Shameless labour

abaxas

Flyboy152 wrote: »

So, interest rates go up to ten per cent, peopel can no longer afford to pay their mortgages, their homes are repossessed by the banks and they have nowhere to live, as this is being offered as an acceptable policy result to allowing the banks to fail? How do you then suddenly decide that I don't know what I am talking about and you leap to, "Why should someone have the right to something they cant pay for?"

The capacity to understand responsibility and consequences is severely lacking.

I'll correct that for you.

Their capacity to understand responsibility and consequences is severely lacking.

As the bulls always say, shelter is a right. The quality that shelter or the right to own it is not.

I just want people to be self sufficient. Maybe I wrong to think people should be in control of their own lives. If so, I'll happily admit to being wrong.

julieq

nembot wrote: »

How much did it cost the tax payer to save the banks at risk, julieq?

Hundreds of billions apparently...

Apparently according to who? The man in the pub?

The potential losses that were feared have not, by and large, materialised. There's a good chance the taxpayer will break even from the support given to the banking sector, and oddly enough given the enthusiasm for lynching bankers, the more bonuses that get paid to those working for those banks, the more likely this is.

The deficit never came from short term bailouts. It came from long term pverspending. Labour are involved in a shameless campaign of scapegoating based on popular misconceptions on what happened in the banking sector.

Incidentally to the other point about overreliance on the financial sector, I'd imagine that relates to a loss in tax revenue from the banks. Because apart from eating babies and poisoning the waters, banks pay large amounts of tax.

nembot

Yeah, I got the information down the pub - whilst reading a little paper called The Independant.

Government support for Britain's banks has reached a staggering £850bn and the eventual cost to taxpayers will not be known for years, the public spending watchdog says today.

Perhaps that's why the anticipated losses didn't materialise, or would you like to put more of your own personal (self serving, in denial) spin on it?

michaels

Funny - I seem to remember that Labour's very own Darling reporting that the net cost of the banking bailout would be less the 10bn at his last budget (but then again given his proclivity to suggest that the budget did need to be tightened going forward he probably qualifies as a Tory in the current Labour hierarchy)

nembot wrote: »

Yeah, I got the information down the pub - whilst reading a little paper called The Independant.



Perhaps that's why the anticipated losses didn't materialise, or would you like to put more of your own personal (self serving, in denial) spin on it?

PhylPho

shortchanged wrote: »

I think the tories biggest flaw was their doom and gloom message they portrayed before and after the election.
Yes this country was in a financial mess but so were a large proportion of the rest of the countries in the world. The UK was not on its own in all this mess.

All the tories managed to do was to instill a feeling of fear into most of the public,

Ah. . . so it's a message from the Tories that communicated doom and gloom sufficient to instill fear into the electorate?

Funny that. The only message I can recall is this one:

"Dear chief secretary, I am afraid to tell you that there is no money left".

It was placed on a desk at HM Treasury by Labour's Chief Secretary to The Treasury Liam Byrne, by way of a swift summary of the country's financial position for the enlightenment of all those incoming Tory, er, scaremongers.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

PhylPho wrote: »

"Dear chief secretary, I am afraid to tell you that there is no money left".

Can you quote any of the other dozen or so messages left for the incoming administration by the outgoing?

Or do you think that this is the only comment ever left by Chief Secretary for Chief Secretary?

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

I wonder who is really on the Acid :eek:

Wow Stevie. I've seen it all now.

You really have crossed the line on this one, in, what I can only assume, is sheer desperation.

Theres a difference between being bailed out on your mortgage (instead of losing the house and then renting, or using the social system) and the starving kids of Africa who have absolutely nothing to fall back on, unlike our wealth.

To hit that level in response to posters in context of what was said is pretty poor form for you.

Flyboy152

angrypirate wrote: »

Dont be ridiculous Flyboy. The first recession is still underway. The only reason why idiots like you thought it ended is coz labour pulled the sneaky trick of QE and also plunged our country into huge amounts of debt - both of which need to be paid back. At the time when we "ended the first recession" as you put is, many people on here said "yeah right". This only proves the point

Im not a fortune teller - i cant tell you, indeed no one can for certain, what would have happened if the tories had been at the helm instead of Labour. We can only speculate that a party who can look after their own money (Tories) would have been far more capable of looking after the countries money than a party who went bankrupt and had the baliffs calling at the door of the HQ (Labour).

Out of interest, you are very left wing - are you actually employed by Labour?

If you had addressed my more politely, your post might have deserved a response, But seeing as you reduce any credibility you might have had, to silly puerile name calling, you can forget it.

But, way to go to ignore the questions anyway.

Flyboy152

abaxas wrote: »

I'll correct that for you.

Their capacity to understand responsibility and consequences is severely lacking.

As the bulls always say, shelter is a right. The quality that shelter or the right to own it is not.

I just want people to be self sufficient. Maybe I wrong to think people should be in control of their own lives. If so, I'll happily admit to being wrong.

You have successfully epitomised the reason why the Tories are referred to as "The Nasty Party." You have no compassion for your fellow man and don't give a fig of for those who are less fortunate than yourself.

Sed ibi gratia Dei es mei

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Wow Stevie. I've seen it all now.

You really have crossed the line on this one, in, what I can only assume, is sheer desperation.

Theres a difference between being bailed out on your mortgage (instead of losing the house and then renting, or using the social system) and the starving kids of Africa who have absolutely nothing to fall back on, unlike our wealth.

To hit that level in response to posters in context of what was said is pretty poor form for you.

In response to

Why should someone have the right to something they cant pay for?

Didn't see any exclusion clauses.

the starving kids of Africa who have absolutely nothing to fall back on