He did a lot of talking the economy up before 2010 when all of those damn left wingers were saying the bailout had been a catastrophe.

I believe in talking up the economy and talking up Britain, the left and liberals believe in talking it down

No you bloody don't, there wasn't a word of any of the improving economy from you in the lead up to the 2010 election! You only believe in talking it up so long as it benefits the Tories.

No you bloody don't, there wasn't a word of any of the improving economy from you in the lead up to the 2010 election! You only believe in talking it up so long as it benefits the Tories.

 

Wrong, if labour do something i feel is good for Britain then i give credit

 

Aside from being a lying genocidal c**t i thought Blair did a pretty good job, however, Brown was hopelessly out of his depth as PM, as useful as a chocolate fireguard

 

If Brown had become PM in 2010 again he would have raised taxes for businesses, taxed entrepreneurs into oblivion, thrown more and more money into the black hole aka the NHS instead of making it more efficient, spent more and more money the nation didn't have and handed more and more money to benefit claimants

Did you actually pay any attention to the Darling Plan, which was what Brown's plan for the economy was? It didn't involve increasing the deficit, it involved being more measured in its reduction, on the basis that you reduce a deficit through growth and sharp cuts kick growth away. The slump we went straight back into the second spending was slashed immediately proved him right on that one.

 

In any case, for someone who apparently believes in talking up the economy regardless of the party in power, you didn't make a single post coming up with some of the most laughably statistically dishonest indicators for economic confidence in the lead up to the 2010 general election. The economy grew by more in the last quarter of Labour being in power than it has grown since, unemployment was falling pretty swiftly, and the deficit was going down. I'm not sure what you think Labour would have done had they won another election to reverse that.

Wrong, if labour do something i feel is good for Britain then i give credit

 

Aside from being a lying genocidal c**t i thought Blair did a pretty good job, however, Brown was hopelessly out of his depth as PM, as useful as a chocolate fireguard

 

If Brown had become PM in 2010 again he would have raised taxes for businesses, taxed entrepreneurs into oblivion, thrown more and more money into the black hole aka the NHS instead of making it more efficient, spent more and more money the nation didn't have and handed more and more money to benefit claimants

So, taking your lead from Tory ministers from Cameron downwards, you deny an allegation that wasn't made. You were, rightly, accused of not talking up the economy in the lead up to the last election despite a return of growth and declining unemployment. You denied something totally different.

Additionally, I'm a little surprised you're quite so hasty to throw around the tag 'genocidal', Craig. I don't know many of our heritage who lightly devalue the significance of the term and what it means by applying it to any war leader regardless of their intention.

Edited October 20, 201311 yr by Cassandra

No you bloody don't, there wasn't a word of any of the improving economy from you in the lead up to the 2010 election! You only believe in talking it up so long as it benefits the Tories.

 

It was a different era then on here

 

In 2010 the show in this section of the site was run by 2 complete and utter c**ts, probably the 2 most repugnant individuals i have encountered on any forum so hell would freeze over before i was ever going to roll over and agree with anything Scott and Rob said

 

It is a different era now, while I don't agree with anyone in this thread I don't have a problem with a single one of them so am more 'open' and reasonable than i was then

Additionally, I'm a little surprised you're quite so hasty to throw around the tag 'genocidal', Craig. I don't know many of our heritage who lightly devalue the significance of the term and what it means by applying it to any war leader regardless of their intention.

 

Shock and Awe, the deliberate targeting of civilian areas of Baghdad with missiles and B52's, resulting in the death of some 26000 Iraqis was the most vile war crime for generations, the world was rightly horrified by the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime but Blair and Bush killed over 20 times as many as Assad did in the chemical attack

 

I don't think the slaughter of 26,000 Iraqis can be considered anything other than genocide

Did you actually pay any attention to the Darling Plan, which was what Brown's plan for the economy was? It didn't involve increasing the deficit, it involved being more measured in its reduction, on the basis that you reduce a deficit through growth and sharp cuts kick growth away. The slump we went straight back into the second spending was slashed immediately proved him right on that one.

 

In any case, for someone who apparently believes in talking up the economy regardless of the party in power, you didn't make a single post coming up with some of the most laughably statistically dishonest indicators for economic confidence in the lead up to the 2010 general election. The economy grew by more in the last quarter of Labour being in power than it has grown since, unemployment was falling pretty swiftly, and the deficit was going down. I'm not sure what you think Labour would have done had they won another election to reverse that.

