an unavoidable global crisis (only somewhat true) and the Tories blame 10+ years of Labour mismanagement (only somewhat true).
It's utterly irrelevant trying to second guess what the Tories might have done 5 years ago.

The only thing that matters is what Labour FAILED to do after having been in office for 11 years.

But, then, it's nothing new, Labour governments always bring this nation's economy to its knees. It's what they do.

As for Politicrat's nonsense, he noticeably fails to deny that vast areas of the world were untouched by what he's still trying to pretend was a 'global' crisis. Labour have lied about it for the past 5 years and, sadly, some people with very limited knowledge prefer to just believe those lies.
It's not really irrelevant, as you're aiming specifically at Labour when, really, the failure - to the extent that there was one - should be attributed to successive governments from the 80s to the 00s. All of them deregulated, recognised and to an extent encouraged the growth of the financial sector because of its obvious significance to the national economy at large. Yes, Labour were caught with their pants down, but I find it disingenuous to suggest they were uniquely and specifically at fault.

Can you explain what actions exactly Labour could have taken to minimise the effect of the financial crisis?
Labour KNEW what should have been done... Brown specifically set-up the FSA to do it. The fact that Labour's FSA failed so miserably at doing what Labour knew needed doing IS ultimately the fault of Labour and Brown, it can't possibly be anyone else's fault.

Plenty of other nations had the mechanisms in place to avoid the economic crash... and did so. I've already mentioned them. It is sheer propaganda nonsense to continually parrot on about a 'global' crisis when large swathes of the world did not suffer an economic crisis and even those that did tended not to suffer as badly as the UK economy did - because Labour's previous 11 years of running that economy had rendered it particularly vulnerable.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust. Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.[/p][/quote]Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.[/p][/quote]That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen. If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?[/p][/quote]Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA. I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories[/p][/quote]As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander. It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault. Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia. The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008. That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown. NEVER AGAIN.[/p][/quote]Right, was the previous administration not also complicit in the apparent dearth of regulation in financial sector? Would the Tories have done anything differently? Ideologically, I don't think the Tories and New Labour were economically that far apart, in any case. And, further to your other comments in this thread, New Labour were many things but socialist is not one of them. In essence, both parties are adopting propagandist explanations for the crisis. As you say, Labour suggest it was an unavoidable global crisis (only somewhat true) and the Tories blame 10+ years of Labour mismanagement (only somewhat true).[/p][/quote]It's utterly irrelevant trying to second guess what the Tories might have done 5 years ago. The only thing that matters is what Labour FAILED to do after having been in office for 11 years. But, then, it's nothing new, Labour governments always bring this nation's economy to its knees. It's what they do. As for Politicrat's nonsense, he noticeably fails to deny that vast areas of the world were untouched by what he's still trying to pretend was a 'global' crisis. Labour have lied about it for the past 5 years and, sadly, some people with very limited knowledge prefer to just believe those lies.[/p][/quote]It's not really irrelevant, as you're aiming specifically at Labour when, really, the failure - to the extent that there was one - should be attributed to successive governments from the 80s to the 00s. All of them deregulated, recognised and to an extent encouraged the growth of the financial sector because of its obvious significance to the national economy at large. Yes, Labour were caught with their pants down, but I find it disingenuous to suggest they were uniquely and specifically at fault. Can you explain what actions exactly Labour could have taken to minimise the effect of the financial crisis?[/p][/quote]Labour KNEW what should have been done... Brown specifically set-up the FSA to do it. The fact that Labour's FSA failed so miserably at doing what Labour knew needed doing IS ultimately the fault of Labour and Brown, it can't possibly be anyone else's fault. Plenty of other nations had the mechanisms in place to avoid the economic crash... and did so. I've already mentioned them. It is sheer propaganda nonsense to continually parrot on about a 'global' crisis when large swathes of the world did not suffer an economic crisis and even those that did tended not to suffer as badly as the UK economy did - because Labour's previous 11 years of running that economy had rendered it particularly vulnerable. Ringer

5:56pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Empty Car Park says...

Ringer wrote:
I'd quite happily campaign for our MPs' wages to be tripled if they could get their heads together and sort out these dangerously misguided judiciary that plague our local court rooms:

is.gd/nZG39a

What an absolute disgrace.

And, for those who think MPs are paid too much, the average salary for our 'learned' judiciary is around £130,000.

Now let's talk about overpayment and wasted money for people who spend all day actively working against our best interests.
Nah!
Let's stick to the topic
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: I'd quite happily campaign for our MPs' wages to be tripled if they could get their heads together and sort out these dangerously misguided judiciary that plague our local court rooms: is.gd/nZG39a What an absolute disgrace. And, for those who think MPs are paid too much, the average salary for our 'learned' judiciary is around £130,000. Now let's talk about overpayment and wasted money for people who spend all day actively working against our best interests.[/p][/quote]Nah! Let's stick to the topic Empty Car Park

6:20pm Tue 10 Dec 13

semitonic says...

Ringer does such an excellent job of reminding readers how nauseating the Tories really are.
Ringer does such an excellent job of reminding readers how nauseating the Tories really are. semitonic

6:47pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
Ringer wrote:
I'd quite happily campaign for our MPs' wages to be tripled if they could get their heads together and sort out these dangerously misguided judiciary that plague our local court rooms:

is.gd/nZG39a

What an absolute disgrace.

And, for those who think MPs are paid too much, the average salary for our 'learned' judiciary is around £130,000.

Now let's talk about overpayment and wasted money for people who spend all day actively working against our best interests.
Nah!
Let's stick to the topic
That's rather hilarious coming from you.
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: I'd quite happily campaign for our MPs' wages to be tripled if they could get their heads together and sort out these dangerously misguided judiciary that plague our local court rooms: is.gd/nZG39a What an absolute disgrace. And, for those who think MPs are paid too much, the average salary for our 'learned' judiciary is around £130,000. Now let's talk about overpayment and wasted money for people who spend all day actively working against our best interests.[/p][/quote]Nah! Let's stick to the topic[/p][/quote]That's rather hilarious coming from you. Ringer

6:50pm Tue 10 Dec 13

anotherimigrant says...

semitonic wrote:
Ringer does such an excellent job of reminding readers how nauseating the Tories really are.
And labour were better were they? I think the general public would have preferred the heinous Bercow to be prime minister.

But lets also not forget how much the scummy council workers skid off of us.
Between 2007 and 2012, a total of £440 million was spent on credit cards issued to councillors and staff, who treated themselves to everything from Caribbean holidays to meals in Michelin-starred restaurants.

At the same time as they were slashing public services because of the ‘savage cuts’, they were jetting off to exotic locations, including Puerto Rico, Brazil and Australia. Town Halls spent £3.7 million on foreign travel to no less than 90 different destinations.

One of the worst offenders was the disgraced Tory peer Lord Hanningfield, who was jailed for fiddling his parliamentary expenses.

In his capacity as leader of Essex County Council, he used his official credit card to fly business class to a meaningless conference in the Bahamas. He claimed he couldn’t travel economy because he had a bad back.


