Dos_Box Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 Don't look at the debt as something plainly bad - it was a necessary evil during a recession in order to stimulate the economy enough to prevent a depression. The times we are having would be a lot worse if the government hadn't done anything... I'll tell that to my kids when they're paying it off.
ICT_GUY Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 Dont worry the debt will be constantly devalued through inflation and the diluting of the pound!
Dos_Box Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 Dont worry the debt will be constantly devalued through inflation and the diluting of the pound! Sorry, I forgot. Well, thats all right then.
localzuk Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 I'll tell that to my kids when they're paying it off. I'll be paying it off too... But I'd rather that than massive unemployment due to a depression to be honest. Dont worry the debt will be constantly devalued through inflation and the diluting of the pound! Huzzah!
K.C.Leblanc Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 Dont worry the debt will be constantly devalued through inflation and the diluting of the pound! So with pay levels remaining static we won't soon be able to afford luxuries, like housing, or food.
mattx Posted February 22, 2010 Author Posted February 22, 2010 Dont worry the debt will be constantly devalued through inflation and the diluting of the pound! How true, sok though - I look forward to the day we 'skip' the Euro and everyone starts using the US Dollar instead.....
torledo Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 So with pay levels remaining static we won't soon be able to afford luxuries, like housing, or food. with pay levels static, and inflation at 3%+, what are people doing ? Looking at inflation hedges for their savings probably.
srochford Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 I'll tell that to my kids when they're paying it off. All governments borrow money - it's hardly new that this government has borrowed money. It's also one of the myths that they didn't save money when the going was good - they brought down national debt massively during the late 90's early 00's (I think it was under this government that we finally paid off the debt accrued during the second world war!) It's easy for evil lying politicians to slag each other off and for us to join in the fun but it doesn't actually help anyone to understand what's going on and what needs doing. We can criticise this government for selling off some gold reserves but let's not forget that Thatcher sold off just about everything the country owned (telecoms, gas, electricity, water, trains, council houses, etc etc) - all at knockdown prices so that city boys could get rich. Osborne yesterday was suggesting that we should now do the same with the banks we currently own. If we hold onto them for the next five or so years we should be able to sell them off for massively more than we paid for them which will do a lot to reduce the debt without anyone's children paying a penny. Instead, Osborne wants to make sure that more of his cronies will get richer than ever by buying bank shares on the cheap and then reaping the rewards when the prices rise. 2
somabc Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/net-borrowing.jpg Well it's true they did reduce debt from 1997-2000 but then only to 1991 levels. Since 2001 it has been rising.
torledo Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 The entire political system is designed around keeping a certain class/group of people in power. The kind of people who go to Eton and end up as an MP via the families that have always been in power... It is very difficult for a new party, or a new person, to get into politics - they are just marginalised as a pointless vote. How many people do you know who have said they support one party but won't vote for them because 'its a wasted vote'? I know loads of them who want to support the Lib Dems, or the Greens but won't. We need proper constitutional reform in this country to get ourselves out of this rut. But brown didn't go to Eton.
somabc Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 But brown didn't go to Eton. Most MP's did not go to Eton. However most Tory MP's went to a private school. ·Number of Tory MPs: 198 ·Number who attended private school (independent or public): 112 ·Number who attended a grammar: 46 ·Number who attended a comprehensive: 27 ·Number who attended a secondary modern: 2 ·Number who attended an undefined state school: 11 ·Number whose school's status is unknown: 1 ·Number who refused to disclose: 1 http://www.freebase.com/view/base/ukparliament/views/mps_who_went_to_eton
torledo Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 Osborne yesterday was suggesting that we should now do the same with the banks we currently own. If we hold onto them for the next five or so years we should be able to sell them off for massively more than we paid for them which will do a lot to reduce the debt without anyone's children paying a penny. Instead, Osborne wants to make sure that more of his cronies will get richer than ever by buying bank shares on the cheap and then reaping the rewards when the prices rise. the govt. selling the bank shares at a massive profit makes naff all difference to me or my children, and my children's children for that matter. That's not how govt. spending and govt. finances work. Whereas if the govt. sells me discounted shares, and if i have the finances to buy [and why wouldn't i given the govt. want to toast my bank savings ] and if as you say they take off massively in value, then i, and my children, are on to a winner... no ?
localzuk Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 But brown didn't go to Eton. Ah, but Blair went to a private school, and was the actual elected PM until he handed the role over to his friend. So Brown is a small anomaly, but traceable back to back scratching to get into power.
tmcd35 Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 Ah, but Blair went to a private school, and was the actual elected PM until he handed the role over to his friend. So Brown is a small anomaly, but traceable back to back scratching to get into power. But that's not how our political system works - or as ever worked! We vote for our local representitive in parlament not for the prime minister. The political parties vote amongst themselves for a leader and the party with the most representitives form a Government for 4-5years. The parties can vote for a new leader anytime they like, and if that party is in Government then their leader is Prime Minister. I'm not a Brownite supporter, infact my allegance has shifted a little from Labour full stop. However I never did like this argument and do believe Brown got the job fair and square. I suppose it would be good if we had a more presidental system with the Executive voted for seperatly from lower house rather than being made up, primarily, of it's members.
somabc Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 Ah, but Blair went to a private school, and was the actual elected PM until he handed the role over to his friend. So Brown is a small anomaly, but traceable back to back scratching to get into power. Blair went to Fettes College an exclusive Private School in Edinburgh. Brown was educated at Kirkcaldy West Primary School where he was selected for an experimental fast stream education programme, which took him two years early to Kirkcaldy High School for an academic hothouse education taught in separate classes. He scored five straight A grades in his Highers, just after his 15th birthday, played the violin in the school orchestra, and was an enthusiastic member of the literary and debating societies. So in practice Brown was educated to a similar standard as the top Public Schools, he definitely did not have your typical state comprehensive experience.
localzuk Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 But that's not how our political system works - or as ever worked! We vote for our local representitive in parlament not for the prime minister. The political parties vote amongst themselves for a leader and the party with the most representitives form a Government for 4-5years. The parties can vote for a new leader anytime they like, and if that party is in Government then their leader is Prime Minister. Yes, and the local representatives appear from where? The party puts them forward. Just because we don't vote for our prime minister, doesn't mean people don't vote by party lines rather than for individual people. I suppose it would be good if we had a more presidental system with the Executive voted for seperatly from lower house rather than being made up, primarily, of it's members. Just having representation proportional to what people vote for would be nice...
tmcd35 Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 Just having representation proportional to what people vote for would be nice... One of the reasons I'm turning toward Lib Dem on May 6th
AyatollahPies Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 (I think it was under this government that we finally paid off the debt accrued during the second world war!) It was a 50 year loan, so I could have been in charge and it would have been paid off. (With 6 years throught with no payment) The debt from WW1 is still unpaid, but this is a history lesson on it's own.
mattx Posted February 22, 2010 Author Posted February 22, 2010 One of the reasons I'm turning toward Lib Dem on May 6th Glad to hear it, what I don't understand is how someone who say used to vote Labour, suddenly votes Tory !! [ Although there is VERY little difference between them these days ] as the OLD Labour party with good social values is now almost dead in the water...... I have no idea who I shall be voting for [ certainly not for the complete toss pot Eton Boy Dave who has NEVER done a hard days work in his life and who is claiming massive amounts of expenses on his current mortgage when he is in fact stinking rich already ] - I'll read both the Lib Dems and Labour's Manifesto when they are printed and will make up my mind then.
localzuk Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 One of the reasons I'm turning toward Lib Dem on May 6th I wish more people would do that. Labour and the Conservatives need a good kick in the shin I reckon.
mattx Posted February 22, 2010 Author Posted February 22, 2010 I wish more people would do that. Labour and the Conservatives need a good kick in the shin I reckon. They are both the same party in my opinion.
sonofsanta Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 I wish more people would do that. Labour and the Conservatives need a good kick in the shin I reckon. At the moment I'm fully intending to, rather than my usual Tory vote - Dave is a tosspot but he's likely to win without my vote anyway, and Lib Dem opposition would be much more interesting than Labour opposition. Tory and Labour are more or less the same party now in terms of philosophy, they just differ on the finer details now where one says what the other doesn't. Lib Dems at least think up new ideas, even if they're mostly a bit rubbish.
mattx Posted February 22, 2010 Author Posted February 22, 2010 Anyway - sod the political angle on all this, will someone think about my sick Gerbil ? http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2784/4356539289_3fd27cfb29.jpg
torledo Posted February 22, 2010 Posted February 22, 2010 Anyway - sod the political angle on all this, will someone think about my sick Gerbil ? http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2784/4356539289_3fd27cfb29.jpg have you thought of taking him to the vet, i hear they don't ask for proof of income.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now