tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 villaajax, on 30 Sept 2013 - 12:35 AM, said: Manchester strikes me as a rather odd place... you had me right there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So, a policy that was discussed and then dropped 2 years ago is still causing the leftie bedwetters of VT anxiety?! Hilarious! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So, a policy that was discussed and then dropped 2 years ago is still causing the leftie bedwetters of VT anxiety?! Hilarious! my bad, I usually check dates on anything I'm linked to, but this one slipped by. Guess that proves no matter how reliable people have been in the past, you need to double check. Never mind lets concentrate on something a little more positive for the selfservatives, Georgie boys Austerity inspired recovery..... OOOPS maybe not Despite George Osborne's claims, austerity was never the answer The weak recovery the British economy is witnessing is mostly the result of increased government spending George Osborne claims that the recovery has begun and that this was due to his austerity policy. This is factually incorrect on both counts. Britain has entered its sixth year of slump and remains more than 3% below its previous peak level. Apart from Italy, this is the worst performance in the G7. But it is also incorrect to state that the recovery owes anything to austerity policies. The final data for the second quarter shows government consumption has been rising since the end of 2011 and largely accounts for the very modest rise in GDP over that period. Government consumption has risen by £7.7bn in real terms while GDP has increased by £11.7bn at the same time. Government spending also led the very weak recovery, as GDP did not begin to expand until autumn 2012. Far from being a vindication of austerity, increased government spending has led the very weak recovery and statistically accounts for nearly two-thirds of it. Separate data from the Office of National Statistics on public finances confirms this. In cash terms, not inflation-adjusted, net departmental outlays were 6.7% higher in the first half of this year compared to the same period in 2012. These exclude interest payments on government debt. But since prices rose more slowly, this represents a significant increase in real spending. British government finances are notoriously opaque so it is very difficult to see where this money has gone. It is possible that the sharp rise in temporary, part-time and low-paid jobs has had the effect of pushing up the cost of benefits to those in work. This is in effect a subsidy to weak or extremely exploitative employers. Despite cuts to basic services there is too a vast increase in waste in the education and health budgets, arising from their creeping privatisation. None of this is to suggest that austerity has not been implemented. On the same measure, the cash totals for departmental outlays were unchanged over the three years ending in financial year 2011-12. This was a very sharp drop in real terms. But the response was economic stagnation after a severe contraction. It is only after government consumption has risen that the economy has expanded. This is the worst type of "plan B" that could have been implemented. The cause of the slump is an investment strike, a refusal by the private sector to invest. The contraction in investment is now very much larger than the total decline in GDP. The coalition has exacerbated this by cutting its own investment and squeezing local authorities' budgets. No economy can sustainably grow without increasing production and productive capacity through investment. But thanks to government policy, the British economy has entered one of its frequent bouts of consumption-led upturns, which are destined to bust. Yet now that government day-to-day spending has increased, there is no going back. Otherwise, the Tory party would be staring at electoral annihilation rather than inevitable defeat in 2015. This has important implications for Labour policy too. It is bizarre to commit to sticking to Tory spending plans when the Tories themselves are not. The political party conference season already demonstrates that we are in a contest about who will soften the effects of falling living standards in 2015. Increased government spending has been key to producing even a weak recovery and it could be much better spent. The investment strike remains the driving force of the slump. For a genuine recovery, government must increase its investment where the private sector refuses to. This includes transport, infrastructure, housing and energy production. In response to an exceptionally modest plan to temporarily cap prices, the energy companies threaten an all-out investment strike in their sector. The billions in dividends paid to shareholders are a structural obstacle to capping prices and simultaneously investing in decarbonisation. In order to do both, the failed experiment of privatisation should be reversed so that government can direct investment. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/29/george-osborne-austerity-gdp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) In other news , how about this outrage piece of legislation being pushed through QuoteQuoteNo live cattle can be sold outside of cities. When cattle is sold in cities, there must be three witnesses to the sale. If this law is ignored, the person responsible shall be fined the same sum of money as was made in the sale It's just so typical of the nasty party and all they stand for oh wait , hang on a sec , this is from 1066 and laws of William the conquer ..how silly do I look now Edited September 30, 2013 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 In other news , how about this outrage piece of legislation being pushed through QuoteNo live cattle can be sold outside of cities. When cattle is sold in cities, there must be three witnesses to the sale. If this law is ignored, the person responsible shall be fined the same sum of money as was made in the sale It's just sop typical of the nasty party and all they stand for oh wait , hang on a sec , this is from 1066 and laws of William the conquer ..how silly do I look now Don't worry Tony no one will notice the difference in your case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 mockingbird_franklin, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:54 PM, said: tonyh29, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:46 PM, said: In other news , how about this outrage piece of legislation being pushed through QuoteQuoteNo live cattle can be sold outside of cities. When cattle is sold in cities, there must be three witnesses to the sale. If this law is ignored, the person responsible shall be fined the same sum of money as was made in the sale It's just sop typical of the nasty party and all they stand for oh wait , hang on a sec , this is from 1066 and laws of William the conquer ..how silly do I look now Don't worry Tony no one will notice the difference in your case. wasn't me that got outraged by a 2 year old story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 mockingbird_franklin, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:54 PM, said: tonyh29, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:46 PM, said: In other news , how about this outrage piece of legislation being pushed through QuoteQuoteNo live cattle can be sold outside of cities. When cattle is sold in cities, there must be three witnesses to the sale. If this law is ignored, the person responsible shall be fined the same sum of money as was made in the sale It's just sop typical of the nasty party and all they stand for oh wait , hang on a sec , this is from 1066 and laws of William the conquer ..how silly do I look now Don't worry Tony no one will notice the difference in your case. wasn't me that got outraged by a 2 year old story No but you chose to ignore the up to date ones 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) mockingbird_franklin, on 30 Sept 2013 - 4:12 PM, said:mockingbird_franklin, on 30 Sept 2013 - 4:12 PM, said:mockingbird_franklin, on 30 Sept 2013 - 4:12 PM, said: tonyh29, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:55 PM, said:tonyh29, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:55 PM, said:tonyh29, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:55 PM, said: mockingbird_franklin, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:54 PM, said:mockingbird_franklin, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:54 PM, said:mockingbird_franklin, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:54 PM, said:mockingbird_franklin, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:54 PM, said: tonyh29, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:46 PM, said:tonyh29, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:46 PM, said:tonyh29, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:46 PM, said:tonyh29, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:46 PM, said: In other news , how about this outrage piece of legislation being pushed through QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo live cattle can be sold outside of cities. When cattle is sold in cities, there must be three witnesses to the sale. If this law is ignored, the person responsible shall be fined the same sum of money as was made in the sale It's just sop typical of the nasty party and all they stand for oh wait , hang on a sec , this is from 1066 and laws of William the conquer ..how silly do I look now Don't worry Tony no one will notice the difference in your case. wasn't me that got outraged by a 2 year old story No but you chose to ignore the up to date ones Hey I'm a busy man like I said but making a simple mistake and then trying to make out everyone else is to blame .... . you're not Gordon Brown are you ? Edited September 30, 2013 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) No, I was Buying Gold at the time Old Gormless was selling it, Misrepresenting the facts, Hmmm You're not Iain Dunce Smith are you? Edited September 30, 2013 by blandy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So, a policy that was discussed and then dropped 2 years ago is still causing the leftie bedwetters of VT anxiety?! Hilarious! Actually, it's a policy which Westminster council has tried to introduce on several occasions. It's absolutely not an idea which was discussed once two years ago and then scrapped. The local Libdems usefully summarised a few efforts since 2000 onwards. Westminster Conservatives' campaign to crack down on rough sleepers has been condemned by the local Liberal Democrats, after their research unveiled years of threats against rough sleepers and those running soup kitchens. Chair of the local LibDems