Makes good reading doesn't it. I'll show more like this before elections just to put these people into the right perspective.
[quote][p][bold]semitonic[/bold] wrote: Ringer does such an excellent job of reminding readers how nauseating the Tories really are.[/p][/quote]And labour were better were they? I think the general public would have preferred the heinous Bercow to be prime minister. But lets also not forget how much the scummy council workers skid off of us. Between 2007 and 2012, a total of £440 million was spent on credit cards issued to councillors and staff, who treated themselves to everything from Caribbean holidays to meals in Michelin-starred restaurants. At the same time as they were slashing public services because of the ‘savage cuts’, they were jetting off to exotic locations, including Puerto Rico, Brazil and Australia. Town Halls spent £3.7 million on foreign travel to no less than 90 different destinations. One of the worst offenders was the disgraced Tory peer Lord Hanningfield, who was jailed for fiddling his parliamentary expenses. In his capacity as leader of Essex County Council, he used his official credit card to fly business class to a meaningless conference in the Bahamas. He claimed he couldn’t travel economy because he had a bad back. Makes good reading doesn't it. I'll show more like this before elections just to put these people into the right perspective. anotherimigrant

6:55pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Ringer says...

semitonic wrote:
Ringer does such an excellent job of reminding readers how nauseating the Tories really are.
Which is interesting, given that I'm not a Tory. They've proven to be little better than Labour, frankly. Although how much of that is due to the even more abysmal LibDems we'll never really know.
[quote][p][bold]semitonic[/bold] wrote: Ringer does such an excellent job of reminding readers how nauseating the Tories really are.[/p][/quote]Which is interesting, given that I'm not a Tory. They've proven to be little better than Labour, frankly. Although how much of that is due to the even more abysmal LibDems we'll never really know. Ringer

8:07pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Tyran66 says...

To put things in perspective a little. Robert Buckland is a qualified bona fide barrister - he would be easily earning twice (if not more) if not more than this - if he was not serving the public.

I know it will pain the socialists here but had it ever occurred to you he might be well worth it? Not all politicians have a "working class background" to tout around like a badge of merit for the labour masses. An education and success deserve reward.
To put things in perspective a little. Robert Buckland is a qualified bona fide barrister - he would be easily earning twice (if not more) if not more than this - if he was not serving the public. I know it will pain the socialists here but had it ever occurred to you he might be well worth it? Not all politicians have a "working class background" to tout around like a badge of merit for the labour masses. An education and success deserve reward. Tyran66

8:18pm Tue 10 Dec 13

semitonic says...

anotherimigrant wrote:
semitonic wrote:
Ringer does such an excellent job of reminding readers how nauseating the Tories really are.
And labour were better were they? I think the general public would have preferred the heinous Bercow to be prime minister.

But lets also not forget how much the scummy council workers skid off of us.
Between 2007 and 2012, a total of £440 million was spent on credit cards issued to councillors and staff, who treated themselves to everything from Caribbean holidays to meals in Michelin-starred restaurants.

At the same time as they were slashing public services because of the ‘savage cuts’, they were jetting off to exotic locations, including Puerto Rico, Brazil and Australia. Town Halls spent £3.7 million on foreign travel to no less than 90 different destinations.

One of the worst offenders was the disgraced Tory peer Lord Hanningfield, who was jailed for fiddling his parliamentary expenses.

In his capacity as leader of Essex County Council, he used his official credit card to fly business class to a meaningless conference in the Bahamas. He claimed he couldn’t travel economy because he had a bad back.


Makes good reading doesn't it. I'll show more like this before elections just to put these people into the right perspective.
Oh thanks, no-one else reads the news after all so we need your information don't we.

They're mostly all out to feather their own nests and plunder the public purse, of whatever political colour they might be. It's no wonder so many people are disillusioned with the whole system and don't even bother to vote any more.
[quote][p][bold]anotherimigrant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]semitonic[/bold] wrote: Ringer does such an excellent job of reminding readers how nauseating the Tories really are.[/p][/quote]And labour were better were they? I think the general public would have preferred the heinous Bercow to be prime minister. But lets also not forget how much the scummy council workers skid off of us. Between 2007 and 2012, a total of £440 million was spent on credit cards issued to councillors and staff, who treated themselves to everything from Caribbean holidays to meals in Michelin-starred restaurants. At the same time as they were slashing public services because of the ‘savage cuts’, they were jetting off to exotic locations, including Puerto Rico, Brazil and Australia. Town Halls spent £3.7 million on foreign travel to no less than 90 different destinations. One of the worst offenders was the disgraced Tory peer Lord Hanningfield, who was jailed for fiddling his parliamentary expenses. In his capacity as leader of Essex County Council, he used his official credit card to fly business class to a meaningless conference in the Bahamas. He claimed he couldn’t travel economy because he had a bad back. Makes good reading doesn't it. I'll show more like this before elections just to put these people into the right perspective.[/p][/quote]Oh thanks, no-one else reads the news after all so we need your information don't we. They're mostly all out to feather their own nests and plunder the public purse, of whatever political colour they might be. It's no wonder so many people are disillusioned with the whole system and don't even bother to vote any more. semitonic

9:02pm Tue 10 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

I think the best comment on here is who in their right mind would turn down an 11% payrise. I bet not one of the posters on here, I surely wouldn't. Just another day at the hypocrites ranch!
I think the best comment on here is who in their right mind would turn down an 11% payrise. I bet not one of the posters on here, I surely wouldn't. Just another day at the hypocrites ranch! house on the hill

8:26am Wed 11 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Ringer wrote:
semitonic wrote:
Ringer does such an excellent job of reminding readers how nauseating the Tories really are.
Which is interesting, given that I'm not a Tory. They've proven to be little better than Labour, frankly. Although how much of that is due to the even more abysmal LibDems we'll never really know.
Well you do seem to have more than grudge against Labour, Socialists, Marxists, immigrants, Lib dems and now the soft Tories....
This begs the question, who exactly would you have in charge of extirping the UK from its current Depression?
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]semitonic[/bold] wrote: Ringer does such an excellent job of reminding readers how nauseating the Tories really are.[/p][/quote]Which is interesting, given that I'm not a Tory. They've proven to be little better than Labour, frankly. Although how much of that is due to the even more abysmal LibDems we'll never really know.[/p][/quote]Well you do seem to have more than grudge against Labour, Socialists, Marxists, immigrants, Lib dems and now the soft Tories.... This begs the question, who exactly would you have in charge of extirping the UK from its current Depression? A.Baron-Cohen

9:31am Wed 11 Dec 13

Ringer says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
semitonic wrote:
Ringer does such an excellent job of reminding readers how nauseating the Tories really are.
Which is interesting, given that I'm not a Tory. They've proven to be little better than Labour, frankly. Although how much of that is due to the even more abysmal LibDems we'll never really know.
Well you do seem to have more than grudge against Labour, Socialists, Marxists, immigrants, Lib dems and now the soft Tories....
This begs the question, who exactly would you have in charge of extirping the UK from its current Depression?
Not a 'grudge', no. I just never wish to see the abysmally failed ideology of the Left ever again infect the running of this country.

Leaving aside the acknowledged and undeniable fact that the current government have led the country's economy out of recession and into surprisingly strong growth, I don't believe there is any party in this country that espouses policies that would achieve what needs to be done.

Sadly, the very best we can hope for is that Labour are prevented from destroying the nation further.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]semitonic[/bold] wrote: Ringer does such an excellent job of reminding readers how nauseating the Tories really are.[/p][/quote]Which is interesting, given that I'm not a Tory. They've proven to be little better than Labour, frankly. Although how much of that is due to the even more abysmal LibDems we'll never really know.[/p][/quote]Well you do seem to have more than grudge against Labour, Socialists, Marxists, immigrants, Lib dems and now the soft Tories.... This begs the question, who exactly would you have in charge of extirping the UK from its current Depression?[/p][/quote]Not a 'grudge', no. I just never wish to see the abysmally failed ideology of the Left ever again infect the running of this country. Leaving aside the acknowledged and undeniable fact that the current government have led the country's economy out of recession and into surprisingly strong growth, I don't believe there is any party in this country that espouses policies that would achieve what needs to be done. Sadly, the very best we can hope for is that Labour are prevented from destroying the nation further. Ringer

9:42am Wed 11 Dec 13

benzss says...

Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust.

Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.
Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.
That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen.

If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?
Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA.
I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories
As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander.

It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault.

Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia.

The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008.

That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown.

NEVER AGAIN.
Right, was the previous administration not also complicit in the apparent dearth of regulation in financial sector? Would the Tories have done anything differently? Ideologically, I don't think the Tories and New Labour were economically that far apart, in any case. And, further to your other comments in this thread, New Labour were many things but socialist is not one of them.

In essence, both parties are adopting propagandist explanations for the crisis. As you say, Labour suggest it was an unavoidable global crisis (only somewhat true) and the Tories blame 10+ years of Labour mismanagement (only somewhat true).
It's utterly irrelevant trying to second guess what the Tories might have done 5 years ago.

The only thing that matters is what Labour FAILED to do after having been in office for 11 years.

But, then, it's nothing new, Labour governments always bring this nation's economy to its knees. It's what they do.

As for Politicrat's nonsense, he noticeably fails to deny that vast areas of the world were untouched by what he's still trying to pretend was a 'global' crisis. Labour have lied about it for the past 5 years and, sadly, some people with very limited knowledge prefer to just believe those lies.
It's not really irrelevant, as you're aiming specifically at Labour when, really, the failure - to the extent that there was one - should be attributed to successive governments from the 80s to the 00s. All of them deregulated, recognised and to an extent encouraged the growth of the financial sector because of its obvious significance to the national economy at large. Yes, Labour were caught with their pants down, but I find it disingenuous to suggest they were uniquely and specifically at fault.

Can you explain what actions exactly Labour could have taken to minimise the effect of the financial crisis?
Labour KNEW what should have been done... Brown specifically set-up the FSA to do it. The fact that Labour's FSA failed so miserably at doing what Labour knew needed doing IS ultimately the fault of Labour and Brown, it can't possibly be anyone else's fault.

Plenty of other nations had the mechanisms in place to avoid the economic crash... and did so. I've already mentioned them. It is sheer propaganda nonsense to continually parrot on about a 'global' crisis when large swathes of the world did not suffer an economic crisis and even those that did tended not to suffer as badly as the UK economy did - because Labour's previous 11 years of running that economy had rendered it particularly vulnerable.
And what action could the FSA have taken (as a body apparently independent of government, albeit endowed with substantial statute power)? In any case, the FSA had already existed for a decade under other guises before being renamed and reorganised. Can you provide evidence that Labour, and Brown specifically, reshuffled SIB in anticipation of a speculative bubble and economic collapse?

I fear that the bile you reserve for Labour is rather clouding your judgment. There are many things to hate Labour for, and the recession can indeed be a part of that, but it is really quite bizarre to suggest that Labour were specifically and uniquely responsible for the economic crisis in the UK.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @nigelej: Gordon Brown was chancellor for 10 years leading up to the economic crists and recession. Labour set up the FSA which was intended to regulate the banks. Gordon Brown said he'd abolished boom and bust. Although Labour have desperately spent the past 5 years trying to convince everyone it was 'the bankers what did it', the reality is that Labour had been in government for 10 years prior to the financial meltdown. They are to blame, although you socialists will never accept it, despite EVERY Labour government always leaving this country's economy in tatters after they've foolishly been handed another go at running it.[/p][/quote]Party politics aside, can we really say that the recession is the fault of Labour? Because it rather seems to me that were Labour not in power, bank failures would have occurred anyway.[/p][/quote]That's not necessarily true. Labour turned a blind eye to the banks for 10 years before the crisis hit, despite Gordon Brown having specifically set up the FSA to ensure such things didn't happen. If that's not Labour's failure, what is it?[/p][/quote]Can you please explain how Labour could have prevented the subprime crisis? I am asking because as far as I am aware the financial crash (credit flow crash) of 2008 was a direct result of the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA. I would be very interested to know how Labour, Mr Brown and the FSA could have prevented this crash from happening and spreading worldwide..... we are all very interested to hear your theories[/p][/quote]As you well know, some countries, notably Canada (directly connected to the States) were unaffected. There are reasons why this country was so badly affected (as I imagine you also know only too well) and most of that was due to Labour turning a blind eye to the entire financial sector because of the tax revenues it was generating for them to squander. It is a myth that the crisis was 'global' or 'worldwide'. It has been perpetuated by Labour because they know full well the problems in this country were largely their fault. Ask Australia, ask Canada, ask China. Ask the Middle East and ask most of Asia. The economic and financial disaster in the UK was NOT global and was largely the fault of the people who'd been running the entire nation for over ae decade up until the crash in 2008. That would be: Labour and Gordon Brown. NEVER AGAIN.[/p][/quote]Right, was the previous administration not also complicit in the apparent dearth of regulation in financial sector? Would the Tories have done anything differently? Ideologically, I don't think the Tories and New Labour were economically that far apart, in any case. And, further to your other comments in this thread, New Labour were many things but socialist is not one of them. In essence, both parties are adopting propagandist explanations for the crisis. As you say, Labour suggest it was an unavoidable global crisis (only somewhat true) and the Tories blame 10+ years of Labour mismanagement (only somewhat true).[/p][/quote]It's utterly irrelevant trying to second guess what the Tories might have done 5 years ago. The only thing that matters is what Labour FAILED to do after having been in office for 11 years. But, then, it's nothing new, Labour governments always bring this nation's economy to its knees. It's what they do. As for Politicrat's nonsense, he noticeably fails to deny that vast areas of the world were untouched by what he's still trying to pretend was a 'global' crisis. Labour have lied about it for the past 5 years and, sadly, some people with very limited knowledge prefer to just believe those lies.[/p][/quote]It's not really irrelevant, as you're aiming specifically at Labour when, really, the failure - to the extent that there was one - should be attributed to successive governments from the 80s to the 00s. All of them deregulated, recognised and to an extent encouraged the growth of the financial sector because of its obvious significance to the national economy at large. Yes, Labour were caught with their pants down, but I find it disingenuous to suggest they were uniquely and specifically at fault. Can you explain what actions exactly Labour could have taken to minimise the effect of the financial crisis?[/p][/quote]Labour KNEW what should have been done... Brown specifically set-up the FSA to do it. The fact that Labour's FSA failed so miserably at doing what Labour knew needed doing IS ultimately the fault of Labour and Brown, it can't possibly be anyone else's fault. Plenty of other nations had the mechanisms in place to avoid the economic crash... and did so. I've already mentioned them. It is sheer propaganda nonsense to continually parrot on about a 'global' crisis when large swathes of the world did not suffer an economic crisis and even those that did tended not to suffer as badly as the UK economy did - because Labour's previous 11 years of running that economy had rendered it particularly vulnerable.[/p][/quote]And what action could the FSA have taken (as a body apparently independent of government, albeit endowed with substantial statute power)? In any case, the FSA had already existed for a decade under other guises before being renamed and reorganised. Can you provide evidence that Labour, and Brown specifically, reshuffled SIB in anticipation of a speculative bubble and economic collapse? I fear that the bile you reserve for Labour is rather clouding your judgment. There are many things to hate Labour for, and the recession can indeed be a part of that, but it is really quite bizarre to suggest that Labour were specifically and uniquely responsible for the economic crisis in the UK. benzss

9:45am Wed 11 Dec 13

benzss says...

Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
semitonic wrote:
Ringer does such an excellent job of reminding readers how nauseating the Tories really are.
Which is interesting, given that I'm not a Tory. They've proven to be little better than Labour, frankly. Although how much of that is due to the even more abysmal LibDems we'll never really know.
Well you do seem to have more than grudge against Labour, Socialists, Marxists, immigrants, Lib dems and now the soft Tories....
This begs the question, who exactly would you have in charge of extirping the UK from its current Depression?
Not a 'grudge', no. I just never wish to see the abysmally failed ideology of the Left ever again infect the running of this country.

