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!
"Cost of living crisis" nonsense
Comments
-
The argument over spending in 2005 was Labour accusing the Tories of wanting 50bn in spending cuts on the basis that Labour was budgeting on 5% annual spending increases for the next 5 years and the Tories only 4%. How mad is that?
It's not, really. If you know anything about public services, you'll know that in many areas you have to up costs just to stand still in terms of service provision. That's partly because demand changes (the onset of dementia, for example, adds huge costs to the NHS), and partly because we all have expectations of a continually improving service - we don't want to same hospital beds, buses, schools and weaponry that we had in the 1970s, do we?)
So you may think that 4% is a lot when it's 2% above inflation, and that a 1% difference is also nothing - which I agree seems logical - but it's not. 4%, in this world, is not very much; and 1% can be the difference between just about being able to stand still, and having to cut services (and what would have been the rationale to cut services in 2005?)0 -
So you may think that 4% is a lot when it's 2% above inflation, and that a 1% difference is also nothing - which I agree seems logical - but it's not. 4%, in this world, is not very much; and 1% can be the difference between just about being able to stand still, and having to cut services (and what would have been the rationale to cut services in 2005?)
Over 1 year maybe, 2 - 3% above inflation for 5 years is a big increase.0 -
I did.
Still not clear though - you seem to take issue with the terminology ("meaningless phrase") but then you also say that a higher cost of living is inevitable, and therefore anyone taking a stand on the basis of it is an idiot.
No I didn't say that, if you're going to bother to quote me at least get it right. Making up stuff I didn't say & then disagreeing with it is quite remarkably dumb.
By the way, I don't think the current cost of living is inevitable - the Government could have taken steps over the last 3 years to mitigate the downward pressure on wages (e.g. not freezing public sector pay, not squeezing benefits)
Yawn. The Govt is spending fortunes still. Your solution is that they should spend yet more. So basically you're just repeating Labours stance which is "no matter what the situation is, the answer is to spend more". (which suprise surprise requires them to tax more).
That doesn't even make sense.it's difficult to deny that the situation we're in is in any way "inevitable".0 -
No I didn't say that, if you're going to bother to quote me at least get it right. Making up stuff I didn't say & then disagreeing with it is quite remarkably dumb.
Yawn. The Govt is spending fortunes still. Your solution is that they should spend yet more. So basically you're just repeating Labours stance which is "no matter what the situation is, the answer is to spend more". (which suprise surprise requires them to tax more).
That doesn't even make sense.
Is this how you approach a conversation in the real world? Call people remarkably dumb, "yawn", and then call them up on mis-typing? What a shame you have so little confidence in the logic and clarity of your own arguments.
And it's ironic you accuse me of mis-quoting you (and then disagreeing with you on the basis of that - I'm wasn't really, because I'm wasn't completely sure what you were on about. I thought you were trying to start an interesting debate, but my mistake, this is turning out to be just another zealot diatribe about how terrible Labour are. One wonders why you're so upset about it really, this is just classic opposition repositioning ahead of a general election - perhaps just get over it?), and then say that the steps that could have been taken to mitigate the cost of living increases are my "solution". Did you not read the paragraph that followed? I'm not advocating one way or another, I'm just refuting your assertion that the current situation is a natural consequence of the economic crisis. It's largely a consequence of Government choices. You may very well support these choices, but that doesn't take away from the fact that in a parallel world where different political choices had been made, the cost of living would be cheaper.0 -
Is this how you approach a conversation in the real world? Call people remarkably dumb, "yawn", and then call them up on mis-typing? What a shame you have so little confidence in the logic and clarity of your own arguments.
And it's ironic you accuse me of mis-quoting you (and then disagreeing with you on the basis of that - I'm wasn't really, because I'm wasn't completely sure what you were on about. I thought you were trying to start an interesting debate, but my mistake, this is turning out to be just another zealot diatribe about how terrible Labour are. One wonders why you're so upset about it really, this is just classic opposition repositioning ahead of a general election - perhaps just get over it?), and then say that the steps that could have been taken to mitigate the cost of living increases are my "solution". Did you not read the paragraph that followed? I'm not advocating one way or another, I'm just refuting your assertion that the current situation is a natural consequence of the economic crisis. It's largely a consequence of Government choices. You may very well support these choices, but that doesn't take away from the fact that in a parallel world where different political choices had been made, the cost of living would be cheaper.
