So 8th June.........
- Thread starter M107
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
- Status
And these pictures are to prove exactly what
Take each year in isolation and they suit you sir
Look at the bigger picture and they blow you out of the water
Yup - can't disagree with the figures but since 2010, if Brown and Balls had been running the economy, they would have borrowed more!
The more than worrying part of the graph is 2002 - 2007.... when the Labour Government were spending far more than they were getting in!
The problem with those figures they take no account of the buy today pay tomorrow spending that built the new hospitals, the re-build of one of my local hospitals started in 2006 it was only completed in 2013 at that point the PFI company wanted paying for the next 30 years with a reported build spend of £338m + the ongoing maintenance the repayments aren't going to be cheap, this trust has two new hospitals with reported repayments of £30m per year, distorts the ongoing balance sheet a bit doesn't it if you multiply it by X number of hospitals across the country. When the next however many governments will be paying for a labour deal it would be interesting to see that split out of the figures. I think a lot of the new schools were built under similar deals so even more trouble
I'm not sure the mortgaged hospital spending is even included in the labour overspending
Last edited by a moderator:
And they don't take into account any of the unfunded public sector pension commitments.......either!
Isn't there 3 types of Lie ,?
Lies
Damned lies
and
Statistics,
???
We can go on forever blaming each other political viewpoints or parties,
Let's just have some fact.
Fact 1 , Labour would have signed over the Falklands to Agerntina had it been in power in the early 1980s
(This is widely known, but seldom documented by either side, due to other factors)
next,,,,
Let's keep this as facts please gentlemen, and not hearsay or polarised opinion.
And a lot of people would still be alive if they had.. All those people died over a bit of land 8000 miles away, 400 miles off the coast of argentina. It is a bit like the argentinians claiming that the isle of wight belongs to them.. That was just thatcher trying to look important. Makes me laugh when the government talk like they are some kind of superpower.. Not saying it would have been right to give it away, but it would have saved a lot of lives...
Makes me laugh when the government act like they are some sort of "superpower" the americans have a bigger airforce floating around on one carrier than we have in total..
Now, they were not so quick to refuse to give hong kong back....
john..
Makes me laugh when the government act like they are some sort of "superpower" the americans have a bigger airforce floating around on one carrier than we have in total..
Now, they were not so quick to refuse to give hong kong back....
john..
I'm not going to take part in this discussion any further, I have said my peace.
There is nothing wrong with political debate, and I'll let it continue as long as you don't start with any personal attacks on each other.
I can cope with you slagging off public figures, they put themselves up for it.
Just put up with opposing sides views and slagging off the opposing figures and keep it polite between each other, and all will be fine.
I have Mr Smith on speed dial, and the Wookie has a short temper too.
Ad3 is around but busy, I will have no qualms in calling on any of them to be independent, as I have already participated in the thread.
There is nothing wrong with political debate, and I'll let it continue as long as you don't start with any personal attacks on each other.
I can cope with you slagging off public figures, they put themselves up for it.
Just put up with opposing sides views and slagging off the opposing figures and keep it polite between each other, and all will be fine.
I have Mr Smith on speed dial, and the Wookie has a short temper too.
Ad3 is around but busy, I will have no qualms in calling on any of them to be independent, as I have already participated in the thread.
I am going to give it all a miss too... People vote for who they vote for!! there is no point all arguing about it, nothing to be gained!! Can we have a new thread on transformers or something instead????
john...
john...
Kurt
Well-known member
endowments never guaranteed to pay off the loan, its not how they work. Even as a snotty 21 year old, I understood that and told the bank to shove it
Kurt
Well-known member
mervyn king wrote a cracking book called "The end of alchemy" - if you want to really understand the financial crisis and banking in general, recommend it,,
Fair enough, but my ancestors lived on the land where your house is now, can I just kill you and that's the end of it,?
NO, doesn't work like that, does it,?
You defend what is yours, or do you just give your possessions away,?
Until you are in the situation you can't judge,!
Last edited by a moderator:
Meaning?????
john...
john...
I thought you'd left the conversation,? Typical Labour, backtracking when it suits and you,
And you have been called wrong in your opinions that are NOT fact as you purported them to be.
Last edited by a moderator:
I suppose that is fair comment!! All depends which end you are looking from i suppose!!
john..
The second gulf war was all about massaging Blairs ego a lot of people were killed there for no good reason
The Argentinians only wanted to rape the Falklands mineral rights and had little interest in anything else
With Hong Kong the land lease expired 1997
Having responded to your thousand words I find it strange that you choose not to respond to my and others responses or is the truth beginning to hit that labour really screwed over this country for many years to come with it's build today pay in the future policies.
I live in an area full of people who would vote for a poodle with a red rosette they don't care what the policies are just that it's a labour poodle, over the years I have voted for many of the alternative parties over the years not just the same old one. While you may consider it arguing I consider it to be debating. You have offered some good points for discussion unfortunately they will not change my view point of the labour party so from your stand point there is nothing to be gained you will still vote labour because that's what your family have always done for last however many generations without question as to why
This statement is so laughable in assuming the government of the day actually needs a majority although it's difficult to do anything without one as Wilson found out in 1974
If MP's were removed from the house it would need by elections which may or may not result in a change of government , when Blair left government and Brown took over he stuck it out despite calls for a general election when Teresa May took office there were calls for a general election now she has decided to call an election she is getting slated that's politics for you . As for electoral expenses fraud it won't save anyone's skin
Last edited by a moderator:
Doc Hudson
Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,620
- Reaction score
- 230
Endowment policies took off in an era when interest rates were decent or even in double figures, 11% or 12%, and modest savings in a basic building society account brought a nice little return for a few hundred pounds saved over 12months. So potential returns from endowment polices were sold on the basis of ('this will pay off your mortgage at the end of 25 years and give you a nice little lump sum toward a car or a holiday'. Even when they started to go pear shaped when interest rates were dropping to single figures 5% and lower, the letters of advice were still saying, do not cash in your policy, keep paying into it, but also start something else to pay off your mortgage. (We had two polices, both gave similar worded letters, from reputable companies Standard Life and Legal & General. The average man on the street believed these "experts". We ignored the advice in the letters and made suitable alternate arrangements, after we realised the value of one policy was worth less than what had been paid in.)
The biggest fundamental mistake that has messed up the modern economy for the average worker was not insisting upon bog standard repayment mortgages, with limits on the lending around three and half times annual salary of the highest wage earner, not counting any bonuses or overtime. (Thats pretty much what the rules were about 35-40ish years ago). If the limits on lending had been more realistic basic supply and demand would have controlled the value of 90%+ of the housing market. (There will always be that 10%+ of high earners who can push the value up of a handful of properties). And we would not be in the stupid place we are now where the average worker earning an average wage cannot afford to buy his or her own home, unless they have a loan based on five or six times two incomes including bonuses on an endowment mortgage.
As you say Kurt, basic common sense suggests these type of practices are daft. yet somehow "experts" in the financial industry calculated that these were actually viable realistic products that should work. Probably the same people who decided; Banks should be building societies, Building Societies should be banks, Supermarkets should be both bank building society and energy supplier and petrol stations, and John Lewis, or Tesco should be everything, bank, insurance, food, department store, broadband. Probably trips to the moon and sex workers before 2020. If the housing market had been more realistically controlled more workers would have more disposable income to spend buying goods from more industries to keep more manufacturing going. As it is 95%+ of the population have sod all left each month for personal pampering to a level that can keep other businesses, shops, and services buoyant. Personal savings and disposable income are the key signs of a healthy economy, not the level of spending from cheap debt. It doesn't matter what industries you have in your country if the bulk of the population cannot afford to buy its products.
Doc H.
The Falklands, as Labour wasn't in power and therefore it never happened, you can't really quote that as fact Steps. It's also pretty irrelvent to today bar the fact it offers a claim to oil, mineral rights, fishing and gives the UK a claim to parts of Antartica.
The Gulf war, more sucking up to USA, and a **** decision by Blair
Hospitals, schools and PFI - continuation of previous Tory policies and typical example of short sighted financial plans, but also an indication of not having enough money cos the economy wasn't doing that well. It's also a good example of why New Labour was basically Tory light. In reality we have had Tory policies in place through out my lifetime and things aren't getting better.
The banking sector, remember the time when you bank mananger was the most trustworthy source of financial advice? Deregulation changed them to sales reps, sell anything to anyone that could just about afford it.
As for the deficit under New Labour, according to all the expert economists of the time that debt level was sustainable as the economy was suppossedly booming ( all based on property and debt of course and not real wealth generation like manufacturing), until the banks finally collapsed, which no-one seemed to see coming apart from a few lone voices that were ignored.
Now lets get something else clear, I am not a Labour supporter, but I am mostly definetly anti right wing, which usually means Tory right wing. There was a time when the Tory party was far more centre based. May seems to be of that ilk and I quite like what she says, but behind May is the sort of right wing hangover form the Thatcher era I detest. We have effectively had Tory hard and soft policies in place for decades, which in my opinion, if allowed to continue will make the UK worse for the majority of people. I will be voting tactically as usual, and I feel it is time for change, that's why I voted for Brexit and will probably mean I vote for the Labour party this time as there is little alternative.
The Gulf war, more sucking up to USA, and a **** decision by Blair
Hospitals, schools and PFI - continuation of previous Tory policies and typical example of short sighted financial plans, but also an indication of not having enough money cos the economy wasn't doing that well. It's also a good example of why New Labour was basically Tory light. In reality we have had Tory policies in place through out my lifetime and things aren't getting better.
The banking sector, remember the time when you bank mananger was the most trustworthy source of financial advice? Deregulation changed them to sales reps, sell anything to anyone that could just about afford it.
As for the deficit under New Labour, according to all the expert economists of the time that debt level was sustainable as the economy was suppossedly booming ( all based on property and debt of course and not real wealth generation like manufacturing), until the banks finally collapsed, which no-one seemed to see coming apart from a few lone voices that were ignored.
Now lets get something else clear, I am not a Labour supporter, but I am mostly definetly anti right wing, which usually means Tory right wing. There was a time when the Tory party was far more centre based. May seems to be of that ilk and I quite like what she says, but behind May is the sort of right wing hangover form the Thatcher era I detest. We have effectively had Tory hard and soft policies in place for decades, which in my opinion, if allowed to continue will make the UK worse for the majority of people. I will be voting tactically as usual, and I feel it is time for change, that's why I voted for Brexit and will probably mean I vote for the Labour party this time as there is little alternative.
Has anyone noticed something with new prime minister Teresa May - Maggie Thatcher :Salute TM : MT
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