 

Welfare and NHS account for well over 1/3 of government spending, labour have repeatedly condemned efforts to rein in the welfare budget and also NHS reforms

 

I have not read the Darling Plan but at best it would have been tinkering at the edges while throwing vast sums into welfare and NHS

Welfare and NHS account for well over 1/3 of government spending, labour have repeatedly condemned efforts to rein in the welfare budget and also NHS reforms

 

I have not read the Darling Plan but at best it would have been tinkering at the edges while throwing vast sums into welfare and NHS

"Welfare" meaning pensions, mostly. Good luck with that one.

 

And cutting the deficit in half over five years is hardly tinkering at the edges.

"Welfare" meaning pensions, mostly. Good luck with that one.

 

And cutting the deficit in half over five years is hardly tinkering at the edges.

 

I think state pensions should only go to the poorest pensioners anyways, should be means tested so only the poorest get it

 

Someone who worked for 40 years, has generous company pensions etc should not get a state pension as they simply don't need one

 

I would means test every aspect of state pensions and only give it to those that need it the most, that includes extras like prescriptions, bus passes, eye tests etc

 

3 miles from where i live is Sandbanks, one of the wealthiest places in the world, from times i have spent at Sandbanks the average resident seems to be in their 70s and 80s, why are these people getting state pensions when they don't need them

 

I would extend means test to every benefit claimant, someone out of work for example, a DWP official should visit their home and if they have a big tv, lots of expensive jewellery or whatever they should not get benefits till they have sold and lived off their assets or paid at a reduced rate because they have goods that can be sold to live on

 

 

I think state pensions should only go to the poorest pensioners anyways, should be means tested so only the poorest get it

 

Someone who worked for 40 years, has generous company pensions etc should not get a state pension as they simply don't need one

 

I would means test every aspect of state pensions and only give it to those that need it the most, that includes extras like prescriptions, bus passes, eye tests etc

 

3 miles from where i live is Sandbanks, one of the wealthiest places in the world, from times i have spent at Sandbanks the average resident seems to be in their 70s and 80s, why are these people getting state pensions when they don't need them

 

I would extend means test to every benefit claimant, someone out of work for example, a DWP official should visit their home and if they have a big tv, lots of expensive jewellery or whatever they should not get benefits till they have sold and lived off their assets or paid at a reduced rate because they have goods that can be sold to live on

 

As ideal as that may be (I can't say I either agree or disagree) nothing will ever happen like that, it would be political suicide for two reasons. 1) Old people actually vote, do anything to negatively affect old people and you've lost the election in one policy, regardless of party. 2) It would extend far beyond old people, everyone loves pensioners and feels sorry for them, it doesn't matter if some people don't need the money, taking stuff way from pensioners will never be a vote winner.

Pensions are going to become a major issue in the next 20 years - they are already unaffordable and adding to the governments debt year-on-year, and there is no way that the ageing population can be supported in this way going forward unless we have massive amounts of immigration or a surge in the birth rate soon.

 

On a lighter note, here is something that might cheer Craig up.

 

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70558000/jpg/_70558670_304.jpg

 

Photo Op (above) has been banned by JCDecaux and CBS Outdoor, despite the fact that it was chosen by the Imperial War Museum North in Manchester as the image for a poster campaign to promote a new exhibition about modern art and war.

Edited October 20, 201311 yr by Doctor Blind

Shock and Awe, the deliberate targeting of civilian areas of Baghdad with missiles and B52's, resulting in the death of some 26000 Iraqis was the most vile war crime for generations, the world was rightly horrified by the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime but Blair and Bush killed over 20 times as many as Assad did in the chemical attack

 

I don't think the slaughter of 26,000 Iraqis can be considered anything other than genocide

It may have been a brutal attack on Iraq, but calling it genocide shows a total lack of historical awareness and really does devalue the term in the cases where it ought to be used.

 

- Did Blair ever bring in an 'us vs. them' narrative with regards to Iraqi people?

- Did he ever equate the Iraqis with animals, or diseases that need to be exterminated?

- Was hate propaganda about the Iraqi people ever broadcast to make the British people think of them as less than human?

- Did Tony portray the Iraq War as an attempt to finally 'exterminate' these less than human Iraqis?

- Do you really think at any point that the intention of the Iraq War was to wipe out every living Iraqi man, woman and child?

 

The answer to all of the above is no. There have been cases where the above has been true - Armenia, Rwanda, Bosnia, the Holocaust. Iraq is quite definitely not one of them. throwing around the term 'genocide' diminishes the likes of the Holocaust by making them out as just something in the broad stroke of history that any run-of-the-mill war always comes up with.

Welfare and NHS account for well over 1/3 of government spending, labour have repeatedly condemned efforts to rein in the welfare budget and also NHS reforms

 

I have not read the Darling Plan but at best it would have been tinkering at the edges while throwing vast sums into welfare and NHS

You haven't read it but it would've been 'at best tinkering at the edges'? So basically at this point you're admitting you're assuming the Labour plan would've been bad solely on partisanship rather than any evidence.