Leaving aside the acknowledged and undeniable fact that the current government have led the country's economy out of recession and into surprisingly strong growth, I don't believe there is any party in this country that espouses policies that would achieve what needs to be done.

Sadly, the very best we can hope for is that Labour are prevented from destroying the nation further.
On what planet were New Labour's economic policies 'left'? They were most definitely economically centrist, bordering on neoliberal.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]semitonic[/bold] wrote: Ringer does such an excellent job of reminding readers how nauseating the Tories really are.[/p][/quote]Which is interesting, given that I'm not a Tory. They've proven to be little better than Labour, frankly. Although how much of that is due to the even more abysmal LibDems we'll never really know.[/p][/quote]Well you do seem to have more than grudge against Labour, Socialists, Marxists, immigrants, Lib dems and now the soft Tories.... This begs the question, who exactly would you have in charge of extirping the UK from its current Depression?[/p][/quote]Not a 'grudge', no. I just never wish to see the abysmally failed ideology of the Left ever again infect the running of this country. Leaving aside the acknowledged and undeniable fact that the current government have led the country's economy out of recession and into surprisingly strong growth, I don't believe there is any party in this country that espouses policies that would achieve what needs to be done. Sadly, the very best we can hope for is that Labour are prevented from destroying the nation further.[/p][/quote]On what planet were New Labour's economic policies 'left'? They were most definitely economically centrist, bordering on neoliberal. benzss

9:56am Wed 11 Dec 13

Empty Car Park says...

Interesting that some feel that MPs wages aren't great compared to what plumbers and electricians earn.

The key word is "earn"

There is no ambiguity in the regulations and standards that have to be met by professionals.

MPs can do very little yet still claim outrageous expenses on top of money that they have not earned
Interesting that some feel that MPs wages aren't great compared to what plumbers and electricians earn. The key word is "earn" There is no ambiguity in the regulations and standards that have to be met by professionals. MPs can do very little yet still claim outrageous expenses on top of money that they have not earned Empty Car Park

10:12am Wed 11 Dec 13

Ringer says...

@benzss: it's because I have clear judgement that I reserve so much bile for Labour. Whatever you may attempt to pretend, it is impossible for any one person to virtually single-handedly control the entire UK economy for 11 straight years and then claim that when something very bad happens it's nothing to do with them and was completely unavoidable.

Plenty of people knew exactly what was coming and several politicians had flagged it up. The UK was so badly placed because Blair and Brown were in thrall to the financial sector and the tax revenues it generated for them to waste. That's why the sector was allowed to get away with practices that were not permitted in other nations - most of which remained largely unaffected by the banking crisis that we suffered.

The manner in which Labour attempted to shift the blame for their incompetence was nothing short of scandalous.
@benzss: it's because I have clear judgement that I reserve so much bile for Labour. Whatever you may attempt to pretend, it is impossible for any one person to virtually single-handedly control the entire UK economy for 11 straight years and then claim that when something very bad happens it's nothing to do with them and was completely unavoidable. Plenty of people knew exactly what was coming and several politicians had flagged it up. The UK was so badly placed because Blair and Brown were in thrall to the financial sector and the tax revenues it generated for them to waste. That's why the sector was allowed to get away with practices that were not permitted in other nations - most of which remained largely unaffected by the banking crisis that we suffered. The manner in which Labour attempted to shift the blame for their incompetence was nothing short of scandalous. Ringer

10:14am Wed 11 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
Interesting that some feel that MPs wages aren't great compared to what plumbers and electricians earn.

The key word is "earn"

There is no ambiguity in the regulations and standards that have to be met by professionals.

MPs can do very little yet still claim outrageous expenses on top of money that they have not earned
I guarantee you that both Tomlinson and Buckland work longer hours than you do... and have a FAR more positive impact on more people's lives.

Incapable and underachieving people like you always casually dismiss MPs as not earning their money or doing very little. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever you silly little man.
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: Interesting that some feel that MPs wages aren't great compared to what plumbers and electricians earn. The key word is "earn" There is no ambiguity in the regulations and standards that have to be met by professionals. MPs can do very little yet still claim outrageous expenses on top of money that they have not earned[/p][/quote]I guarantee you that both Tomlinson and Buckland work longer hours than you do... and have a FAR more positive impact on more people's lives. Incapable and underachieving people like you always casually dismiss MPs as not earning their money or doing very little. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever you silly little man. Ringer

11:34am Wed 11 Dec 13

benzss says...

Ringer wrote:
@benzss: it's because I have clear judgement that I reserve so much bile for Labour. Whatever you may attempt to pretend, it is impossible for any one person to virtually single-handedly control the entire UK economy for 11 straight years and then claim that when something very bad happens it's nothing to do with them and was completely unavoidable.

Plenty of people knew exactly what was coming and several politicians had flagged it up. The UK was so badly placed because Blair and Brown were in thrall to the financial sector and the tax revenues it generated for them to waste. That's why the sector was allowed to get away with practices that were not permitted in other nations - most of which remained largely unaffected by the banking crisis that we suffered.

The manner in which Labour attempted to shift the blame for their incompetence was nothing short of scandalous.
You're presenting a false dilemma here; nobody's saying Labour had no hand in it, merely that to an extent there were few realistic* actions available to them that could have stopped anything bad happening in the UK. As a corollary of this, although you consider it 'utterly irrelevant', I absolutely guarantee you that the Tories would have been - and they to an extent still are - 'in thrall to the financial sector'. Regardless of the rights or wrongs, the Conservative administration in the 1980s made a deliberate point of repositioning the UK's economy away manufacturing to services, which was a process well underway by 1997; indeed, it was bearing fruit by the bucket load and had on aggregate adequately replaced manufacturing in terms of output.

Also, those nations you claim were 'unaffected' were still affected - even Canada went into recession. Rather a lot of companies from a diverse range of countries relied on credit supplied by big multinationals whose headquarters were in the US or UK; that credit dried up regardless of national policy. And this is not to mention the effect on import/export. Canada's largest trading partner is the US, and when the US is buying less stuff, Canada suffers too. Of course they benefit from having a small domestic population and a very large country rich in natural resources, which is basically the opposite of the situation in, say, the UK and Japan.

* By 'realistic' I mean any actions that wouldn't have been political suicide. Hamstringing the City and potentially crippling the UK's economy in the short- to medium-term is not an option for governments that exist in 4 year cycles. This is another reason why the Tories would not have acted any differently.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @benzss: it's because I have clear judgement that I reserve so much bile for Labour. Whatever you may attempt to pretend, it is impossible for any one person to virtually single-handedly control the entire UK economy for 11 straight years and then claim that when something very bad happens it's nothing to do with them and was completely unavoidable. Plenty of people knew exactly what was coming and several politicians had flagged it up. The UK was so badly placed because Blair and Brown were in thrall to the financial sector and the tax revenues it generated for them to waste. That's why the sector was allowed to get away with practices that were not permitted in other nations - most of which remained largely unaffected by the banking crisis that we suffered. The manner in which Labour attempted to shift the blame for their incompetence was nothing short of scandalous.[/p][/quote]You're presenting a false dilemma here; nobody's saying Labour had no hand in it, merely that to an extent there were few realistic* actions available to them that could have stopped anything bad happening in the UK. As a corollary of this, although you consider it 'utterly irrelevant', I absolutely guarantee you that the Tories would have been - and they to an extent still are - 'in thrall to the financial sector'. Regardless of the rights or wrongs, the Conservative administration in the 1980s made a deliberate point of repositioning the UK's economy away manufacturing to services, which was a process well underway by 1997; indeed, it was bearing fruit by the bucket load and had on aggregate adequately replaced manufacturing in terms of output. Also, those nations you claim were 'unaffected' were still affected - even Canada went into recession. Rather a lot of companies from a diverse range of countries relied on credit supplied by big multinationals whose headquarters were in the US or UK; that credit dried up regardless of national policy. And this is not to mention the effect on import/export. Canada's largest trading partner is the US, and when the US is buying less stuff, Canada suffers too. Of course they benefit from having a small domestic population and a very large country rich in natural resources, which is basically the opposite of the situation in, say, the UK and Japan. * By 'realistic' I mean any actions that wouldn't have been political suicide. Hamstringing the City and potentially crippling the UK's economy in the short- to medium-term is not an option for governments that exist in 4 year cycles. This is another reason why the Tories would not have acted any differently. benzss

11:44am Wed 11 Dec 13

Ringer says...