Mark Blackburn said, "We checked up on reports of what Westminster Conservatives have been saying about homeless people in recent years. Their approach has included threats to fine rough sleepers and give them criminal records, attempts to fine soup run operators, and a push to give the Council the power forcibly to close the soup kitchens down." In late 2002, Westminster Council lobbied the Government to allow it to fine rough sleepers £500 (BBC News website, Rough sleepers face £500 fine, 27th September 2002). Then, in early 2003, Westminster Council was reported to want rough sleepers to be given criminal records (BBC News website, Curb 'soup kitchens' says council, 17th March 2003). In late 2004, the Council made attempts to shut down soup runs, two years after closing dozens (Times Online, Free soup is a mug's game, 30th November 2004). Then, in late 2005, it said that soup runs encouraged people onto the streets (BBC News website, Soup runs 'not helping homeless', 11th September 2005). Early last year, former Conservative Cabinet minister Lord John Patten complained about soup runs near his Westminster flat (Independent, Soup kitchens? Not in my back yard says Tory peer, 25th March 2007). He was followed a month later by Westminster's MP Mark Field, who said that soup runs encouraged people to stay on the streets (Times Online, Soup keeps homeless on streets, 24th April 2007). Then, in late 2007, Westminster Council failed in its attempt to amend the law to allow it forcibly to close down soup kitchens (Independent, Westminster council wants 'nuisance' soup runs banned, 10th November 2007). There are valid questions about the effectiveness of soup runs, but that's not why Westminster took this approach. They have long been actively hostile to homeless people, as the attempted criminalisation mentioned above clearly demonstrates. You could also look at their track record of shipping homeless families out of the borough, or their criticism by the Ombudsman for placing them in a filthy cockroach-ridden "hotel", or putting them into flats contaminated with asbestos. This is of course the council whose leader was found guilty of gerrymandering, and then fled the country. Dame Shirley Porter, Tesco heiress. The flagship tory council. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 No, I was Buying Gold at the time Old Gormless was selling it, Misrepresenting the facts, Hmmm You're not Iain Dunce Smith are you? No I couldn't live on £53 a day with my Toblerone habit , yet alone a week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) peterms, on 30 Sept 2013 - 4:46 PM, said:peterms, on 30 Sept 2013 - 4:46 PM, said: Risso, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:13 PM, said:Risso, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:13 PM, said: So, a policy that was discussed and then dropped 2 years ago is still causing the leftie bedwetters of VT anxiety?! Hilarious! Actually, it's a policy which Westminster council has tried to introduce on several occasions.It's absolutely not an idea which was discussed once two years ago and then scrapped. The local Libdems usefully summarised a few efforts since 2000 onwards. this gets better and better so your evidence that is isn't just an old article from 2011 is to link to website article dated 2008 Edited September 30, 2013 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 No I couldn't live on £53 a day with my Toblerone habit , yet alone a week At least we both know who were not. Now Toblerone, now that is something I can agree on, 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 peterms, on 30 Sept 2013 - 4:46 PM, said:peterms, on 30 Sept 2013 - 4:46 PM, said: Risso, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:13 PM, said:Risso, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:13 PM, said: So, a policy that was discussed and then dropped 2 years ago is still causing the leftie bedwetters of VT anxiety?! Hilarious! Actually, it's a policy which Westminster council has tried to introduce on several occasions.It's absolutely not an idea which was discussed once two years ago and then scrapped. The local Libdems usefully summarised a few efforts since 2000 onwards. this gets better and better so your evidence that is isn't just an old article from 2011 is to link to website article dated 2008 What on earth are you on about? I'm explaining that the 2011 attempt was not a one-off. The stuff I quoted refers to 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007. The other things I mentioned go back to the 90s and 80s, if you're interested. How did you interpret that as thinking that the 2011 article is really from this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 peterms, on 30 Sept 2013 - 4:46 PM, said:peterms, on 30 Sept 2013 - 4:46 PM, said: Risso, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:13 PM, said:Risso, on 30 Sept 2013 - 3:13 PM, said: So, a policy that was discussed and then dropped 2 years ago is still causing the leftie bedwetters of VT anxiety?! Hilarious! Actually, it's a policy which Westminster council has tried to introduce on several occasions.It's absolutely not an idea which was discussed once two years ago and then scrapped. The local Libdems usefully summarised a few efforts since 2000 onwards. this gets better and better so your evidence that is isn't just an old article from 2011 is to link to website article dated 2008 Despite my very mild embarrassment over my* error, and the merriment it has provided for yourself. Despite in being in the dark and distant past of a whole two years ago, It's still very hard to ignore the fact that a political party at local government level, has seriously put forward and considered numerous times trying to make giving homeless people free food illegal and tried to portray in as a caring gesture at the same time! Right I think I'm gonna try some selfservative therapy, to try and cure me of any leftie bed wetting I may unconsciously developed, I'm off to make light and laugh at the thought of slave laborers dying daily in Qatar, Of sweatshop children working around the clock in Asia and dream of the day Britain gets to emulate these feats. *placed in bold to avoid confusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 , It's still very hard to ignore the fact that a political party at local government level, has seriously put forward and considered numerous times trying to make giving homeless people free food illegal I got side tracked amongst the merry making , but I thought the original article just talked about a specific area i.e Cathedral Piazza and surrounding area , which may have been ambiguous as you pointed out in your earlier reply that isn't making it illegal though as such , is it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 'Crylaugh' 'lefty bedwetters' 'hilarious'... The level of inhumanity and lack of compassion in the proposals put forward to deal with homelessness is staggering. Yet a certain poster on here thinks its all a bit of a laugh and would rather talk about an irrelevant technicality (the date of a linked website) in order to somehow excuse it? That's the kind of person who votes Tory... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Kingfisher, on 30 Sept 2013 - 5:28 PM, said: 'Crylaugh' 'lefty bedwetters' 'hilarious'... The level of inhumanity and lack of compassion in the proposals put forward to deal with homelessness is staggering. Yet a certain poster on here thinks its all a bit of a laugh and would rather talk about an irrelevant technicality (the date of a linked website) in order to somehow excuse it? That's the kind of person who votes Tory... actually that was 2 different posters ..if you are going to try and insult some one you should really check your post for accuracy and hiding behind " certain posters" is a bit cowardly and the type of person who votes tory comment is frankly just stupid , Fred West voted Labour so it sorta pisses on your argument 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 , It's still very hard to ignore the fact that a political party at local government level, has seriously put forward and considered numerous times trying to make giving homeless people free food illegal I got side tracked amongst the merry making , but I thought the original article just talked about a specific area i.e Cathedral Piazza and surrounding area , which may have been ambiguous as you pointed out in your Germany reply that isn't making it illegal though as such , is it ? Sorry for taking a while to get back, I was busy chuckling like a right-winger at articles about young ladies trafficked into sex slavery and thinking of the possible ways this could be incorporated into workfare, I think that's finally done the trick and driven out any left-wing tendencies i may have developed by giving a s*&T about my fellow humans. illegal is defined as contrary to a law, so banning something and passing a law with the intention of enforcing that ban (admittedly a byelaw) and making the breaking of that law punishable by a fine would sort of indicate your wish to make it illegal, or as illegal as local government is thankfully allowed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) mockingbird_franklin, on 30 Sept 2013 - 6:09 PM, said:mockingbird_franklin, on 30 Sept 2013 - 6:09 PM, said: Sorry for taking a while to get back, I was busy chuckling like a right-winger at articles about young ladies trafficked into sex slavery and thinking of the possible ways this could be incorporated into workfare, I think that's finally done the trick and driven out any left-wing tendencies i may have developed by giving a s*&T about my fellow humans. this is the second such type of post today ( and a frequent comment in this thread ( not all you ) ) I might suggest that this is a football forum with black humour , and occasional outbursts of lad like behaviour and I suspect , though I could be wrong , that the people on it really don't spend all their time shagging their Aunties up the wrong un ( with one exception ) and laughing at the plight of others in less fortunate positions Yyou made a rookie error with an old article and got some ribbing for it , nothing personal ... but that doesn't mean that I , or others , agree with sex trafficking , cuts on the needy or various other plights in today's society by all means banter away , I'm all for it ... but the Tory voters don't give a shit type posts are rather boring in all honesty ... heck I even gave my servants a minute off today at full pay so they could bury one of their own after he died in a tragic accident when my pile of King Brut vintage fell on him , so it proves the stereotype isn't true Edited September 30, 2013 by tonyh29 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts