We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

How would you help George Osborne distribute the cuts in spending?

17891012

Comments

  • mbga9pgf
    mbga9pgf Posts: 3,224 Forumite
    Stop giving old codgers drugs for cancer when they will be dead in 6 months of senility or a heart attack anyway.
  • bigheadxx
    bigheadxx Posts: 3,047 Forumite
    As loathe as I am to side with a Labour bunkerbot but Steve J is correct.

    It has simply become received wisdom that the Tories had to clean up a Labour mess in 1979 and this was not the case. The real issue was Labour 4 years earlier had to clean up a Tory mess caused largely by the Barber boom where Tory Chancellor Anthony Barber just printed money which was great but it was also inflationary. As a consequence inflation skyrocketed in the mid seventies (this was not the only cause but it was a major player) and Labour under the shrewd stewardship of Dennis Healey were tackling this. Inflation had halved from its peak in 1975 by the time the Tories took charge, government spending was under control. Healey had been cutting government expenditure since mid 1976. The IMF loan was never touched and was not needed. In todays environment it would never have happened.

    Labour had the economy on the right track in 1979. Inflation was coming under control and government spending was coming under control. The real villains of the piece were the Heath Tory government and the brothers for not supporting Labour on pay restraint.

    I do not blame Cameron and co for trotting out the line. Most people believe it to be true and it is a powerful reminder of what people tend to remember of the Callaghan administration. However it does not make it true. For example Sunny Jim never said "Crisis, what crisis".


    Its also conceived wisdom to blame the conservatives in the 1980's for the decline in manufacturing and exports. However from the early 1980's, with the advent of North Sea oil, sterling became an important "oil" currency with its value soaring from $1.50 to $2.50 thus effecting its ability to compete.

    The greatest loss of manufacturing jobs actually occurred under the last Labour government.

    The real problem of the 1970's was the power that trade unions wielded. Both Labour and Conservative governments had tried and failed to do something about this. Labour could never have done it and even Mrs T wasn't expected to succeed.
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    As loathe as I am to side with a Labour bunkerbot but Steve J is correct.

    Just to put the record straight I voted LibDem, the rest of your synopsis was a lot more accurate. icon7.gif
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • kennyboy66_2
    kennyboy66_2 Posts: 2,598 Forumite
    bigheadxx wrote: »
    Its also conceived wisdom to blame the conservatives in the 1980's for the decline in manufacturing and exports. However from the early 1980's, with the advent of North Sea oil, sterling became an important "oil" currency with its value soaring from $1.50 to $2.50 thus effecting its ability to compete.

    Sterling peaked in 1980/81 as a result of the absurd focus on money supply by the Thatcher government at the time. It was this policy that made Sterling so strong and cemented in the 1981 recession. Petro-currency is just revisionist nonsense.
    It was only when the money supply targets were largely abandoned that Sterling went into free fall ($1.05 in early 1985).
    Of course we were still exporting oil then but somehow magically stopped being a petro-currency.;)

    Then again, some would have you believe currency crisis are the sole preserve of Labour governments.
    US housing: it's not a bubble

    Moneyweek, December 2005
  • Spartacus_Mills
    Spartacus_Mills Posts: 5,545 Forumite
    StevieJ wrote: »
    Just to put the record straight I voted LibDem, the rest of your synopsis was a lot more accurate. icon7.gif

    So what, you could vote tactically.
    "There's no such thing as Macra. Macra do not exist."
    "I could play all day in my Green Cathedral".
    "The Centuries that divide me shall be undone."
    "A dream? Really, Doctor. You'll be consulting the entrails of a sheep next. "
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    So what, you could vote tactically.

    But LibDem were a poor third in my Constituency, obviously I am not very tactically aware icon7.gif
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • chucky
    chucky Posts: 15,170 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    StevieJ wrote: »
    Just to put the record straight I voted LibDem, the rest of your synopsis was a lot more accurate. icon7.gif
    it's funny because i'm also considered to be a staunch Labour party card carrying member just because i don't think much of neither Osborne or the Lib Dems.

    lesson to be learnt from this - the coalition government can do no wrong in some people eyes... :eek:
  • mbga9pgf wrote: »
    Stop giving old codgers drugs for cancer when they will be dead in 6 months of senility or a heart attack anyway.

    Not only are you a bullsh!tter, your a complete arxehole, i hope none of your elderly relatives become ill, mind you i could imagine you being there hovering over them like a vulture, waiting for the inheritance so you can finally buy a real house.

    you are one sad individual, like your mate neas, i just hope everything stays sweet for the both of you.
  • marklv
    marklv Posts: 1,768 Forumite
    Not only are you a bullsh!tter, your a complete arxehole, i hope none of your elderly relatives become ill, mind you i could imagine you being there hovering over them like a vulture, waiting for the inheritance so you can finally buy a real house.

    you are one sad individual, like your mate neas, i just hope everything stays sweet for the both of you.

    There is actually a serious point behind what he said. People who are incurably and terminally ill should not receive ultra-expensive drugs on the NHS that will not cure the disease but only postpone death by a few months. This is not being inhumane but weighing up the cost benefits. The money is better spent on the treatment of individuals who are in pain or severe discomfort, and can be cured through drugs or surgery. For terminally ill people the emphasis should remain on palliative care until such time as proven cures are found.
  • A._Badger
    A._Badger Posts: 5,881 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    marklv wrote: »
    There is actually a serious point behind what he said. People who are incurably and terminally ill should not receive ultra-expensive drugs on the NHS that will not cure the disease but only postpone death by a few months. This is not being inhumane but weighing up the cost benefits. The money is better spent on the treatment of individuals who are in pain or severe discomfort, and can be cured through drugs or surgery. For terminally ill people the emphasis should remain on palliative care until such time as proven cures are found.


    All of which may be true. But there was still no excuse for his having put it in such a revolting way.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.