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!
10b more welfare cuts on the way.
Comments
-
bankruptcy is the state of not being able to pay one's bills.
in 2010, interest rates were very low as the international community was very very willing to lend us money.
we had no problem paying our bills and so were not even remotely near bankruptcy.
If Labour had got back in and carried on as they were -- a pretty firm bet since their credibility with their client state depended on it -- there is little doubt that within a fairly short time the UK would have had to go cap in hand to the IMF and/or other similar bodies for some kind of
bail-out. This happened under Labour in the 1970s. We can argue about the terminology and whether this constitutes bankruptcy. In fact technically a country cannot go bankrupt because it just defaults, so it's just a figure of speech in this context.
The fact remains that by 2010 Labour once again had brought the country into a parlous financial state. Its apologists might like to try to obfuscate by going off on tangents regarding technicalities. But that does not change the reality of what happened.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Unfortunately George, there are a lot of people here who would vote a donkey in if it were wearing a red rosette and the only argument they can ever come up with is "its not labours fault" and "it wouldnt have been any better under a tory government".GeorgeHowell wrote: »If Labour had got back in and carried on as they were -- a pretty firm bet since their credibility with their client state depended on it -- there is little doubt that within a fairly short time the UK would have had to go cap in hand to the IMF and/or other similar bodies for some kind of
bail-out. This happened under Labour in the 1970s. We can argue about the terminology and whether this constitutes bankruptcy. In fact technically a country cannot go bankrupt because it just defaults, so it's just a figure of speech in this context.
The fact remains that by 2010 Labour once again had brought the country into a parlous financial state. Its apologists might like to try to obfuscate by going off on tangents regarding technicalities. But that does not change the reality of what happened.0 -
I'm perfectly happy to debate the benefits/cost of foreign aid; however that is a rather more nuanced debate than the reason why most people don't like foreign aid: They don't give a toss about the suffering of people who aren't like them and didn't get the huge head-start in life that being born in a wealthy nation is.
I don't understand your logic. You are against paying benefits in the UK because it encourages indolence, yet you are for paying for benefits to other countries because it encourages enterprise?
Do you not find it a bit oxymoronic?0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »We could spend 5% of our budget the same number would die of hunger every month.
How much of our aid actually gets in to families mouths on the ground or real projects that deliver something on the ground?
How much gets diverted on the way or into projects that are engineered by other "first" world state they we simply pay for. How many "rich countries are we funding" absolving their own governments from responsibility.
With growing food banks supplementing welfare in our own country I do think that charity begins at home.
When we are running comfortable surpluses then we can be magnanimous.
Indeed, Africa's problem is not poverty. Africa is awash with cash and is awash with natural resources. Africa's problem is the Africans who run the place. If you seriously want that figure of the child dieing every three seconds to stop then we should be raising money to employ mercenaries to go in and over throw the vast majority of the current Governments in Africa. The West and the US needs to step in and take over the running of Africa. At the same time a full on civil service training program is put into place and over a period of 20 years you allow qualified and ambitious Africans to assume the reins of power. You ensure a fully independent judiciary, alongside a functioning and effective Police Force, is put in place and you instigate a massive road building program that enables trade and movement of labour to flourish. Throw in a World Bank controlled African Bank to provide finance for everything from small community banks in every village ( there are similar models operating in the Indian sub-continent ) to instigating perhaps two or three stable currency's for the various divisions of the continent.
Massive tax incentives to multinational corporations to go into Africa and set up. Yep, when you see McDonalds drive in's springing up all over the Continent you can be assured that there will be no more need for the Geldofs of the future.
Want to save those kids? Then our 'aid' needs go to a fund that will enable a Mercenary to buy and equip a helicopter gun ship. Thats the sort of aid Africa needs.0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »If Labour had got back in and carried on as they were -- a pretty firm bet since their credibility with their client state depended on it -- there is little doubt that within a fairly short time the UK would have had to go cap in hand to the IMF and/or other similar bodies for some kind of
bail-out. This happened under Labour in the 1970s. We can argue about the terminology and whether this constitutes bankruptcy. In fact technically a country cannot go bankrupt because it just defaults, so it's just a figure of speech in this context.
The fact remains that by 2010 Labour once again had brought the country into a parlous financial state. Its apologists might like to try to obfuscate by going off on tangents regarding technicalities. But that does not change the reality of what happened.
All parties were committed to reducing the budget deficit in 2010...they set a target of £80bn deficit by 2016 ??
The 1970's saw a period of troubles...during the Tory period we saw high inflation...a banking crisis...and a slump in the pound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Barber0 -
All parties were committed to reducing the budget deficit in 2010...they set a target of £80bn deficit by 2016 ??
The 1970's saw a period of troubles...during the Tory period we saw high inflation...a banking crisis...and a slump in the pound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Barber
Please see post #54No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »If Labour had got back in and carried on as they were -- a pretty firm bet since their credibility with their client state depended on it -- there is little doubt that within a fairly short time the UK would have had to go cap in hand to the IMF and/or other similar bodies for some kind of
bail-out. This happened under Labour in the 1970s. We can argue about the terminology and whether this constitutes bankruptcy. In fact technically a country cannot go bankrupt because it just defaults, so it's just a figure of speech in this context.
The fact remains that by 2010 Labour once again had brought the country into a parlous financial state. Its apologists might like to try to obfuscate by going off on tangents regarding technicalities. But that does not change the reality of what happened.
George you are still going around, as your party is, in circles like a record player with a stuck needle.
Get your party into gear and do something positive please.0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Please see post #54
but we're talking about the 1970's...the Tories had bother which is no different to anyone else in power....runs on the pound...inflation...banking crisis...all of this before the next Labour government which you blame.0 -
George you are still going around, as your part is, in circles like a record player with a stuck needle.
Get your party into gear and do something positive please.
They are doing something positive -- trying to reduce the deficit, making cuts, getting a bit tougher with the EU, scaling back on immigration -- and you don't like it. "The medicine doesn't taste very nice so let's stop taking it."No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »They are doing something positive -- trying to reduce the deficit, making cuts, getting a bit tougher with the EU, scaling back on immigration -- and you don't like it. "The medicine doesn't taste very nice so let's stop taking it."
With your party's experience you should be doing more than trying to reduce the deficit, by now we should be seeing more positive movement otherwise the electorate will not be forgiving this time.
What I dont like is anybody that orders an enquiry to be made then makes up their own decision before it is completed, now thats not cost effective is it?
If I can see an end result from taking a bitter medicine, I am going to grin and bear it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards