Cameron wins German support on EU talks

paulmapp8306

BertieUK wrote: »

I could not agree MORE with many of your points, and if the Prime Minister had trimmed more off the wealthy, just a little bit, and not been as savage with others, then we could understand the state of the economy and understand his reasons. For me it was the arrogant way that it has been handled by the Government and no compromise or discussions.

not sure I agree there. I see the british "general" public a little like a spoilt teenager whos always had access to what they want.

When that teenager asked mommy and daddy for "x", it doesnt matter if there told "NO", or "Im sorry dear we cant afford that" or whether they get an in depth explanation as to WHY it cant be afforded --- when the teen goes out, there still going to !!!!! to their friends about how mommy and daddy wont ket them have "x"


Ultimately it ocmes down to most not understading things. The Health service is a prime example. When it was set up, it was set up to provide basic healthcare for those who could not afford it. It has now become MUCH more than basic healthcare, with vast strides in techniques and equipment that cost far more per patient to buy and support. We have become used to the NHS, and now see it as our right - and complain when services are cut and treatments not being available. They do not understand, that free healthcare (well tax payer funded) COSTS, and only SO MUCH can be given. If we cant afford to offer high tech investigative procedures, or cutting edge medicine - then we cant. You still get the basic health care the NHS was set up to provide, but thats it. we just expect FAR too much, which is fine when we can fund it - but when we cant it needs removing.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

of course
the solution to extra investment for every government since WW2

Welfare state was introduced to assist the poor and those out of work. Not subsidise lifestyles.

Difficulty for politicians of all parties is that it loses them the key middle class vote. If tinkered with too harshly.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Welfare state was introduced to assist the poor and those out of work. Not subsidise lifestyles.

Difficulty for politicians of all parties is that it loses them the key middle class vote. If tinkered with too harshly.

I'm struggling to understand what this has to do with cutting out waste.

Conrad

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

not sure I agree there. I see the british "general" public a little like a spoilt teenager whos always had access to what they want.

Week in week out at PMQ's we get calls from Labour benches for more funding for all manner of entitlements. For me this cowardly leadership, that of showering people with endless resource no matter the debt mountain.

Conrad

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Very difficult to see huge amounts of export growth given the difficulties facing many major economies in the short term.

Huge world out there and plenty of demand. Lets not forget when we hear about China slowing down, it's still growing at a healthy pace.

I'd say there's probably more opportunity than ever, what with the general rise of undeveloped nations.

You also have to take account of the third industrial revolution which has begun and will dwarf the other 2. Bio engineering is BUT ONE of many fields that are about to transform the world.

Now I am guessing you will respond that the third industrial revolution is a pipe dream, but it's worth remembering that people also said this about the last 2. I even recall people saying the mobile phone was a flash in the pan gimmick toy for the playboy only. People always underestimate change.

BertieUK

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

You're living in a fools' paradise. The reason you thought you had it good under Labour was because it was all done on the never never. Now it's payback time you don't like it. Do you want Labour back in to do it all over again, so that eventually we are in hock to the IMF or whoever and lose our independence altogether and have draconian cuts like you've never seen before ?

Maybe the Tories do come over as arrogant. But isn't that what we need in order to stand up for Britain and against the vested interests that will screw us if they can ? I'd rather have arrogant than a smarmy, mealy-mouthed roll-over merchant like Blair, who would for example give up half of Britain's EU rebate for nothing in return, because he hadn't got the bottle to stand up for himself, or for us.

George I could not care less who we have in power as long as it is seen to be fair to the people and vice versa.

I like millions of other WILL vote for the party that promises to give them their desires, and a future for their children, its only human nature whether it is right or wrong for the country. You are not going to get the electorate saying we cannot afford not to turn these promises down to put into power someone, whoever it maybe, that cannot deliver their promises at the moment, thats the conclusion that we are looking at that i hope will never happen.

You can argue until the cows come home but peoples memories don't faid that fast, they must know that spending has got to stop ,realisation has to sink in, and I hope that the electorate will, against what you truly believe my thoughts are, give the Conservatives a full working majority with a leader of greater maturity that we can look upon to build our futire and have a trust with.

regards
Bob

Thrugelmir

Conrad wrote: »

Now I am guessing you will respond that the third industrial revolution is a pipe dream,

What are we are witnessing is the East undergoing an industrial revolution of its own. The world is a changing place. Transferring physical production to China. Means that China is also gaining technical knowledge. Which took us decades in the West to develop. The East will have little need for the West in many respects. Perhaps some niche quality products but no mass volume requirements.

Wookster

BertieUK wrote: »

I like millions of other WILL vote for the party that promises to give them their desires, and a future for their children, its only human nature whether it is right or wrong for the country.

That is the best argument ever against democracy. You accept that cuts need to be made, that we are living beyond our means, yet you still want more!

Take a look at Greece to see what decades of overspending does.

You wouldn't want that here would you?

BertieUK

Wookster wrote: »

That is the best argument ever against democracy. You accept that cuts need to be made, that we are living beyond our means, yet you still want more!

Take a look at Greece to see what decades of overspending does.

You wouldn't want that here would you?

I want more common sense from Governments elected. You have a play with words that twist the truth around to suit your own passions. Lets see what you come up with now.

antrobus

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Is included as such in GDP figures.

Depends on what GDP figures you're looking at.

GDP output is split into agriculture, construction, production and services (or something like that). Production is made of mining and quarrying, manufacturing, and power and water supply. Oil and gas extraction would be part of 'mining and quarrying' which is distinct from 'manufacturing', but both are part of 'production'.

Sometimes lazy journalists will talk about production when they mean manufacturing and vice versa.