"we're all in this together"

[gratedenini]

This is proper scary now. Look, take away all the individual issues...cuts to this area and to that area etc.. and whichever way you lok at this... this stratergy is a gamble.

Forget all this talk of ideology etc... lets consider the effects.

If the private sector doesn`t make up for the losses with growth and new jobs etc.... the position will be truly dire.

I personally dont buy into the rhetoric of how this will make the country "better"

BUT... have we had it too good over the last 20yrs.

I know I go on about this "expectation" etc but maybe this is payback time? I dont know.

It looks like we all gonna have to pull our horns in and maybe live our lives in a very different way.

A vital point (for me) is this... a 20% decrease(in real terms) to someone earning £50 000 is nowt compared to the same decrease to those on 15k...or the likes of me on the sausage.

Thats what pisses me off.

And those who have a car dont really give a toss if buses are cut do they.

Its all very worrying.

den ( worried AND Officially in Poverty!)

[llcoolphil]

Surely you realised it was a blanket acceptance of her doing absolutely anything she wanted. I was talking from a career / aspirations prospective...

[lost]

figures up now on the government website regarding spending

£294.6bn 2010 -2011

£308.0bn 2011 -2012

£323.1bn 2012 -2013

£337.4bn 2013 -2014

£355.0bn 2014 -2015

£371.4bn 2015 -2016

so looks like government spending is going to increase at just below the rate of inflation.

[llcoolphil]

I don't see the coalition as "a catastrophic mistake" - I continue to see it as of great benefit to the country.

No, I've not lost my marbles. However much they become the tories poodles, they're still succeeding in reigning back the tories in some areas. Given that the only realistic possibility of a different election result would have been an outright tory victory, reigning them back a little is of far greater benefit than them not being reigned back at all.

[gratedenini]

As I watch Newsnight atm... it strikes it home. This ConLib bloke is on here shouting from the rooftops that this is the way to go etc.

If this was 12months ago and Labour brought in the very same policies.. he`d be going beserk.

I just cannot believe that all Tory/Lib councillors are sitting in their constituencies at this moment, content in their skins.

Can someone suggest to me what exactly would happen if the country did what some individuals did ie... just take a load of chucky out and dont give a f**k?

What would happen to us as a country. Would we close?

What would happen when/if the big boom arrived?

I`m not suggesting it...but am interested to know what the possible consequences would be.

Prob have to wait for No1,worm or Oafish to awake ......

den

** whoa! Just heard, they`re all been at the river Thames since dinner time.... they wont go across... No1 has indicated theres an ideological fox waiting behind the bridge. Worm has countered with a couple of c**ts and moved the argumement to Fox Hunting being re-introduced and Oafish has a megaphone telling the people of London he doesn`t need Child Benefit (and also dropping off a CV for AnnabelleOaf at 10 Downing St!)

[Purple Monkey]

Short of a full on revolution, nothing will change.

We'll go get pissed at the end of another shitty week, and deal with it on Monday. Just like we've been doing as a nation, forever.

Hand me the rum.

[lost]

Interesting comments this morning and yesterday...

If this huge gamble with cuts fails then the plan B is to cut ever further

So if this doesn't work then the solution is to make it work even less morons

[eFestivals]

You do make me laugh with your insecurities. I was simply pointing out that whilst you thought me empty headed, others didn't. But if you want to extrapolate that out as you have, you carry on.

And you make me laugh more by your complete lack of understanding of all I've said. You're looking at things so narrowly and defensively that you've stopped being able to see what others are saying.

To make it clear: You've just said "I was simply pointing out that whilst you thought me empty headed, others didn't" in response to me saying I fully agree with what you said.

You're fixated on me disagreeing with you when there's no disagreement with you on that part.

You clearly are since you are happy to abandon a generation to 'worthless' degrees. And before you argue with 'worthless', Im quoting you directly on the subject of an Accountancy degree from Warrington College.

yes, everyone at Uni is doing foundation degrees, eh?

They're just a tiny proportion. For those that are doing them they might well not be worthless, compared to having nothing at all.

The words of mine you've used you've used out of the context in which they were used. They were said in the context of someone wanting to do a 'normal (BA, Bsc) degree.

But all the same, within those people doing foundation degrees are no doubt some people who've been attracted to them by their far lower fees and the consequence that they'll leave education with much lower student debts - something you said doesn't happen. So in fact it's the option that you believe to be good (a massive increase in uni fees) that is causing people - and the poorest people who you claim you ideas to work in favour - to have degrees that do not bring the expected benefits to those who do them.

Ignoral? I actually have no idea what point you are making here

What I've pointed out again directly above - your approval of the massive increase in higher education fees.

So me pointing out that the current system subsidises the middle classes to get worthwhile degrees whilst condemning others to a mountain of debt for a worthless degree is me selling out. What you are doing here is your regular schoolboy error of mistaking your opinion and rhetoric for fact.

Yes, it subsidies the middle classes. But they have no less right to free education than the poorest or the richest. It's called "equality".

It's (free higher education for all) not a perfect system, but it IS a system that DOES give the opportunity to the poorest to progress thru that system (tho within that I recognise that social factors make higher education less attractive to some sub-sectors of the poorest).

But it's far better than any system - such as with fees (and a huge raising of fees, for which you've expressed your approval) - that gives lesser access to those poorest.

Ta

- you're agreeing with indisputable bollox. Even worm has now backed away from that because he's realised it's bollocks.

Which members of efests have actually said that nothing that the tories are doing is ideological?

You. You've explicitly said that their actions are ONLY to deal with the deficit.

It's me pulling you up on that over the last few months which has got your grump, and why we're having this discussion right now. Do keep up, eh?

Edited October 21, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

She will have as much control over taking music lessons as she has over taking Maths lessons...

I just love fascist parenting.

It's the sure way to fail at it matey.

[eFestivals]

Just spotted this.

Either the current actions of the government are entirely tory ideology.

Or the lib dems have had an impact on the actions of the government.

But given that the lib dems and the tories don't share the same ideology, it can't be both.

Which one would you like to choose? Could I suggest that instead of sticking pig headedly to something you said but dont actually believe, you just accept that not everything can be simply tory ideology because you have given the very reasons why that is the case. I wont think any less of you.

It's very easy for anyone able to join up a few simple dots and who recognises political reality.

The tories are trying to work to their ideololgy of screwing everyone but themselves (as yesterday outlined so very well - the treasury's own figures show it hits the poorest the hardest [tho slimy Gideon has been going around TV studios this morning denying what his own dept has said).

They are, however, dependant on the coalition agreement with the LibDems for the ability to do it (as well, of course, by what is do-able politically when considering possible public backlash - but that's no different for any party at any time). They have had to compromise on a little of what they would like to do in order to be free to do any of it (again, no different for any party at any time).

Very little (if anything) of the cutting is controlled by that coalition agreement. There are one or two bits of spending that the LibDems have forced the tories to accept. Which is far better than the tories having the complete free reign they'd otherwise have.

[sifi]

She will have as much control over taking music lessons as she has over taking Maths lessons

[worm]

- you're agreeing with indisputable bollox. Even worm has now backed away from that because he's realised it's bollocks.

Edited October 21, 2010 by worm

[zlatan07]

just caught up with all the action from yday, unbelievable

its on days like these that communism looks a whole lot rosier...

Edited October 21, 2010 by zlatan07

[eFestivals]

For the record, I stopped discussing with you because the futility of repeating myself

then stop with all the bollocks and show me how what you said is true - that two people cannot agree that a policy is correct unless they share an identical ideology.

I know I'll be waiting a lifetime, because you're talking absolute worthless bollocks, no different to every other time.

[5co77ie]

So far, the UK banking bailout has cost £1.5 trillion. Or £31,250 for each and every taxpayer in the country. But the banks have already started to report record profits once again. And bonuses this year are expected to top £10 billion.

The governments expected levy will generate about £2.5bn a year.

[eFestivals]

So far, the UK banking bailout has cost £1.5 trillion. Or £31,250 for each and every taxpayer in the country. But the banks have already started to report record profits once again. And bonuses this year are expected to top £10 billion.

The governments expected levy will generate about £2.5bn a year.

But set against that is the reduction in Corporation Tax, which will mean that they're paying LESS in taxes than they are currently. It won't raise a bean, and will in fact be a huge cost to the country.

[eFestivals]

Yeah but at some point the banks will be sold... or we will benefit as share holders...

So its a good thing when looking at the long term. Unless of course we get screwed, which we will, we always do

the ownership of the banks will barely make a dent in the money the banks have have from taxpayers.

Did you know that the 1929 crash cost the whole world just $599Bn in today's terms?

The UK by itself has spent over double that amount with this crash.

Edited October 21, 2010 by eFestivals

[5co77ie]

Yeah but at some point the banks will be sold... or we will benefit as share holders...

So its a good thing when looking at the long term. Unless of course we get screwed, which we will, we always do

[5co77ie]

But set against that is the reduction in Corporation Tax, which will mean that they're paying LESS in taxes than they are currently. It won't raise a bean, and will in fact be a huge cost to the country.

[eFestivals]

The government are keen to offload our stake in the banks - probably without a windfall.

yep - cos they'll want their mates to pick up the shares on the cheap.

It's not like benefit claimants will be buying them.

Edited October 21, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

show me how what you said is true - that two people cannot agree that a policy is correct unless they share an identical ideology.

[eFestivals]

However, what I am saying is that the policy cannot be said to be Tory as you (a non-Tory) share this policy. If it was Tory, you wouldn't be able to support it.

Incorrect.

You've completely ignored the reasons why both would be doing it.

It's the reasons which make something an ideology, not merely the effect those reasons create.

The same thing can be done for different reasons.

In the case I gave as an example, I do not agree with the tory reasoning, and therefore I do not support their policy.

I do agree with the effect it has. I welcome that effect.

Got it? Not the same thing at all, and nothing at all like you want to see it.

[MrZigster]

The Royals are sorted, apparently.

The Queen is set to become one of the wealthiest crowned heads in Europe after the future of the British monarchy was secured in a historic deal with the Government that will give the House of Windsor a share of the £210m profits from government estates relinquished by George III.

[eFestivals]

The Royals are sorted, apparently.

Source

All in this together my arse.

"Buckingham Palace puts the annual cost of the monarchy at £38.2m, but that figure does not include security and other costs which put the bill closer to £180m per year. "

a bargain. :angry:

[llcoolphil]

To make it clear: You've just said "I was simply pointing out that whilst you thought me empty headed, others didn't" in response to me saying I fully agree with what you said.