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!
Coalition crack on to cutting benefits to Baby Factories
Comments
-
Alan_Cross wrote: »Indeed - a shame you've yet to master the art, despite your 'business degree', whatever that is...
The simple facts are:
1. GB managed a successful economy for 10 years, better than anything ever managed before.
2. He was torpedoed by world events beyond his control
3. He played a major part in leading the intergovernmental, international fightback.
These are facts beyond any possibility of dispute.
YES, he had not brought in adequate financial regulation BUT the previous morons under both Thatcher and Major had let the City rip with NONE.
You are holding a political catch phrase against him and ignoring the facts 1-3 above, which will be the ones recorded by history as you are uncomfortably well aware.
boule ocks !!
He was had an ego the size of Glasgow but the talent of the of a pinhead !!! :money:0 -
Alan_Cross wrote: »Obviously, you were living in a different country from the rest of us, where there was a stable economy for 10+ years, blown off course eventually only by the effects of a world wide banking crisis - wherein he was a leading figure in the stabilisation process.
Gordon Brown was the worst Chancellor we've ever had, and that includes Norman Lamont. Except the Tory party didnt allow Norman Lamont to end up as Prime Minister.
If you end up losing your job over the next 12 months, in all probability its because Brown was incapable of doing the simple arithmetic that if you have one pound, borrow one pound, pay one pounds interest a year but only earn 30p then you have a problem.0 -
Alan_Cross wrote: »Yes, £7k is the average, I gather...
Really unacceptable.
A lot more for him though.'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 Thatcher0 -
zzzzzz
C'mon mate, give us a break, it's not just Tory governments that promote special interests and not just Tory governments that are too close to the super rich...
Ok, here's your 'break':
Labour governments tend to promote the special interests of the lowest earning 90% of the population, placing a particular emphasis on the bottom 20%.
Tory governments, to which we must now add their Libdem hangers on, tend to promote the special interests of the top 20% of the population, with a particular emphasis on red top newspaper owners and those not using state education and the NHS...0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »Gordon Brown was the worst Chancellor we've ever had, and that includes Norman Lamont. Except the Tory party didnt allow Norman Lamont to end up as Prime Minister.
If you end up losing your job over the next 12 months, in all probability its because Brown was incapable of doing the simple arithmetic that if you have one pound, borrow one pound, pay one pounds interest a year but only earn 30p then you have a problem.
Not the fault of the Tories' pals in the City, then?
Have you actually slept through the last 3 years, or what?0 -
boule ocks !!
He was had an ego the size of Glasgow but the talent of the of a pinhead !!! :money:
Are you seriously suggesting that a Tory govt would have interfered with banks and reigned in their borrowing? and if I remember correctly a great many economists were lauding the golden scenario of low inflation and low unemployment.'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 Thatcher0 -
Alan_Cross wrote: »Indeed - a shame you've yet to master the art, despite your 'business degree', whatever that is...
The simple facts are:
1. GB managed a successful economy for 10 years, better than anything ever managed before.
2. He was torpedoed by world events beyond his control
3. He played a major part in leading the intergovernmental, international fightback.
These are facts beyond any possibility of dispute.
YES, he had not brought in adequate financial regulation BUT the previous morons under both Thatcher and Major had let the City rip with NONE.
You are holding a political catch phrase against him and ignoring the facts 1-3 above, which will be the ones recorded by history as you are uncomfortably well aware.
you dont really believe this do you0 -
stonethrower wrote: »you dont really believe this do you
Far be it from me to question the intellectual level of anyone who thinks it's grammatically correct to write 'you dont really believe this do you' but what I have put up are the facts.
That you deny the facts is your problem
Flat earthers are still with us, I believe, but this does not seem to stop Thos. Cook organising round-the-world tours...0 -
Alan_Cross wrote: »Labour governments tend to promote the special interests of the lowest earning 90% of the population, placing a particular emphasis on the bottom 20%.
like those of oleg deripaska ?
green0 -
Alan_Cross wrote: »Ok, here's your 'break':
Labour governments tend to promote the special interests of the lowest earning 90% of the population, placing a particular emphasis on the bottom 20%.
Tory governments, to which we must now add their Libdem hangers on, tend to promote the special interests of the top 20% of the population, with a particular emphasis on red top newspaper owners and those not using state education and the NHS...
Where are people like Rupert Murdoch, Bernie Ecclestone and Lakshmi Mittal in that?
I don't think they're in the lowest 90%...or bottom 20%
What about Labour's halving of IHT for married couples (for rich middle england) and CGT cut (for private equity fund managers)? They did that about the same time they increased income tax for the poor...0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards