Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 14340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 287  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 14:08 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Curiosity wrote:
Of course hard work makes a difference. I'd be head of the department instead of just a senior technical person if I gave a shit.

Noooooooo - you need to wait until you're lucky again.

I got where I am through a combination of luck and lying ;)

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 14:20 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
Grim... wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Of course hard work makes a difference. I'd be head of the department instead of just a senior technical person if I gave a shit.

Noooooooo - you need to wait until you're lucky again.

I got where I am through a combination of luck and lying ;)


To be fair, the Doc never said that hard work was not helpful. He just said that people being able to elevate themselves to a high position as purely a function of hard work, with no luck or support, is a myth. Much like how when I win at roulette it's down to my genius systems, and when I lose it's down to terribly bad luck :D

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 14:51 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Curiosity wrote:
To be fair, the Doc never said that hard work was not helpful.

He rather pointedly left it off his list of roads and policemen and whatnot.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 21:32 
Excellent Member

Joined: 5th Dec, 2010
Posts: 3353
The environment I work in (large corporates) hard work doesn't matter that much.

Arse kissing, playing the business bullshit game, your face fitting and an element of luck get your forward.

I had some luck in getting to my current role and will play the business bullshit a little bit, but that's it.

Further climbing would mean longer hours and almost certainly relocation, I know one guy at work my age who has climbed very high in another dept, he seldom sees his kids before Saturday most weeks, what with travel and working late.

Fuck that life is too short. I can say with all honesty that I would turn down double my salary if it meant a family life like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:47 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 25th Jul, 2010
Posts: 11128
Grim... wrote:
However, you're (and others are) saying it's got nothing to do with working hard and, indeed, it makes no difference if you do, which is clearly rubbish.


I'm not sure if you're including me in your comments here or not but I never said anything like that and it would seem to take a near willlful misreading to get to that conclusion. Aside from your luckiest of liars of course people will need to work hard to succeed. The 'myth' I'm addressing is that which says hard work is the only thing required to succeed. If you're a successful person then well done, it's 99.9% sure you do deserve it. However it's not true that everyone else who hasn't reached your level is a lazy feckless twat who simply hasn't put in the same level of effort you have.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:50 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Pundy basically said that it's only luck that makes people successful.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:16 
Filthy Junkie Bitch

Joined: 17th Dec, 2008
Posts: 8293
Pundy is of course correct in my case. All of my success can be traced back to three incorrect and terribly bad decisions made at points in my life over a two year period. None of those decisions were taken with an eye to the future.

The entire ten years before that, I'd done everything sensible and by the book and got nowhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:22 
Excellent Member

Joined: 5th Dec, 2010
Posts: 3353
Cras wrote:
Pundy basically said that it's only luck that makes people successful.


Luck and right place at the right time do play a part, my old boss was "let go" and that enabled me to get into my position, although I'm 2 or 3 grades lower than he was and as such he would have been paid a lot more than me. Him going was about the fact he was too senior to just run the UK so they let him go and had me do it.

He told me that 15 years before, his boss pissed off the directors so they fired her and he filled her boots, he always said it was right place\right time for him.

Of course if I had been lazy or crap at my job then I would have gone as well, so working well\hard plays a part, unless you are one of those people that all big companies have who have the knack of doing very little but never get noticed and get away with it. Always thought that was a skill in itself!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:29 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
asfish wrote:
unless you are one of those people that all big companies have who have the knack of doing very little but never get noticed and get away with it. Always thought that was a skill in itself!


That's easy. Doing it in a small company, that's the real skill...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:30 
Awesome
User avatar
Yes

Joined: 6th Apr, 2008
Posts: 12240
Trooper wrote:
asfish wrote:
unless you are one of those people that all big companies have who have the knack of doing very little but never get noticed and get away with it. Always thought that was a skill in itself!


That's easy. Doing it in a small company, that's the real skill...

Especially if you're self employed.

_________________
Always proof read carefully in case you any words out


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:43 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Trooper wrote:
asfish wrote:
unless you are one of those people that all big companies have who have the knack of doing very little but never get noticed and get away with it. Always thought that was a skill in itself!


That's easy. Doing it in a small company, that's the real skill...


:this:

In other news.... fuck me. Where to start with this, eh readers? Amazing scenes.
In between variously being told that I'm a rabid Daily Mail reader and/or general purpose "massive bellend twat", one of the more common (baseless) charges that I tend to endure around here is that I apparently cling to some political ideology or other, as a matter of pseudo-faith and that this informs a "narrative", where of course there's precisely none. The supreme irony is that someone like me, an out and out empiricist, cares not so much as a single quark for ideology, whereas as has been so ably demonstrated here, my detractors absolutely DO do this. It's almost cult-like.

Hard work is nothing to be ashamed of; the very opposite is true. There are too many intelligent, perfectly able-bodied but ultimately lazy, embittered people out there who envy those who have grafted their way to a nice house, a nice car, a fab job and a great life, but were not and are still not willing to make the effort themselves.

(I remember Stu telling me it was "all luck" about 10 years ago at the last place too. At the time I was most put out and reacted angrily, but these days...? Well, sometimes smilies say it better: :insincere: :roll: )

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:48 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
True, Cavey, but there are MORE people who work very hard and don't ever get to that economic level. These people should be supported, not demonised (not saying you demonise them, but the government does).

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:52 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Curiosity wrote:
True, Cavey, but there are MORE people who work very hard and don't ever get to that economic level. These people should be supported, not demonised (not saying you demonise them, but the government does).


Mate, do you not think I want to support, reward and encourage those who would only make the effort to help themselves, to get off their butts, basically? Shit, there's nothing I would rather do; that is the very essence of being a Conservative, most especially a working class one.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:15 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
Cavey wrote:
I remember Stu telling me it was "all luck" about 10 years ago at the last place too

I seem to recall the reason for my banning from there was because I argued with him about how difficult it was to buy a house. He insisted the system was stacked against people like him (workshy layabouts subsisting on a mere £1/month donation) and I said it was actually pretty easy with an average paying job and a decent credit rating. That was 2006 when the housing market had never been more generous (or foolhardy) about who it lent to, but he was still convinced it wasn't.

He's a true socialist now, of course. He was poor and the slightly less poor have all thrown their money at him.

_________________
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Pretty much everyone agrees with Gnomes, really, it's just some are too right on to admit it. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:28 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
Cavey wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
True, Cavey, but there are MORE people who work very hard and don't ever get to that economic level. These people should be supported, not demonised (not saying you demonise them, but the government does).


Mate, do you not think I want to support, reward and encourage those who would only make the effort to help themselves, to get off their butts, basically? Shit, there's nothing I would rather do; that is the very essence of being a Conservative, most especially a working class one.


That's emphatically not the problem. The problem is that there are genuinely millions of people who are getting off their butts and working, but who will not be able to get above, say, the 40k barrier at which Conservative policies start to benefit them.

The aim of the government should surely be to prioritise getting the hard working lower paid people to have a better deal, as opposed to those already over that threshold who are more comfortable. I get paid absurdly well compared to, say, nurses or firefighters. Yet those people are struggling to survive on their pay because they're not valued in a system that puts money above all other consideration.

I knew a single mother whose partner had left them. She had a kid in pre-school, but was still working full time and studying accountancy to try to improve her life. She practically had no time ever for recreation, and working was almost of no value in terms of paying for childcare etc. That's going to be even harder to do now, due to giving the rich large tax cuts at the expense of the poor, and freezing benefits for working people.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:47 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Curiosity wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
True, Cavey, but there are MORE people who work very hard and don't ever get to that economic level. These people should be supported, not demonised (not saying you demonise them, but the government does).


Mate, do you not think I want to support, reward and encourage those who would only make the effort to help themselves, to get off their butts, basically? Shit, there's nothing I would rather do; that is the very essence of being a Conservative, most especially a working class one.


That's emphatically not the problem. The problem is that there are genuinely millions of people who are getting off their butts and working, but who will not be able to get above, say, the 40k barrier at which Conservative policies start to benefit them.

The aim of the government should surely be to prioritise getting the hard working lower paid people to have a better deal, as opposed to those already over that threshold who are more comfortable. I get paid absurdly well compared to, say, nurses or firefighters. Yet those people are struggling to survive on their pay because they're not valued in a system that puts money above all other consideration.

I knew a single mother whose partner had left them. She had a kid in pre-school, but was still working full time and studying accountancy to try to improve her life. She practically had no time ever for recreation, and working was almost of no value in terms of paying for childcare etc. That's going to be even harder to do now, due to giving the rich large tax cuts at the expense of the poor, and freezing benefits for working people.


Curio, sadly I don't have the time right now to devote to this as I'd like, but very briefly, it is absolutely NOT the case that there's some '£40k threshold', below which one does not benefit from a Tory government. That is to catastrophically misunderstand; do you seriously believe if that were the case, I'd be in favour of it?

EVERYONE benefits from a healthy, stable, sustainably-growing and low tax economy. There are more jobs; there is more opportunity to make good; more opportunity to be the next success story of the enterprise economy. The Labourites here will bleat on about how their party "lifted millions out of poverty", right up to the bit where the economy fucking nose-dived c.10%, an unprecedented Depression which we, our kids and our grand kids will be paying for, and those millions - and many more besides - were instantly and cruelly dumped into worst shit than ever they were before.

I've spoken at length why this is Labour's fault; it is inarguably the case that the job of government is to regulate the financial sector, which they manifestly failed to do (and in fact, didn't even understand it, let alone regulate it). Tax Credits, the minimum wage, creation of endless 'unjobs' in the public sector (as paid for by ever increasing debt) - all USELESS against a backdrop of a catastrophically failed, broken, mismanaged economy.

You need to look at the bigger picture mate. If you don't get the economy right, you get NOTHING right. This is the fundamental lesson that Labour fails to learn, time and again, each time one of their administrations ends in bankrupcy and disaster, as indeed they always have. Hence my 'turkeys voting for Christmas' comment.

