Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
Labour totally and happily inflated welfare payments beyond belief.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Happy new year! Have a great 1930!
- Thread starter Herr Tubthumper
- Start date
inland seagull
Active member
I dont agree with his OBE either, mind you good news about Sheridan Smith, I would give her one too!
Carrot Cruncher, as ever, right on blob. Herr f**king Tubthumper just leave it - we're bored with your boring left wing epistles from f**king Germany and we're just as bored with all the right wing shit from everyone else - VOTE MOSTER RAVING LOONY You KNOW IT MAKES SENSE!!!!! (yes, I have had couple of drinks, so what - YOUu WANT SoME
I'LL give it yer!!!!)king Wombat
Well-known member
It would help if you Explain what you mean by this and what the definition of welfare is.
king Wombat
Well-known member
Erm last time I looked, the national debt under the Tories has grown from 800 billion to 1.4 trillion. which in 4 years is quite an achievement.
Who knew that slashing spending, removing useful services, forcing wages down, and lowering living standards for the vast majority of people in this country would mean that people would have less money to spend...
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,015
so you're saying they didnt cut enough, right? because the debt will continue to increase while we have such a budget spending deficit by the state. when reciting the poor performance under Osborne, remember that the Balls policy was to cut less... so the deficit would have been larger and the debt grown further. neither party has offered policies to encourage and support growth, they both hope the problem will disappear through the economic cycle, which isnt happening.
king Wombat
Well-known member
why is cutting state the only way of reducing the debt? How about clamping down on tax avoidance, binning nuclear weapons, and that ridiculous high speed rail projrct for example.. Cos what the Tories are doing clearly isn't working..
My point wasn't intended to be political. I don't give two shits who started it. However, if you do want to play that game, I'll point out that many roles / qualifications were exempt from the fees / subject to bursaries, at the outset. It's only now, after all the budget cuts that the NHS can no longer afford to offer bursaries for people wishing to train in these front line roles.
So we advertise overseas, ship the paramedics (and many others) in, and spend the money that way instead, rather than educating our own. Genius.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,015
tax aviodance is legal application of the tax rules. of course we should try to reduce it but end of the day most methods are prescribed by government or EU in the first place, and often there isnt any tax there behind the headline (example banging on about Amazon's arrangments, they wouldnt pay any tax as they dont make profits). this argument is based a fallacy though, if the avoidance loopholes would be easily filled, they (any government) would do so. nuclear deterrent is up for debate but amounts to less than 1% of the deficit and the cost of replacement *and* running for 30 years would be about the same as 1 years current deficit. HS2 doesnt justifiy itself on fincances, but is currently one of the few policies which represents actual long term investment, meaning jobs in the construction and supply industries for years to come (as long as they favour UK suppliers, something we are poor at).
end of day the only meaningful way to cut debts is to cut spending, thats basic economics. you can also try increasing income, by growth, but thats more difficult as you have less control.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,015
im not familiar with the bursaries, so you may have good point there. it would be better if the gilded qualification requirements were cut, paramedics and nurses do not need degrees to fullfill most of their duties. im not having a pop at them, i was at uni with one of the first intake of nursing degrees and they all hated it, and most roles in business and industry dont need degrees either, and certainly not taking 3 years. this and the previous government bang on about making vocational qualifications equivilent while not addressing the issue of overhauling the further education system to be more practical (in both sences) to students and business.
stripeyshark
All-Time Best Defence
- Dec 20, 2011
- 2,294
A tree up a cat?
- Thread starter
- #92
It's not a case of "if the avoidance loopholes would be easily filled, they (any government) would do so" it more that it's a complex situation which requires a fairly radical change of definition as to what is profit and where profit is determined, and also the fact governments haven't kept up with e-commerce. But, there is real desire to make a change from most quarters including George Osborne. The vast majority of people see this loophole as unfair and wrong and change will happen; it has to. And Amazon clearly make "profit" from trading in the UK. There is no doubt about this, but they hide behind "booking" the sales elsewhere and I understand this is being questioned in the high-court as all the effort from driving the sale through to delivery is primarily done in the UK.
Adds little to the debate? Don't you think it is important to consider how the conservatives would have handled the crisis. Firstly, you need to acknowledge that it was a global crisis which you seem a little sceptical about. The old chestnut about deregulation of the banks always creeps in but there never seems to be any acknowledgement that this was started by the Tories during the 80s and 90s and that they were advocates of further deregulation! Looking at the crisis itself, how would the Tories have handled it? Would they have propped up the banks or would they let them fail as some suggested, taking with them a lot of peoples savings! Also, the Tories were against QE but the attached would suggest they were wrong! http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/17/uk-better-off-quantitative-easing
As for labour being 'profligate', prior to the crisis, national debt had gone up but it was not much bigger than it had been during the 80s and 90s. Some would argue that increased spending on the public sector was necessary are 18 years of the previous incumbents cutbacks. Or, are you suggesting they were 'profligate' during the crisis and if so, what evidence do can you give? No doubt you will only quote the note left at the treasury as your evidence!
very little between the 3 major parties. Labour would have done pretty much what the Coalition did. If we get the same Lib/Con Coalition in power they'll do a bit of cranking up austerity for 3 years then ease off the 4th year and come out with some juicy bribes on the 5th year.
What qualifications do you think nurses need then? Instead of looking at the fact it is called a degree rather than something else, perhaps you should look at what the courses actually cover. You should also bear in mind that there is a now an additional layer of carers, HCAs which undertake many of the routine tasks that nurses used to do. As for paramedics not needing to be qualified, where do you get that from. There used to be a saying about the 'golden hour' for treatment following a trauma and it used to imply about getting the patient to hospital in that time. Now, as I understand it, the hospital comes to the patient in the form of the paramedics and the equipment they have on the ambulance.
Calling them degree courses is merely acknowledging that nursing and paramedics are equal in their attitude to their profession as those that might study accountancy or law for example. Back in the 70s, you trained to be a state enrolled nurse and then a further 2 years to become a state registered nurse. It just wasn't called a degree then but was 3 years! The big difference is that instead of doing all your training at a hospital, you now spend time at a university.
somerset
New member
You are a right old ray of sunshine aren't you?... I bet those winter nights just fly by over there in your little Fatherland utopia.
- Thread starter
- #97
Oh come on. I think most people can at least see there is a small attempt at humour behind the message in threads like this.
Yep, a small attempt. When did you leave this green and pleasant land, was it when your heroes Labour were in power, or those pesky Tories?
Mutts Nuts
New member
- Oct 30, 2011
- 4,918
And he is having such a great time out there that he spends all day on here
- Thread starter
- #100
I've lived abroad twice, three times if you include a 2 month stretch. I left once under Labour, once under Tory. The governing party, or the state of the nation, never influenced my decision though.