 

The Darling Plan held off cuts for another year and aimed to cut the deficit by half by the end of 2015 with a view to getting rid of it in the next Parliament - an aim which even the Tories don't look like they're going to deliver. It made this plan on the basis that bringing in cuts when the economy was still in recovery would've sent it back into recession (a claim which has since been proved right) and that you need to wait until the economy is strong and generating jobs and increased tax receipts - dealing with the revenue end of the deficit - before you can make cuts without harming the economy too much in order to deal with the outgoings end of the deficit.

 

Hardly 'tinkering at the edges' considering it called for pretty big cuts - not as big as the coalition's, but still about 70% as large - but remembered that deficits aren't just about how much you're spending, but also about how much you're bringing it. You don't necessarily need to increase taxes by much if recovery increases tax receipts for you. Hence it doesn't really matter if xyz account for over a third of government spending if you're earning that money - in the same way as you don't try and cut off half your house to reduce your rent even though it might account for a third of your spending: you cut in less necessary areas.

 

And the NHS reforms weren't exactly focused on saving money so much as they were focused on privatising certain elements of the NHS. The NHS reforms were ideology at play, not accounting.

I think state pensions should only go to the poorest pensioners anyways, should be means tested so only the poorest get it

 

Someone who worked for 40 years, has generous company pensions etc should not get a state pension as they simply don't need one

 

I would means test every aspect of state pensions and only give it to those that need it the most, that includes extras like prescriptions, bus passes, eye tests etc

 

3 miles from where i live is Sandbanks, one of the wealthiest places in the world, from times i have spent at Sandbanks the average resident seems to be in their 70s and 80s, why are these people getting state pensions when they don't need them

 

I would extend means test to every benefit claimant, someone out of work for example, a DWP official should visit their home and if they have a big tv, lots of expensive jewellery or whatever they should not get benefits till they have sold and lived off their assets or paid at a reduced rate because they have goods that can be sold to live on

 

seems half the regulars on here live in Dorset. Of course, an alternative to the vote-losing cutting off wealthy pensioners (who would in any case just spend cash on expensive housing till they qualified in terms of bank balance) would to be raise taxes on those lucky enough to live in big houses, or earn lots of money, or have bank accounts with lots of cash. Maybe the Conservatives would like to consider that. Of course, no-one is forcing rich pensioners to claim benefits, and i daresay most of them don't. Don't think free bus pass is much of an issue in Sandbanks. Free luxury yacht pass maybe :lol:

I think state pensions should only go to the poorest pensioners anyways, should be means tested so only the poorest get it

 

Someone who worked for 40 years, has generous company pensions etc should not get a state pension as they simply don't need one

 

I would means test every aspect of state pensions and only give it to those that need it the most, that includes extras like prescriptions, bus passes, eye tests etc

 

3 miles from where i live is Sandbanks, one of the wealthiest places in the world, from times i have spent at Sandbanks the average resident seems to be in their 70s and 80s, why are these people getting state pensions when they don't need them

I would extend means test to every benefit claimant, someone out of work for example, a DWP official should visit their home and if they have a big tv, lots of expensive jewellery or whatever they should not get benefits till they have sold and lived off their assets or paid at a reduced rate because they have goods that can be sold to live on

Have you any idea how much that would cost? Actually, on second thoughts, perhaps the question should have ended at the word "idea".

Also, how does he even know if the people in Sandbanks are claiming state pensions?

As ideal as that may be (I can't say I either agree or disagree) nothing will ever happen like that, it would be political suicide for two reasons. 1) Old people actually vote, do anything to negatively affect old people and you've lost the election in one policy, regardless of party. 2) It would extend far beyond old people, everyone loves pensioners and feels sorry for them, it doesn't matter if some people don't need the money, taking stuff way from pensioners will never be a vote winner.

 

Agree, it will never happen, but the state pension will be a millstone round the neck of the British economy till reforms are bought in and radical ones, more and more people are living longer and longer, something has to give in the pensions system

Pensions are going to become a major issue in the next 20 years - they are already unaffordable and adding to the governments debt year-on-year, and there is no way that the ageing population can be supported in this way going forward unless we have massive amounts of immigration or a surge in the birth rate soon.

 

On a lighter note, here is something that might cheer Craig up.

 

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70558000/jpg/_70558670_304.jpg

 

Photo Op (above) has been banned by JCDecaux and CBS Outdoor, despite the fact that it was chosen by the Imperial War Museum North in Manchester as the image for a poster campaign to promote a new exhibition about modern art and war.

 

Aha good one, Whoever made that pic is a genius, i could imagine that to be almost true too, Blair is a sociopath