I'm only interested in stuff that WORKS, nothing else. It could be THE most left-leaning policy ever for all I care; I'm just not interested. The empirical truth, however, is usually close to the inverse.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:58 
Excellent Member

Joined: 5th Dec, 2010
Posts: 3353
In terms of lower earners I thought Cameron said he planned to make the minimum wage tax free via cuts?

Not saying that's going to make a huge difference but better than nothing?

Just caught the headline so no doubt it will in 3 years time and linked to him getting a 2nd term


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 14:34 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
There are tax cuts for lower earners. They are dwarfed by the amount cut for higher earners.

Cavey, I too don't have enough time at the mo, but will comment more later. Suffice to say I don't believe that you want to trash the working poor, nor that it is necessarily a product of Conservatism, but I really believe that is what the current government is trying to achieve, and there is tons of very empirical evidence to back this up.

I'll try to post some of it tonight.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 14:45 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Or - Cavey should come to the fucking cottage and there would be all the time in the world for chat!

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 14:53 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Grim... wrote:
Or - Cavey should come to the fucking cottage and there would be all the time in the world for chat!


I'd be tarred and feathered! :D

Seriously, I'd love to come (assuming that would be ok with everyone as, all joking aside, I would not want to piss any of the 'regulars' off :) ), but things are a tad sticky work-wise and I need to be around here. Assuming it goes ahead, I'd love to make a comedy appearance at the next BeexBBQ - I'll bring my own village stocks so people can chuck rotten fruit at me. :)

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 16:41 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Three weeks ago: Osborne to miss deficit reduction target:
Quote:
Weak tax receipts pushed borrowing to £11.6bn in August excluding bank bailouts, £700m more than a year earlier according to the Office for National Statistics. Borrowing in the fiscal year so far, from April to August, was £45.5bn, £2.6bn higher than the same period last year. Economists said the poor start to the year had put at risk the Treasury’s official target of reducing borrowing to £95.5bn in 2014-15 from £105.8bn in 2013-14.
So it's supposed to be £10bn down over the year, but it was actually £2.6bn up over six months.

This week: income tax is down further because although employment is up, a lot of it is low-paying jobs or self-employed people earning under the income tax threshold.

Quote:
More than half of the new jobs created since 2010 have been among the self-employed, but figures from HMRC show the proportion of self-employed people who earn less than the tax-free allowance has risen from 20% in 2008 to 35% now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 16:52 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Oh, and senior Tories are now admitting that they totally fucked the NHS.

Quote:
The Government’s reorganisation of the NHS was its biggest “mistake”, senior Conservatives have reportedly admitted.

Labour has pledged to repeal the “toxic” 2012 Health and Social Care Act, which saw a major restructuring of how the NHS is funded. Some claim the bill was designed to pave the way for private firms to take over much of the running of the health service or even its privatisation.

Experts said the reorganisation, which is estimated to have cost about £3bn, had caused “profound and intense” damage to the NHS with one saying former Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, would be facing disciplinary action if he had been a doctor.

A senior Cabinet minister told The Times newspaper: “We’ve made three mistakes that I regret, the first being restructuring the NHS. The rest are minor.”


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 17:24 
User avatar
Rude Belittler

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 5016
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
This week: income tax is down further because although employment is up, a lot of it is low-paying jobs or self-employed people earning under the income tax threshold.

Quote:
More than half of the new jobs created since 2010 have been among the self-employed, but figures from HMRC show the proportion of self-employed people who earn less than the tax-free allowance has risen from 20% in 2008 to 35% now.

Ah yes. "Self Employment." Which is not employers (particularly agencies, but also stuff like taxi firms) saying "I can't be arsed to pay NI or provide benefits like sick pay, holiday allowance, maternity pay... so you're self employed, right?"... honest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 17:43 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Cavey wrote:
The supreme irony is that someone like me, an out and out empiricist, cares not so much as a single quark for ideology, whereas as has been so ably demonstrated here, my detractors absolutely DO do this. It's almost cult-like.
As an empiricist, you're careful about the facts and figures on which you base your reasoning, of course? You wouldn't just keep repeating a baseless soundbite like an ideologue, correct?

Cavey wrote:
the UK economy is now steaming ahead now with 4% annual growth

Cavey wrote:
As for the Conservatives being in a "headlong plunge into the looney right wing spectrum", that's absolute cobblers as well - but whatever they are, or are not guilty of, the facts speak for themselves: 3-4% year on year growth; an economy larger than it was in 2008 (within just one parliamentary term);

Cavey wrote:
Those horrible old Tories with their 3-4% year on year growth and record falls in unemployment within less than a single Parliamentary term, eh. Time to move out of the UK and become a 'political refugee'...

Cavey wrote:
I'm hoping the economy strengthens considerably further (it's no[w] motoring at >3% annual growth)


I took a look at the ONS offical GDP statistics from here. I took the size of the economy at each quarter, and then found the percentage change relative to the same quarter in the previous year. The largest growth was 2.3%, a far cry indeed from "3-4%".