You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them.

It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up.

I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now.

Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.
You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them. It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up. I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now. Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis. Ringer

11:48am Wed 11 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Ringer wrote:
You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them.

It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up.

I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now.

Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.
As already stated, Australia most definitely was affected.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them. It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up. I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now. Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.[/p][/quote]As already stated, Australia most definitely was affected. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

11:59am Wed 11 Dec 13

Ringer says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Ringer wrote:
You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them.

It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up.

I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now.

Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.
As already stated, Australia most definitely was affected.
Australia wasn't *entirely* untouched, no. But you may find this of interest:


How Australia weathered the global financial crisis while Europe failed

Kevin Rudd can't take credit for avoiding the economic crisis – it is the pre-existing strength of the Australian government's finances which saved us from a catastrophe


is.gd/vpWeHk

As I've said before, don't fall for the Labour lies that it was a 'global' crisis that was unavoidable. Don't let them play you.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them. It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up. I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now. Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.[/p][/quote]As already stated, Australia most definitely was affected.[/p][/quote]Australia wasn't *entirely* untouched, no. But you may find this of interest: [quote] How Australia weathered the global financial crisis while Europe failed Kevin Rudd can't take credit for avoiding the economic crisis – it is the pre-existing strength of the Australian government's finances which saved us from a catastrophe [/quote] is.gd/vpWeHk As I've said before, don't fall for the Labour lies that it was a 'global' crisis that was unavoidable. Don't let them play you. Ringer

12:13pm Wed 11 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Ringer wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Ringer wrote:
You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them.

It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up.

I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now.

Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.
As already stated, Australia most definitely was affected.
Australia wasn't *entirely* untouched, no. But you may find this of interest:


How Australia weathered the global financial crisis while Europe failed

Kevin Rudd can't take credit for avoiding the economic crisis – it is the pre-existing strength of the Australian government's finances which saved us from a catastrophe


is.gd/vpWeHk

As I've said before, don't fall for the Labour lies that it was a 'global' crisis that was unavoidable. Don't let them play you.
All well and good but a very shallow viewpoint. The only reason Australia had good finances was because of an unprecedented Chinese demand for Australian raw materials (mining) that was not subdued despite the recession. Many Australians are very concerned that Chinese mining is slowly destroying their country. However, without that, Australia would have been up the same creek with the same deficient paddle as everyone else. Their finance sector was just as affected as ours.

Like I said yesterday, successive governments have put all our eggs into one "financial services" basket, leaving us vulnerable if that basket gets broken. The large debt burden we and other governments have certainly doesn't help, but the real issue is the state sponsored lack of diversity in our economy.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them. It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up. I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now. Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.[/p][/quote]As already stated, Australia most definitely was affected.[/p][/quote]Australia wasn't *entirely* untouched, no. But you may find this of interest: [quote] How Australia weathered the global financial crisis while Europe failed Kevin Rudd can't take credit for avoiding the economic crisis – it is the pre-existing strength of the Australian government's finances which saved us from a catastrophe [/quote] is.gd/vpWeHk As I've said before, don't fall for the Labour lies that it was a 'global' crisis that was unavoidable. Don't let them play you.[/p][/quote]All well and good but a very shallow viewpoint. The only reason Australia had good finances was because of an unprecedented Chinese demand for Australian raw materials (mining) that was not subdued despite the recession. Many Australians are very concerned that Chinese mining is slowly destroying their country. However, without that, Australia would have been up the same creek with the same deficient paddle as everyone else. Their finance sector was just as affected as ours. Like I said yesterday, successive governments have put all our eggs into one "financial services" basket, leaving us vulnerable if that basket gets broken. The large debt burden we and other governments have certainly doesn't help, but the real issue is the state sponsored lack of diversity in our economy. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

12:17pm Wed 11 Dec 13

benzss says...

Ringer wrote:
You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them.

It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up.

I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now.

Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.
The majority of Tories did vote for the invasion of Iraq, so I'm not sure what your point there is.

Regarding the financial crisis, your vitriol against Labour is precisely why the Tories' attitude is relevant. As it was they who empowered the City and encouraged the growth of the financial sector, it is reasonable to suggest that were Labour not in power the Tories would have been involved in the same mess. I'm bemused as to why you can't see that. If you want to point your vitriol at somebody, direct it at government(s) in general and, more importantly in my view, the BoE.

And I'm not sure you're entirely right on the other point... Singapore was in recession a few years ago, and Australia has been experiencing fluctuating exports in addition to a precarious housing bubble that is yet to burst. And Africa was definitely affected by the slowdown - consider that most of Africa's exports go to the US and EU, and until recently they weren't really buying a lot.

The whole world was affected by the banking crisis, it just so happens that the banks that fell over were the ones supplying credit, and furthermore were mostly based in the US and EU. I would say that national policies in those places had less impact than did the structure of the global economy at the time.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them. It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up. I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now. Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.[/p][/quote]The majority of Tories did vote for the invasion of Iraq, so I'm not sure what your point there is. Regarding the financial crisis, your vitriol against Labour is precisely why the Tories' attitude is relevant. As it was they who empowered the City and encouraged the growth of the financial sector, it is reasonable to suggest that were Labour not in power the Tories would have been involved in the same mess. I'm bemused as to why you can't see that. If you want to point your vitriol at somebody, direct it at government(s) in general and, more importantly in my view, the BoE. And I'm not sure you're entirely right on the other point... Singapore was in recession a few years ago, and Australia has been experiencing fluctuating exports in addition to a precarious housing bubble that is yet to burst. And Africa was definitely affected by the slowdown - consider that most of Africa's exports go to the US and EU, and until recently they weren't really buying a lot. The whole world was affected by the banking crisis, it just so happens that the banks that fell over were the ones supplying credit, and furthermore were mostly based in the US and EU. I would say that national policies in those places had less impact than did the structure of the global economy at the time. benzss

12:42pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Empty Car Park says...

Ringer wrote:
Empty Car Park wrote:
Interesting that some feel that MPs wages aren't great compared to what plumbers and electricians earn.

The key word is "earn"

There is no ambiguity in the regulations and standards that have to be met by professionals.

MPs can do very little yet still claim outrageous expenses on top of money that they have not earned
I guarantee you that both Tomlinson and Buckland work longer hours than you do... and have a FAR more positive impact on more people's lives.

Incapable and underachieving people like you always casually dismiss MPs as not earning their money or doing very little. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever you silly little man.
You have absolutely nothing to sustantiate your character assassination of myself.

So keep trolling
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: Interesting that some feel that MPs wages aren't great compared to what plumbers and electricians earn. The key word is "earn" There is no ambiguity in the regulations and standards that have to be met by professionals. MPs can do very little yet still claim outrageous expenses on top of money that they have not earned[/p][/quote]I guarantee you that both Tomlinson and Buckland work longer hours than you do... and have a FAR more positive impact on more people's lives. Incapable and underachieving people like you always casually dismiss MPs as not earning their money or doing very little. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever you silly little man.[/p][/quote]You have absolutely nothing to sustantiate your character assassination of myself. So keep trolling Empty Car Park

12:57pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Ringer says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Ringer wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Ringer wrote:
You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them.