Yawn, only got partway through reading that I must confess.
You started the name calling with your snide little "zealot" dig so don't whine if you dig & get a response. Can't be bothered to read the rest of your post to respond to it as I can't stand passive-aggressive behaviour.0 -
Yawn, only got partway through reading that I must confess.
You started the name calling with your snide little "zealot" dig so don't whine if you dig & get a response. Can't be bothered to read the rest of your post to respond to it as I can't stand passive-aggressive behaviour.
I'm afraid whatever point you may have had in your OP has long been lost to your baffling animosity, and misdirected rage.0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »I'm afraid whatever point you may have had in your OP has long been lost to your baffling animosity, and misdirected rage.
Lol!
Actually genuinely did lol at that so thanks. Accusations of misdirected rage from the person who spends most of his life starting threads slagging off "Boomers" because some of them have nice houses with no mortgage & you don't.
There are lots of people on here who rage at the Rich. You're the only one who rages continually at a whole generation.
Seriously, genuinely a good laugh :rotfl:0 -
Lol!
Actually genuinely did lol at that so thanks. Accusations of misdirected rage from the person who spends most of his life starting threads slagging off "Boomers" because some of them have nice houses with no mortgage & you don't.
There are lots of people on here who rage at the Rich. You're the only one who rages continually at a whole generation.
Seriously, genuinely a good laugh :rotfl:
Well you did say...I actually detest virtually all politicians since almost none of them can string two words together without lying. However the current Labour party, chiefly ruled by Brown's loathsome former inner-circle are a particularly obnoxious bunch. And unlike the Tories they don't even have the saving grace of being at least semi-literate economically.
Labour caused incredible damage to the economy in the years leading to 2010 & that pain will be felt most by the very people they claim to represent. All the while they'll be trying to claim some kind of moral high ground for their ruinous over-spending of other peoples money.
To say they make me angry would be putting it mildly.
By your own admission you are a detester who boils with anger.
I certainly don't detest or hate boomers, I am merely trying to lead you down a better path. A path of equanimity, sharing, and humility. Away from selfishness and generational hoggery.
And your point is silly anyway. The Coalition haven't paid down a penny of national debt, which continues to rocket upwards at a terrifying rate. All they have done is marginally slow the rate of increase in contrast to Labour.0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »
By your own admission you are a detester who boils with anger.
No, you accused me of misguided rage, when actually what I feel is very accurately guided contempt for Ed Balls, Milliband et al. Nothing misguided about it.ruggedtoast wrote: »
I certainly don't detest or hate boomers
Lol good luck trying to sell that one. A quick glance at your posting history is all anyone needs to see how much you seethe with anger at the "boomer" generation.ruggedtoast wrote: »
And your point is silly anyway. The Coalition haven't paid down a penny of national debt, which continues to rocket upwards at a terrifying rate. All they have done is marginally slow the rate of increase in contrast to Labour.
Hmmm....except that wasn't my point, and I have never once applauded the coalition for cutting spending, since they haven't done nearly enough of it. Instead I've continually berated them for still spending far too much. If your going to critique, at least know what you're talking about....0 -
No, you accused me of misguided rage, when actually what I feel is very accurately guided contempt for Ed Balls, Milliband et al. Nothing misguided about it.
Lol good luck trying to sell that one. A quick glance at your posting history is all anyone needs to see how much you seethe with anger at the "boomer" generation.
Hmmm....except that wasn't my point, and I have never once applauded the coalition for cutting spending, since they haven't done nearly enough of it. Instead I've continually berated them for still spending far too much. If your going to critique, at least know what you're talking about....
OK, I shall certainly try and live up to your high expectations in future.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
- 245.2K 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