Attachment:
Screen Shot 2014-10-13 at 17.28.49.png


Let's take a look at this bit again:
Cavey wrote:
an economy larger than it was in 2008 (within just one parliamentary term);


That's cherry-picking. The economy rose for three consecutive quarters before the 2010 general election, under the outgoing Labour government; and yet by comparing the nadir of the financial crisis with today, you attributed all these gains to the Conservative party. Indeed, it rose 1% during Q2 2010, which was half under Labour and half under no government at all as everyone scrabbled to form the coalition. That doesn't seem very empirical.

There's something else.

At the end of Q1 2005, just before the General Election, the economy was worth £359 bn. At the end of Q1 2010, just before the last GE, it stood at £368 bn. At the end of Q1 2014 (the latest data in the ONS report), it was £390 bn. It is true that the economy shrank a lot during the financial crisis, for sure. But it only lost the growth that the economy had experienced under the Labour government in the previous few years. Overall, during the 2005-2010 government, the economy ended off with stronger GDP than it began. EDIT: fix number transcription error as per APOD's post below.

Attachment:
Screen Shot 2014-10-13 at 17.42.01.png


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 17:53 
Filthy Junkie Bitch

Joined: 17th Dec, 2008
Posts: 8293
Despite being evil tory scum I agree with all points in your last post, Doc G, with the exception of the final quote. There is no way on earth that the UK economy in any quarter was worth £35bn. That's significantly less than Apples cash pile.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 18:00 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
I mean trillion, don't I? The figures in the sheet (and graph) are correct but I have transcribed them incorrectly into the post.

Edit -- fixed them, ta.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 19:08 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
You can spoil anything with facts Doc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 19:14 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Hey I'm just being empirical.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 19:40 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Hey I'm just being empirical.


What, that load of nit-picking bollocks?
In your mind, Doc, you think picking a few semantic holes in the broad-brush arguments of others with far less time on their hands than you amounts to "winning the argument" (bless).

Probably why EBG routinely hands your ass back to you in a sling, I guess.

I'll come to you presently, but you'll excuse me if I address earlier posts firsts. Yours won't take long.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 19:41 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
Cavey wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Or - Cavey should come to the fucking cottage and there would be all the time in the world for chat!


I'd be tarred and feathered! :D

Seriously, I'd love to come (assuming that would be ok with everyone as, all joking aside, I would not want to piss any of the 'regulars' off :) ), but things are a tad sticky work-wise and I need to be around here. Assuming it goes ahead, I'd love to make a comedy appearance at the next BeexBBQ - I'll bring my own village stocks so people can chuck rotten fruit at me. :)


Don't be ridiculous! You have to come to something! Hell, even if it's only drinks in London.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 19:43 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Curiosity wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Or - Cavey should come to the fucking cottage and there would be all the time in the world for chat!


I'd be tarred and feathered! :D

Seriously, I'd love to come (assuming that would be ok with everyone as, all joking aside, I would not want to piss any of the 'regulars' off :) ), but things are a tad sticky work-wise and I need to be around here. Assuming it goes ahead, I'd love to make a comedy appearance at the next BeexBBQ - I'll bring my own village stocks so people can chuck rotten fruit at me. :)


Don't be ridiculous! You have to come to something! Hell, even if it's only drinks in London.


:)

Cheers mate.
I did try to meet Grim.. and Craster once, after the Stones gig.
Prob just as well it didn't materialise; man, Mrs C and I were absolutely trollied. :)

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 20:09 
Filthy Junkie Bitch

Joined: 17th Dec, 2008
Posts: 8293
Cavey wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Or - Cavey should come to the fucking cottage and there would be all the time in the world for chat!


I'd be tarred and feathered! :D

Seriously, I'd love to come (assuming that would be ok with everyone as, all joking aside, I would not want to piss any of the 'regulars' off :) ), but things are a tad sticky work-wise and I need to be around here. Assuming it goes ahead, I'd love to make a comedy appearance at the next BeexBBQ - I'll bring my own village stocks so people can chuck rotten fruit at me. :)


Don't be ridiculous! You have to come to something! Hell, even if it's only drinks in London.


:)

Cheers mate.
I did try to meet Grim.. and Craster once, after the Stones gig.
Prob just as well it didn't materialise; man, Mrs C and I were absolutely trollied. :)

You didn't see how spectacularly wankered we all were while they waited to meet you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 20:10 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
Cavey wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Hey I'm just being empirical.


What, that load of nit-picking bollocks?
In your mind, Doc, you think picking a few semantic holes in the broad-brush arguments of others with far less time on their hands than you amounts to "winning the argument" (bless).

Probably why EBG routinely hands your ass back to you in a sling, I guess.

I'll come to you presently, but you'll excuse me if I address earlier posts firsts. Yours won't take long.

If that's your attitude, don't bother, as I won't be reading it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 20:14 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Hearthly wrote:
Sorry Cavey but I must say that whilst I do have the utmost respect for you and always have, your recent comments to this thread are absolutely stretching that to breaking point, and I'm finding those comments borderline repugnant, if I'm honest.

I wouldn't agree with the invective used by markg but I can understand and sympathise with his absolute 'what the fuck?' reaction to some of the bile and triumphalist vitriol you're spewing.

To suggest that the Labour party have 'fucked up everything they've ever touched' is to deny both history and human decency.