It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up.

I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now.

Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.
As already stated, Australia most definitely was affected.
Australia wasn't *entirely* untouched, no. But you may find this of interest:


How Australia weathered the global financial crisis while Europe failed

Kevin Rudd can't take credit for avoiding the economic crisis – it is the pre-existing strength of the Australian government's finances which saved us from a catastrophe


is.gd/vpWeHk

As I've said before, don't fall for the Labour lies that it was a 'global' crisis that was unavoidable. Don't let them play you.
All well and good but a very shallow viewpoint. The only reason Australia had good finances was because of an unprecedented Chinese demand for Australian raw materials (mining) that was not subdued despite the recession. Many Australians are very concerned that Chinese mining is slowly destroying their country. However, without that, Australia would have been up the same creek with the same deficient paddle as everyone else. Their finance sector was just as affected as ours.

Like I said yesterday, successive governments have put all our eggs into one "financial services" basket, leaving us vulnerable if that basket gets broken. The large debt burden we and other governments have certainly doesn't help, but the real issue is the state sponsored lack of diversity in our economy.
But they weren't. That's the point.

Yes, everything has a reason, but the fact remains that Australia was largely untroubled by the same, ahem, 'global' crisis that so badly affected - and still does - our own country.

Plenty of other nations didn't suffer the problems we did... all thanks to Gordon Brown and Labour's mismanagement of the country.

Could've, would've, should've doesn't change that.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them. It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up. I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now. Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.[/p][/quote]As already stated, Australia most definitely was affected.[/p][/quote]Australia wasn't *entirely* untouched, no. But you may find this of interest: [quote] How Australia weathered the global financial crisis while Europe failed Kevin Rudd can't take credit for avoiding the economic crisis – it is the pre-existing strength of the Australian government's finances which saved us from a catastrophe [/quote] is.gd/vpWeHk As I've said before, don't fall for the Labour lies that it was a 'global' crisis that was unavoidable. Don't let them play you.[/p][/quote]All well and good but a very shallow viewpoint. The only reason Australia had good finances was because of an unprecedented Chinese demand for Australian raw materials (mining) that was not subdued despite the recession. Many Australians are very concerned that Chinese mining is slowly destroying their country. However, without that, Australia would have been up the same creek with the same deficient paddle as everyone else. Their finance sector was just as affected as ours. Like I said yesterday, successive governments have put all our eggs into one "financial services" basket, leaving us vulnerable if that basket gets broken. The large debt burden we and other governments have certainly doesn't help, but the real issue is the state sponsored lack of diversity in our economy.[/p][/quote]But they weren't. That's the point. Yes, everything has a reason, but the fact remains that Australia was largely untroubled by the same, ahem, 'global' crisis that so badly affected - and still does - our own country. Plenty of other nations didn't suffer the problems we did... all thanks to Gordon Brown and Labour's mismanagement of the country. Could've, would've, should've doesn't change that. Ringer

12:59pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Empty Car Park wrote:
Interesting that some feel that MPs wages aren't great compared to what plumbers and electricians earn.

The key word is "earn"

There is no ambiguity in the regulations and standards that have to be met by professionals.

MPs can do very little yet still claim outrageous expenses on top of money that they have not earned
I guarantee you that both Tomlinson and Buckland work longer hours than you do... and have a FAR more positive impact on more people's lives.

Incapable and underachieving people like you always casually dismiss MPs as not earning their money or doing very little. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever you silly little man.
You have absolutely nothing to sustantiate your character assassination of myself.

So keep trolling
You're the only troll here, with your inane, one line insults and (you apparently seem to think) 'witty' remarks.

You offer nothing of interest to anyone, but keep on doing what you do, it's highly amusing.
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: Interesting that some feel that MPs wages aren't great compared to what plumbers and electricians earn. The key word is "earn" There is no ambiguity in the regulations and standards that have to be met by professionals. MPs can do very little yet still claim outrageous expenses on top of money that they have not earned[/p][/quote]I guarantee you that both Tomlinson and Buckland work longer hours than you do... and have a FAR more positive impact on more people's lives. Incapable and underachieving people like you always casually dismiss MPs as not earning their money or doing very little. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever you silly little man.[/p][/quote]You have absolutely nothing to sustantiate your character assassination of myself. So keep trolling[/p][/quote]You're the only troll here, with your inane, one line insults and (you apparently seem to think) 'witty' remarks. You offer nothing of interest to anyone, but keep on doing what you do, it's highly amusing. Ringer

1:00pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Ringer says...

benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them.

It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up.

I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now.

Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.
The majority of Tories did vote for the invasion of Iraq, so I'm not sure what your point there is.

Regarding the financial crisis, your vitriol against Labour is precisely why the Tories' attitude is relevant. As it was they who empowered the City and encouraged the growth of the financial sector, it is reasonable to suggest that were Labour not in power the Tories would have been involved in the same mess. I'm bemused as to why you can't see that. If you want to point your vitriol at somebody, direct it at government(s) in general and, more importantly in my view, the BoE.

And I'm not sure you're entirely right on the other point... Singapore was in recession a few years ago, and Australia has been experiencing fluctuating exports in addition to a precarious housing bubble that is yet to burst. And Africa was definitely affected by the slowdown - consider that most of Africa's exports go to the US and EU, and until recently they weren't really buying a lot.

The whole world was affected by the banking crisis, it just so happens that the banks that fell over were the ones supplying credit, and furthermore were mostly based in the US and EU. I would say that national policies in those places had less impact than did the structure of the global economy at the time.
Please don't tell me you think the BoE is actually 'independent'?

Another of Brown's lies.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them. It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up. I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now. Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.[/p][/quote]The majority of Tories did vote for the invasion of Iraq, so I'm not sure what your point there is. Regarding the financial crisis, your vitriol against Labour is precisely why the Tories' attitude is relevant. As it was they who empowered the City and encouraged the growth of the financial sector, it is reasonable to suggest that were Labour not in power the Tories would have been involved in the same mess. I'm bemused as to why you can't see that. If you want to point your vitriol at somebody, direct it at government(s) in general and, more importantly in my view, the BoE. And I'm not sure you're entirely right on the other point... Singapore was in recession a few years ago, and Australia has been experiencing fluctuating exports in addition to a precarious housing bubble that is yet to burst. And Africa was definitely affected by the slowdown - consider that most of Africa's exports go to the US and EU, and until recently they weren't really buying a lot. The whole world was affected by the banking crisis, it just so happens that the banks that fell over were the ones supplying credit, and furthermore were mostly based in the US and EU. I would say that national policies in those places had less impact than did the structure of the global economy at the time.[/p][/quote]Please don't tell me you think the BoE is actually 'independent'? Another of Brown's lies. Ringer

1:19pm Wed 11 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Ringer wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Ringer wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Ringer wrote:
You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them.

It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up.

I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now.

Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.
As already stated, Australia most definitely was affected.
Australia wasn't *entirely* untouched, no. But you may find this of interest:


How Australia weathered the global financial crisis while Europe failed

Kevin Rudd can't take credit for avoiding the economic crisis – it is the pre-existing strength of the Australian government's finances which saved us from a catastrophe


is.gd/vpWeHk

As I've said before, don't fall for the Labour lies that it was a 'global' crisis that was unavoidable. Don't let them play you.
All well and good but a very shallow viewpoint. The only reason Australia had good finances was because of an unprecedented Chinese demand for Australian raw materials (mining) that was not subdued despite the recession. Many Australians are very concerned that Chinese mining is slowly destroying their country. However, without that, Australia would have been up the same creek with the same deficient paddle as everyone else. Their finance sector was just as affected as ours.

Like I said yesterday, successive governments have put all our eggs into one "financial services" basket, leaving us vulnerable if that basket gets broken. The large debt burden we and other governments have certainly doesn't help, but the real issue is the state sponsored lack of diversity in our economy.
But they weren't. That's the point.

Yes, everything has a reason, but the fact remains that Australia was largely untroubled by the same, ahem, 'global' crisis that so badly affected - and still does - our own country.

Plenty of other nations didn't suffer the problems we did... all thanks to Gordon Brown and Labour's mismanagement of the country.

Could've, would've, should've doesn't change that.
I'm not sure what trying to argue about. I'll try to explain it another way.

Australia didn't do anything clever. She was *less* affected by the global financial meltdown simply because its lack of exposure in those markets. The vast majority of their income is derived from exports of raw materials to China. Their financial markets are still suffering the effects of the crash, just like everyone else. If there had been a global raw materials price crash instead of a financial crash, we'd have been rosy and Australia wouldn't be.

The issue is the lack of diversification of the economy which leaves it open to any "shocks" such as this.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them. It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up. I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now. Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.[/p][/quote]As already stated, Australia most definitely was affected.[/p][/quote]Australia wasn't *entirely* untouched, no. But you may find this of interest: [quote] How Australia weathered the global financial crisis while Europe failed Kevin Rudd can't take credit for avoiding the economic crisis – it is the pre-existing strength of the Australian government's finances which saved us from a catastrophe [/quote] is.gd/vpWeHk As I've said before, don't fall for the Labour lies that it was a 'global' crisis that was unavoidable. Don't let them play you.[/p][/quote]All well and good but a very shallow viewpoint. The only reason Australia had good finances was because of an unprecedented Chinese demand for Australian raw materials (mining) that was not subdued despite the recession. Many Australians are very concerned that Chinese mining is slowly destroying their country. However, without that, Australia would have been up the same creek with the same deficient paddle as everyone else. Their finance sector was just as affected as ours. Like I said yesterday, successive governments have put all our eggs into one "financial services" basket, leaving us vulnerable if that basket gets broken. The large debt burden we and other governments have certainly doesn't help, but the real issue is the state sponsored lack of diversity in our economy.[/p][/quote]But they weren't. That's the point. Yes, everything has a reason, but the fact remains that Australia was largely untroubled by the same, ahem, 'global' crisis that so badly affected - and still does - our own country. Plenty of other nations didn't suffer the problems we did... all thanks to Gordon Brown and Labour's mismanagement of the country. Could've, would've, should've doesn't change that.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure what trying to argue about. I'll try to explain it another way. Australia didn't do anything clever. She was *less* affected by the global financial meltdown simply because its lack of exposure in those markets. The vast majority of their income is derived from exports of raw materials to China. Their financial markets are still suffering the effects of the crash, just like everyone else. If there had been a global raw materials price crash instead of a financial crash, we'd have been rosy and Australia wouldn't be. The issue is the lack of diversification of the economy which leaves it open to any "shocks" such as this. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

1:48pm Wed 11 Dec 13

benzss says...

Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Ringer wrote:
You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them.

It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up.

I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now.

Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.
The majority of Tories did vote for the invasion of Iraq, so I'm not sure what your point there is.

Regarding the financial crisis, your vitriol against Labour is precisely why the Tories' attitude is relevant. As it was they who empowered the City and encouraged the growth of the financial sector, it is reasonable to suggest that were Labour not in power the Tories would have been involved in the same mess. I'm bemused as to why you can't see that. If you want to point your vitriol at somebody, direct it at government(s) in general and, more importantly in my view, the BoE.

And I'm not sure you're entirely right on the other point... Singapore was in recession a few years ago, and Australia has been experiencing fluctuating exports in addition to a precarious housing bubble that is yet to burst. And Africa was definitely affected by the slowdown - consider that most of Africa's exports go to the US and EU, and until recently they weren't really buying a lot.

The whole world was affected by the banking crisis, it just so happens that the banks that fell over were the ones supplying credit, and furthermore were mostly based in the US and EU. I would say that national policies in those places had less impact than did the structure of the global economy at the time.
Please don't tell me you think the BoE is actually 'independent'?

Another of Brown's lies.
Where did I say that?

And how is it one of 'Brown's lies'?

You're really jumping the shark, here, Ringer. I'm starting to think that you have little to say beyond extolling your hatred of all things Labour. I mean, normally I'd be in favour of that, it's just that in this instance you are plainly quite wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: You can't blame people for not doing things that they were unable to do because other people were the only ones at the time that could have done them. It IS irrelevant what the Tories would have done because they didn't do it and never could have done it... but it is undeniably the fact that Labour did mess it all up. I've heard similar arguments from various Marxists about the Iraq war. Their 'defence' of it seems to consist of sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating the phrase, 'The Tories would have done the same'. Well, maybe the would have done, we'll never know. What we DO know is that Blair ignored the wishes of the people and took us into a disastrous war that's still seeing our troops die almost weekly even now. Australia? Singapore? China? The Middle East? Africa? Most of Asia? A larger part of the world was not affected than was affected by the banking crisis.[/p][/quote]The majority of Tories did vote for the invasion of Iraq, so I'm not sure what your point there is. Regarding the financial crisis, your vitriol against Labour is precisely why the Tories' attitude is relevant. As it was they who empowered the City and encouraged the growth of the financial sector, it is reasonable to suggest that were Labour not in power the Tories would have been involved in the same mess. I'm bemused as to why you can't see that. If you want to point your vitriol at somebody, direct it at government(s) in general and, more importantly in my view, the BoE. And I'm not sure you're entirely right on the other point... Singapore was in recession a few years ago, and Australia has been experiencing fluctuating exports in addition to a precarious housing bubble that is yet to burst. And Africa was definitely affected by the slowdown - consider that most of Africa's exports go to the US and EU, and until recently they weren't really buying a lot. The whole world was affected by the banking crisis, it just so happens that the banks that fell over were the ones supplying credit, and furthermore were mostly based in the US and EU. I would say that national policies in those places had less impact than did the structure of the global economy at the time.[/p][/quote]Please don't tell me you think the BoE is actually 'independent'? Another of Brown's lies.[/p][/quote]Where did I say that? And how is it one of 'Brown's lies'? You're really jumping the shark, here, Ringer. I'm starting to think that you have little to say beyond extolling your hatred of all things Labour. I mean, normally I'd be in favour of that, it's just that in this instance you are plainly quite wrong. benzss

1:54pm Wed 11 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Bearing in mind that at the last count there were still more than 100 Council Managers earning over £50k, how are the MP's salaries unreasonable? OK so the timing isnt good but then would any time be good. Even the boss of Prospect gets over £100k and that is supposed to be a charity!!!!! Lets get real here.
Bearing in mind that at the last count there were still more than 100 Council Managers earning over £50k, how are the MP's salaries unreasonable? OK so the timing isnt good but then would any time be good. Even the boss of Prospect gets over £100k and that is supposed to be a charity!!!!! Lets get real here. house on the hill

1:58pm Wed 11 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

house on the hill wrote:
Bearing in mind that at the last count there were still more than 100 Council Managers earning over £50k, how are the MP's salaries unreasonable? OK so the timing isnt good but then would any time be good. Even the boss of Prospect gets over £100k and that is supposed to be a charity!!!!! Lets get real here.
That I'm afraid is called the "Politics of envy" or "Tall poppy syndrome". e.g. "I can't earn what you earn so you shouldn't have it."