You know I too hold you in the greatest respect. Why? You're an interesting, intelligent, kind and funny guy. I've known you well over 10 years; I know your background (upon which I have much in common as you know); I know where you're coming from. Accordingly, in keeping with almost everyone else here for that matter, whilst I think your politics and suggested methodologies are totally and diametrically incorrect, for obvious empirical reasons (as even a very casual glance around the globe will surely tell you, not least 22 miles across the English Channel) - I have never, nor will I ever doubt your sincerity or good faith.

Knowing this, and your knowledge of me also, it is somewhat galling (to say the least) to realise that you doubt MY reasons for believing in the cold, dispassionate logic and efficacy of methodologies and politics that I genuinely believe, as incredulous as you may well be, would (and do) benefit the most people, achieve the optimal results? I mean really, do you think I want to protect the often entirely undeserving and amoral rich, at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged? You mention the terrible ills and provocations I have supposedly wrought in my posts earlier, but frankly it should be me who's getting pissed off at this juncture?

This 'wtf' reaction you mention; this supposed 'bile' and 'vitriol'. I mean, what? I'm sorry, but for all the revisionist bullshit of hardcore Labour supporters, Labour DID wreck the economy of this nation, in fact they very nearly destroyed it, as well as having the worst foreign policy since Suez. That is an incontrovertible, absolute FACT - it is the job of government to regulate the banks and financial sector; they failed to do so and the consequences (still ongoing) could have hardly been more dire. So, all those supposed "good" things that they did were all wiped out in an instant, and then some. They even themselves had to apologise for it (along with their disastrous immigration policy).

Quote:
no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.

The 'bitter experiences' the former Labour minister for health recounts were rooted in a poverty stricken childhood in South Wales, when working class families such as his lived a precarious existence on the precipice of disaster and destitution without an NHS or welfare state to protect them. Those things arrived in Britain courtesy of the 1945 Labour government, of which he was a key member, and in 2014 are in the process of being rolled back.


You reckon those words are 'yet to be bettered', basically a nasty, bitter, deeply prejudiced man decrying every single Tory who ever lived, regardless of their deeds, achievements and kindnesses as 'lower than vermin', gleefully describing his 'burning hatred'? I mean seriously, you want me to respond to this?

Personally I think this says it all. In my view, anyone with such views, past or present and for whatever reason, however justified they might think they are, ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

There are many well meaning, entirely decent Tory voters and party members, just as there are Liberals and Labour. To suggest otherwise is divisive, irrational and above all, idiotic.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 20:15 
User avatar
Legendary Boogeyman

Joined: 22nd Dec, 2010
Posts: 8175
Don't worry Cavey, he definitely doesn't read my posts either. :hat:

_________________
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Pretty much everyone agrees with Gnomes, really, it's just some are too right on to admit it. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 20:16 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Hey I'm just being empirical.


What, that load of nit-picking bollocks?
In your mind, Doc, you think picking a few semantic holes in the broad-brush arguments of others with far less time on their hands than you amounts to "winning the argument" (bless).

Probably why EBG routinely hands your ass back to you in a sling, I guess.

I'll come to you presently, but you'll excuse me if I address earlier posts firsts. Yours won't take long.

If that's your attitude, don't bother, as I won't be reading it.


OK. Well, if there is a next time, a bit less of the triumphalist "Hey, I'm just being empirical" piss-taking before I've even had a chance to respond, might be good.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 20:42 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Bamba wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
like all anyone needs to do to earn that sort of wage is to just be an honest and hard worker


This is the horrible lie that America seems to have successfully sold most of it's population and it's fucking heart-breaking to see it accepted.


I never said, of course, that "all anyone needs is to be an honest and hard worker" - total straw man, there.
Of course hard work is important, but so is a bit of good fortune, a little charm where it's needed and above all, working smart.

By the way, I'm not claiming to be Richard Branson or anything. I'm proud of the things I've managed to achieve in my life for sure, but I've made LOADS of mistakes and it's not as though I'm some bloody Tycoon the next Alan Sugar ffs. I never said I was.

Quote:
Prediction: not that I'll be reading it but Cavey will be right back here with some extended bullshit narrative about how terrible his upbringing was and/or how much he had to struggle to get everything he's ever had without once actually taking on board anything I've said.


No idea where you're coming from with this; you're very critical of others (especially me) when we don't conduct ourselves on-forum according to the manner you seem to prescribe a lot of the time, yet here you are starting with "not that I'll be reading it" [classic passive-aggressive] then bringing my 'upbringing' into an argument about something I never even bloody said [anyone can make it with hard work alone].

FYI my upbringing was truncated somewhat early at 16; unfortunately for me, my old man saw and had done to him some pretty bad stuff in Hungary's failed '57 uprising and the ensuing (undiagnosed) PTSD played out a rather unfortunate set of consequences. On the upside, though, this gave me an iron resolve to never do this to my own kids, and also to do my best to make a success of my life. First objective 100% achieved, second 50% achieved. One and a half out of two ain't too bad.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 20:43 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Grim... wrote:
What a pile of shit.

Even disregarding the fact that a whole load of people don't live in countries that give them the things you listed, and the ones that do share those things with millions of others, you're seriously suggesting that working hard has nothing to do with becoming successful?


:this:

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 20:43 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Fuck you, successful people. You don't deserve it.

The liberals have made it quite clear that earning money is evil, and that you should be ashamed that you went to school, learned diligently, and then applied that knowledge in the advancement of a career. Such capitalist thinking must be stopped - everyone should get a fair share of everything regardless of how hard they work because to imply that low-income earners are anything other than a hapless victims of society's inequality makes you patronisingly classist and out-of-touch with reality.

People therefore must dedicate their lives to working hard and running successful businesses, but at no point should they expect to reap the rewards of their endeavour. They need to be taxed out of proportion to those that don't earn as much and forever be made to feel like they're parasites of human dignity. People are desperate to appear humble, because to evince any pride in your success just makes you a boastful, undeserving cunt.

Or, y'know, we could stop trying to make out it's one extreme or the other and that it's actually a combination of factors. Some silver spooned people do badly and fail at life because they never tried hard. Some people were born without a spoon in the house and get to a very sustainable, decent standard of living purely from their own graft.

The guy behind the counter at McDonalds does work hard. If they're not simply content to take orders and shell out fries all day, they can engage in career progression opportunities and either use that to advance internally or leverage a better position elsewhere, or do something else that's entirely unrelated to customer services.

I respect anyone who has a job, regardless of the job, and I have no respect for anyone that does nothing but fucking whine about how it's society's/the government's/capitalism's fault that they don't own a massive house and drive a fancy car.

Me and my brother had the same opportunities. I worked hard in school, he didn't so much. I went to Uni, he didn't. He worked a series of fairly low-paid jobs in IT and has slowed advanced up over the years, but still earns less than me. He doesn't own a house and struggles to keep on top of his credit cards, but he's doing OK.

My parents 'owned' their own house but always had an overdraft to keep things ticking over. My dad can't afford to retire and is currently working beyond 65. I went to whatever the local school was with no effort to ensure it was either good or bad. On the whole it was entirely average. They didn't help me with my homework, or give me special attention. I went to Uni with almost no money and took the maximum loans and worked up to 3 jobs simultaneously to support myself. I wouldn't cast myself as a rags-to-riches success story by any stretch but I worked hard and have always earned a decent wage. There's a whole other level of people above me who work harder still, with more initiative, and do a whole lot better than me. It would be nice if I earned more, but acknowledge that that's on me and not anyone else's fault.

Yes, it's a huge advantage to be born in the UK, to parents that didn't abuse, starve, or otherwise beat the shit out of me. I've seldom experienced any kind of racial abuse or discrimination, and no single experience of my life has been so traumatic that I've been unable to function. Lucky indeed.

But those huge examples of disadvantage do not provide the excuses for everyone that fails to get ahead. Some people are just fucking lazy, or would rather steal than learn and apply knowledge, or never have enough initiative to do anything other than make do with whatever they're presented with. We're all part-circumstances and part self-application.

I otherwise broadly agree with Cavey. Rewarding hard work and aspiration sound good to me. I don't care if you're an immigrant from abroad either, for the record - if you're here to work hard in an honest job then you're welcome as far as I'm concerned.


:this: :hug:

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 20:52 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Despite being evil tory scum I agree with all points in your last post, Doc G, with the exception of the final quote. There is no way on earth that the UK economy in any quarter was worth £35bn. That's significantly less than Apples cash pile.


Meh.
Well, the economy grew by 0.9% last quarter, which if extrapolated for a year (optimistic, certainly), gives 3.6% obviously.

However, the point that Gaywood seems to be missing is that, whether it's 2.5%, 3% or 4%, we'd have snapped off anyone's hand who was offering anything like these levels of growth, the creation of this many new jobs from within the private sector and low inflation (not to mention vastly better performance than our Eurozone peers) within just 5 years after Labourmeddon? This is what I mean by nitpicking; never mind the semantics and graphs etc., what about the broad, substantive point?

Of course, Doc totally fails to address the elephant-in-room point that Labour presided over the financial meltdown in the first place by utterly and completely failing to regulate the banks, upon which it was their absolute governmental and statutory duty so to do, for the sake of all of us. Arguing the toss about whether the Tories have actually achieved +3% or +4% growth, against such an absurd backdrop (and then gloating about it), just strikes me as ridiculous, sorry.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 21:08 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 26th May, 2008
Posts: 298
Quote:
However, the point that Gaywood seems to be missing is that, whether it's 2.5%, 3% or 4%, we'd have snapped off anyone's hand who was offering anything like these levels of growth, the creation of this many new jobs from within the private sector and low inflation (not to mention vastly better performance than our Eurozone peers) within just 5 years after Labourmeddon? This is what I mean by nitpicking; never mind the semantics and graphs etc., what about the broad, substantive point?


If we're just referring to returning to pre-crisis GDP levels, note that the US and Germany did it back in 2011 (and the former was hit very hard by the crisis don't forget). Europe currently stagnates due to the Germans making the rest of the EU suffer (so hurrah for not joining the Euro, an opinion I have changed on after empirical data ;)). This is not a wonderful, amazing recovery. It's a recovery, and that's good, but let's also not forget that a lot of austerity measures have been held off until the *next* Parliament, and yet the deficit is *still* higher than the Darling plan of 2010 with no real end in sight. It's good that the UK is no longer in the almost flat-line era of 2011-3 (remember when we were saved a double-dip recession by the power of ONS's choice of significant figures, and how you yourself said on this forum that you agreed with Balls?), but I wouldn't hold it up as much of an unqualified success.

But you and I have been through this time and time again, and we'll never agree, though I don't think either of us is quite right or either of us is quite wrong. One day, when I'm visiting back home, a drink will be required ;)

EDIT: okay, so "might agree with Balls": viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7321&p=643914&hilit=balls#p643914 - but still :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 22:36 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
Cavey wrote:
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Despite being evil tory scum I agree with all points in your last post, Doc G, with the exception of the final quote. There is no way on earth that the UK economy in any quarter was worth £35bn. That's significantly less than Apples cash pile.


Meh.
Well, the economy grew by 0.9% last quarter, which if extrapolated for a year (optimistic, certainly), gives 3.6% obviously.

However, the point that Gaywood seems to be missing is that, whether it's 2.5%, 3% or 4%, we'd have snapped off anyone's hand who was offering anything like these levels of growth, the creation of this many new jobs from within the private sector and low inflation (not to mention vastly better performance than our Eurozone peers) within just 5 years after Labourmeddon? This is what I mean by nitpicking; never mind the semantics and graphs etc., what about the broad, substantive point?

Of course, Doc totally fails to address the elephant-in-room point that Labour presided over the financial meltdown in the first place by utterly and completely failing to regulate the banks, upon which it was their absolute governmental and statutory duty so to do, for the sake of all of us. Arguing the toss about whether the Tories have actually achieved +3% or +4% growth, against such an absurd backdrop (and then gloating about it), just strikes me as ridiculous, sorry.


You really can't blame the financial crisis on Labour's regulatory policy.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 23:40 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
I blame Craster.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 0:02 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
That's more reasonable.

Blaming Labour is a bit disingenuous. There was a global failure in financial regulation that, while it very definitely occurred with the knowing acceptance of the labour party, would I very much expect have happened whoever was in power - the City is the UK's golden goose, and there's no way any UK government would have gone against the prevailing global regulatory environment to make it harder for the banks to do business in London.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:18 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
Cras wrote:
That's more reasonable.

Blaming Labour is a bit disingenuous. There was a global failure in financial regulation that, while it very definitely occurred with the knowing acceptance of the labour party, would I very much expect have happened whoever was in power - the City is the UK's golden goose, and there's no way any UK government would have gone against the prevailing global regulatory environment to make it harder for the banks to do business in London.


Quite. This can be seen by the startling lack of Tory opposition to any deregulation that happened at the time (and what deregulation exactly? Which specific laws were passed that we're talking about?) and the lack of any particular focus on regulation from the Tory party since they came back into office.

At my last employer, our PRA contact was a marine biologist who didn't understand the business at all. Maybe it's now all SAS ninja regulators at the banks, but I very much doubt it.

Most of the regulation and stuff tends to come from Europe. Which makes for an interesting (aka hellish) time if we leave the EU.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:11 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Curiosity wrote:
Cavey wrote:
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Despite being evil tory scum I agree with all points in your last post, Doc G, with the exception of the final quote. There is no way on earth that the UK economy in any quarter was worth £35bn. That's significantly less than Apples cash pile.


Meh.
Well, the economy grew by 0.9% last quarter, which if extrapolated for a year (optimistic, certainly), gives 3.6% obviously.

However, the point that Gaywood seems to be missing is that, whether it's 2.5%, 3% or 4%, we'd have snapped off anyone's hand who was offering anything like these levels of growth, the creation of this many new jobs from within the private sector and low inflation (not to mention vastly better performance than our Eurozone peers) within just 5 years after Labourmeddon? This is what I mean by nitpicking; never mind the semantics and graphs etc., what about the broad, substantive point?

Of course, Doc totally fails to address the elephant-in-room point that Labour presided over the financial meltdown in the first place by utterly and completely failing to regulate the banks, upon which it was their absolute governmental and statutory duty so to do, for the sake of all of us. Arguing the toss about whether the Tories have actually achieved +3% or +4% growth, against such an absurd backdrop (and then gloating about it), just strikes me as ridiculous, sorry.


You really can't blame the financial crisis on Labour's regulatory policy.


Why ever not? Curio, it's the job of the UK government to successfully and effectively regulate the UK financial sector - a huge chunk of the world total and therefore massively influential. Note this is not a matter of my opinion, but absolute, incontrovertible fact.

With the full benefit of hindsight, there can be no argument that they failed to do this, and failed catastrophically - and the resultant (massive) fallout and damage to the UK (and world) economy was, and is, there for all to see.

Of course, it wasn't Labour themselves doing the dodgy deals, selling our grandchildren's futures up the river - that'll be the bankers themselves. But the point is this; they were effectively permitted to do this by poor or non-existent regulation/ignorance/ineptitude.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:29 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Cras wrote:
Blaming Labour is a bit disingenuous. There was a global failure in financial regulation that, while it very definitely occurred with the knowing acceptance of the labour party, would I very much expect have happened whoever was in power - the City is the UK's golden goose, and there's no way any UK government would have gone against the prevailing global regulatory environment to make it harder for the banks to do business in London.


Now see, this sort of sentiment makes my blood boil. It is a total NON DEFENCE to say "the other lot would've done exactly the same"; can you imagine anything more ridiculous?

Who knows that the Tories, or anyone else would've done? I don't, you don't, no-one does - and besides which, it's totally irrelevant. I might point out that the financial crisis did not occur during their 20-odd year tenure encompassing two recessions (upon which it must've been pretty tempting to spend their way out of and let the City slickers absolutely let rip etc.). I might also mention that Labour gleefully tore down the previous broadly successful regulatory framework and replaced it with three separate bodies (heavily opposed by the Tories as 'folly' at the time) which then went on to inarguably and catastrophically fail etc etc but like I say, so what?

The point is this: Labour were in charge (for a decade); these catastrophic failings and errors are theirs and theirs alone and it's utterly absurd to say 'the other guy would've dun it guv'nor'. Could you imagine using this as a defence as an individual, say, if you'd personally presided over the complete collapse of a hitherto massively successful PLC, in answer to your shareholders or a court? Lol, I think not.

Above all, it's the supreme conceit and complete failure of the political Left to face up to the inarguable consequences of their (entirely well-meaning) actions that infuriates me, and this is but one example.

No right-minded, sane person would ever compare where we were in 1997 to where we ended up in 2008-9 (including, I might add, soaring youth unemployment and massively diverged low vs. high earners pay gap) and say 'yeah, but Labour have done some good, it's beneath common decency to say otherwise'...?

By the same token, that sane, level-headed person couldn't possibly then compare where we were in 2008-9 to where we are now in 2014 and say anything other than 'wow, it's far from perfect but it's one helluva improvement'.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:33 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
Cavey wrote:
Why ever not? Curio, it's the job of the UK government to successfully and effectively regulate the UK financial sector - a huge chunk of the world total and therefore massively influential. Note this is not a matter of my opinion, but absolute, incontrovertible fact.

With the full benefit of hindsight, there can be no argument that they failed to do this, and failed catastrophically - and the resultant (massive) fallout and damage to the UK (and world) economy was, and is, there for all to see.

Of course, it wasn't Labour themselves doing the dodgy deals, selling our grandchildren's futures up the river - that'll be the bankers themselves. But the point is this; they were effectively permitted to do this by poor or non-existent regulation/ignorance/ineptitude.


But Labour were just continuing the policies of the Tories before them, indeed they sold themselves very much on being 'business friendly' and 'city friendly'.

The whole deregulation bandwagon of the financial system started back in the Reagan/Thatcher era and continued unabated throughout the 80s, 90s and 00s. Do you honestly think the Tories would have regulated the city any differently or more diligently than the Blair governments did?

Besides which, this was a global financial collapse that started in the States, are you blaming all of that on Gordon Brown?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:42 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Hearthly wrote:
But Labour were just continuing the policies of the Tories before them, indeed they sold themselves very much on being 'business friendly' and 'city friendly'.


No they weren't. You got the bit about their tearing down the previous regulatory framework which, whatever else it may or may not have been, it had entirely avoided a 2008 style meltdown for fully 12 years since the 1985 'Big Bang', and (despite Tory opposition) replaced it with a multi-responsibility bunch of bodies that inarguably and with the full benefit of indisputable hindsight did NOT work?

This is not "continuing the policies of the Tories before them". But even if it was, so what? We're back to the 'the other guy would've done the same, guv' non-defence again. Will you EVER accept the truth and reality of this situation, or will you continue to delude yourself and others that somehow this was a "good" government, as opposed to a total disaster that cost millions of ordinary people their livelihoods?

Quote:
The whole deregulation bandwagon of the financial system started back in the Reagan/Thatcher era and continued unabated throughout the 80s, 90s and 00s. Do you honestly think the Tories would have regulated the city any differently or more diligently than the Blair governments did?


Oh God, that old chestnut - it was the Tories' fault because of deregulation in 1985, fully 12 years before Labour even came into power, and they themselves had been in power for 11 years after that, with plenty of time to reverse anything that needed to be done. I mean, it's just laughable twaddle. This isn't how the world works.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:55 
Excellent Member

Joined: 5th Dec, 2010
Posts: 3353
Changing the topic to international events see that North Korean leader Kim Jong has finally made a public appearance after some weeks out of the spotlight

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-29608096

Lot of speculation as to where he has been, probably been sat at home in his pants watching Breaking Bad :DD


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 14340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 287  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vogons, Zardoz and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search within this thread:
You are using the 'Ted' forum. Bill doesn't really exist any more. Bogus!
Want to help out with the hosting / advertising costs? That's very nice of you.
Are you on a mobile phone? Try http://beex.co.uk/m/
RIP, Owen. RIP, MrC.

Powered by a very Grim... version of phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.