It's easier to criticise others achievements than to work hard to achieve the same.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Bearing in mind that at the last count there were still more than 100 Council Managers earning over £50k, how are the MP's salaries unreasonable? OK so the timing isnt good but then would any time be good. Even the boss of Prospect gets over £100k and that is supposed to be a charity!!!!! Lets get real here.[/p][/quote]That I'm afraid is called the "Politics of envy" or "Tall poppy syndrome". e.g. "I can't earn what you earn so you shouldn't have it." It's easier to criticise others achievements than to work hard to achieve the same. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

6:27pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Ringer says...

It just gets worse. How is this menace getting away with these abysmal decisions:

is.gd/k8O9Gw


while his client accepted using the words, the victim's sexual orientation was not the reason for the attack.


And the judge actually swallowed it. OUTSTANDING.
It just gets worse. How is this menace getting away with these abysmal decisions: is.gd/k8O9Gw [quote] while his client accepted using the words, the victim's sexual orientation was not the reason for the attack. [/quote] And the judge actually swallowed it. OUTSTANDING. Ringer

9:24pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Empty Car Park says...

The topic is titled as
MP to accept ‘badly timed’ pay increase

Not
Ollie's cheap political ramblings

MP to accept ‘badly timed’ pay increase
The topic is titled as MP to accept ‘badly timed’ pay increase Not Ollie's cheap political ramblings MP to accept ‘badly timed’ pay increase Empty Car Park

7:17am Thu 12 Dec 13

semitonic says...

Ringer wrote:
It just gets worse. How is this menace getting away with these abysmal decisions:

is.gd/k8O9Gw


while his client accepted using the words, the victim's sexual orientation was not the reason for the attack.


And the judge actually swallowed it. OUTSTANDING.
This was an interesting debate that you were clearly losing and now you're trying to sway it on to your other pet subject; judges. Can't you just admit you are wrong?
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: It just gets worse. How is this menace getting away with these abysmal decisions: is.gd/k8O9Gw [quote] while his client accepted using the words, the victim's sexual orientation was not the reason for the attack. [/quote] And the judge actually swallowed it. OUTSTANDING.[/p][/quote]This was an interesting debate that you were clearly losing and now you're trying to sway it on to your other pet subject; judges. Can't you just admit you are wrong? semitonic

8:43am Thu 12 Dec 13

LocalBob80 says...

We 're all sick of Ringers rants
We 're all sick of Ringers rants LocalBob80

8:55am Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

semitonic wrote:
Ringer wrote:
It just gets worse. How is this menace getting away with these abysmal decisions:

is.gd/k8O9Gw


while his client accepted using the words, the victim's sexual orientation was not the reason for the attack.


And the judge actually swallowed it. OUTSTANDING.
This was an interesting debate that you were clearly losing and now you're trying to sway it on to your other pet subject; judges. Can't you just admit you are wrong?
Given that I'm not wrong, and have provided evidence to back up my point, your post makes very little sense.

As per usual.
[quote][p][bold]semitonic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: It just gets worse. How is this menace getting away with these abysmal decisions: is.gd/k8O9Gw [quote] while his client accepted using the words, the victim's sexual orientation was not the reason for the attack. [/quote] And the judge actually swallowed it. OUTSTANDING.[/p][/quote]This was an interesting debate that you were clearly losing and now you're trying to sway it on to your other pet subject; judges. Can't you just admit you are wrong?[/p][/quote]Given that I'm not wrong, and have provided evidence to back up my point, your post makes very little sense. As per usual. Ringer

8:56am Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

LocalBob80 wrote:
We 're all sick of Ringers rants
Is that 'all' as in, the 6 different logins you're using on this thread?
[quote][p][bold]LocalBob80[/bold] wrote: We 're all sick of Ringers rants[/p][/quote]Is that 'all' as in, the 6 different logins you're using on this thread? Ringer

10:53am Thu 12 Dec 13

benzss says...

Ringer wrote:
LocalBob80 wrote:
We 're all sick of Ringers rants
Is that 'all' as in, the 6 different logins you're using on this thread?
Or the logins you're using to vote down all the posts that pick you up on your nonsense (and that you conveniently ignore)?

oh no, I just dragged myself into a 'U HAV LOGINZ' argument
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LocalBob80[/bold] wrote: We 're all sick of Ringers rants[/p][/quote]Is that 'all' as in, the 6 different logins you're using on this thread?[/p][/quote]Or the logins you're using to vote down all the posts that pick you up on your nonsense (and that you conveniently ignore)? oh no, I just dragged myself into a 'U HAV LOGINZ' argument benzss

6:14pm Fri 13 Dec 13

FLOGGITLAD says...

things to remember brown gave fred the shed his knighthood for services to banking, some banking for RBS, on a salary of 64,000, our last mp was even getting carrier bags on expenses so how nauseating is that, and now we are told that labour will have no more welfare cuts, but will cut the state pension..
and milibband and balls were 'advisors' to brown when he thought up the 10p tax fiasco..
and remember Falkirk.... wouldn't let them run a tea shop..
things to remember brown gave fred the shed his knighthood for services to banking, some banking for RBS, on a salary of 64,000, our last mp was even getting carrier bags on expenses so how nauseating is that, and now we are told that labour will have no more welfare cuts, but will cut the state pension.. and milibband and balls were 'advisors' to brown when he thought up the 10p tax fiasco.. and remember Falkirk.... wouldn't let them run a tea shop.. FLOGGITLAD

4:03pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Miss Jools says...

Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
swindon69 wrote:
Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.
The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year.

If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.
Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.
Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year?

That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.
Yes, but 5.2% of a pittance is still not a lot...
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindon69[/bold] wrote: Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.[/p][/quote]The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year. If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.[/p][/quote]Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year? That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.[/p][/quote]Yes, but 5.2% of a pittance is still not a lot... Miss Jools

10:22pm Mon 16 Dec 13

FLOGGITLAD says...

labour has now said if they get in power, there will be no more welfare cuts but the state pension will be cut to pay for it.. and income tax will go up by 2.5%. same old as ever.....
labour has now said if they get in power, there will be no more welfare cuts but the state pension will be cut to pay for it.. and income tax will go up by 2.5%. same old as ever..... FLOGGITLAD

9:48am Tue 17 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Miss Jools wrote:
Ringer wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Ringer wrote:
swindon69 wrote:
Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.
The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year.

If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.
Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.
Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year?

That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.
Yes, but 5.2% of a pittance is still not a lot...
It is when you multiply it by several million.
[quote][p][bold]Miss Jools[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindon69[/bold] wrote: Cut the welfare budget, impose financial misery on millions of hardworking people and restrict pay increases so wages do not keep pace with the cost of living. Then, accept an 11% pay rise so you can continue to ride the gravy train. Typical Tory attitude from Robert Buckland. Shame on you and shame on the people who voted for you. Justin Tomlinson will take the money, despite his guarded comments.[/p][/quote]The figures are published and verified by the independent ONS - the UK welfare budget continues to increase, year on year. If only the gutless Tories had actually cut it.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should read it properly.......and look for the ring fenced cost of Pensions, this is the part going up and represents 50%+ of the Nation's Welfare bill, welfare itself is coming down.[/p][/quote]Spending on welfare is rising, you can't deny that. Yes, pensions are increasing, but did you not notice the 5.2% increase in benefits that was handed out last year? That's far, far more than most people could have hoped to have received.[/p][/quote]Yes, but 5.2% of a pittance is still not a lot...[/p][/quote]It is when you multiply it by several million. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

10:10am Tue 17 Dec 13

FLOGGITLAD says...

I wish my pensions went up by 5.2% each year.. and I worked all my life... not looked for the golden plate....
I wish my pensions went up by 5.2% each year.. and I worked all my life... not looked for the golden plate.... FLOGGITLAD

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree