[Archived] Ordinary Dave

[Paul]

£701,964,779,959 is our current national debt, meaning everyone in the UK owes £28,105

Mainly thanks to New Labour and their policies and failures over the last 10 years.

We are economically ######, talk of the Tories causing 5million unemployed might well be right, however if harsh action is not taken to reign in the deficit, we could quite likely be looking at 15million, and unfortunately for those of you wedded to New Labour, that is what is most likely to happen if Brown and his Government of Incompetants are re-elected.

Still you can blame Maggie, who left power in 1991, instead of focusing on who is really at fault, and they wear the red rosette

I personally don't believe that this whole crisis was caused by global factors that were out of our control.

Recession or downturn may have been global but due to the state of public finances and failure to save money for a rainy day the UK was far from being in the best position to react to the fast changing situation and in the long run to come out of it quickly. Countries like Germany and France are starting to show strong signs of coming out of it, we aren't yet. Their books were in a far better state than ours, they didn't have to borrow the ridiculous amounts of money we had to go on a Keynesian spending spree.

Purely out of interest, what it the national debt of both those countries related to our own?

I've never heard of The World Fact Book which has been used a source elsewhere in this thread to demonstrate the terrible state this country is in. Personally I'd prefer to use the IMF which i think most people would acknowledge as a reliabel source of information. According to the IMF debt as percentage of GDP 2008, i.e prior to recesssion:

Japan 198%

Italy 104%

Germany 76%

France 65%

USA 61%

UK 43%

I hope that helps stuwilky. It also puts into perspective the UK position, if as Flopsy says we are economically ###### could someone please explain the situation in Japan, Italy, Germany, France, USA all countries who have spent their way out of recession? Cameron and Osborne state a national debt at 75% of GDP makes a country "bust." So Japan must be so completely screwed we should never consider exporting them anything ever again. Bad news for the Scottish whisky industry. Before anyone asks I don't have any 2009 figures and I'd guess the IMF don't have yet. In the Great Depression I read Roosevelt spent his way out of recession till 1935 / 36 when the US cut back it's debt and the recession returned. At the end of the Second World War America's national debt was 119% of GDP and the economic stimulus gave Americans a huge boost in their economy. Cameron plans to stop spending, it's too soon and will send the country backwards. Dave will make things worse if he cuts spending. In time of recession consumers stop spending, if the government stops as well recession becomes depression.

Flopsy I don't know where you get a figure of 5 million unemployed but you state it would be caused by the Tories. Can you seriously consider voting for a party you think may put 5 million out of work? To talk of 15 million under Labour is just plain ridiculous, the working population is only 29.5 milion. I agree we would be dead and buried if that happened but it won't, simple scare-mongering.

RVR can you point to the information that says France and Germany were in a better situation pre-recssion than the UK? If national debt is anything to go by they weren't.

Be very wary of the Conservative party they are using our debt as scare-mongering to win the election yet history shows debt is not a bad thing.

EDIT: I heard on the radio Cameron plans to cut defence spending by 25%. I don't see how that helps the troops in Afghanistan?

[adopted scouser]

I'm not sure about necessary, but from where I'm standing it sure as **** does not look winnable.

It's just total, absolute nonsense.

Winnable my @rse, Brezhnev sent over 100 thousand troops in there with more fire power than Rambo's knob. Mujahideen still sent 'em packing.

What if our gallant lads and lasses enforce a controlling influence, whilst the locals create a guard or a police force ? They are holding the tiger's tail, and as soon as we leave (the sooner the better)the Taliban will walk straight back in.

We are putting our finest in harms way for no reason (I know soldiers run the risk of injury and death Jim) but this makes no sense at all. Oh they'll find some tenuous link between a handful of teenagers travelling from Huddersfield to some training camp near Kabul, but we all believed Saddam had WMD's didn't we ?

Necessary and Winnable Flopse ? With respect they're not running around Salisbury plain with a piece of wood shouting BANG at their mates, real people are being killed. Yes they were aware of the risks when they took the shilling, but are they to be remembered paying the ultimate sacrifice for this mess ?

[Flopsy]

Paul, they say they'll cut costs at the MOD and in the procurement process, whether they can or not is a whole different matter. There also planing an SDR which should lay out what they see the armed forces's role being in the next 10 years.

If the deficit isnt a problem then we dont have to worry if the tories come in becuase hey, they wont need to slash and burn as much and they might be able to get some tax cuts in. It wont get any better under labour, and we wont be able to afford the interest payments if we dont start getting the deficit and borrowing down soon.

As for the squadies in Afghanistan, part of what Jim says is true, they volunteer to join the forces, and the war's been going on for 8 years, its not as if they didnt know they might be going to a war zone.

But the equipment and manning levels has been almost criminal in its neglect. As has the Labour's governments refusal to give the conflict the attention and political support it, and the troops needed. I mean for ###### sake, one of the previous Defence Secretarys was part time. For all of Bob Ainsworth's faults (being a mediocre nobody, the main one) he is at least trying to make things better.

[posted whilst Scouse wrote his] Scouse - I see where you're coming from, I just think you're wrong on this. Shall we agree to disagree?

As for Camerons speech, I thought it was excellent, and pitched just right. But I liek the man so I'am biased. Its a shame other people cant admit that they are biased too

[stuwilky]

Can "call me Dave" objectively and fairly govern with such a high personal fortune?

[broadsword]

Factually incorrect means that it is incorrect with respect to facts. It's not difficult to understand

You always evaluate whether or not something's incorrect using a factual context. You can't say something's incorrect in any other way. Can you understand that, you dopey old git?

[Paul]

and they might be able to get some tax cuts in.

Sorry to be selective but tax cuts is the last thing we need. If the Tories win the election it is the poorer sections of society who will pay the bill. You say we need to repay the debt before the interest becomes too expensive, to do this taxes should be increased. I know now the next election will have no impact on our household, we won't pay anymore tax and we SHOULD do. I can afford to pay more, I'm prepared to do so but the Tory party want to solve this problem by hitting the lowest paid in society. It is not fair and doesn't sit well with Cameron's attack on Labour for failing the poor. You can be sure under the Conservatives those who can afford to pay WON'T and those who CAN'T will pay.

As for Camerons speech, I thought it was excellent, and pitched just right. But I liek the man so I'am biased. Its a shame other people cant admit that they are biased too

I'm not biased in either direction I just know what I believe in. Cameron said nothing today, absolutely bugger all. He's good at presentation, that's all, there was no policy, nothing. If this is modern Conservatism tells us what it really stands for because all I see is hit the poor and cut tax for the wealthy.

Cameron said he wanted to fix three broken things but didn't give us any method of ho this would be achieved.

[adopted scouser]

[posted whilst Scouse wrote his] Scouse - I see where you're coming from, I just think you're wrong on this. Shall we agree to disagree?

Oh, absolutely. We must say what we feel without falling out.

C'mon Rovers

[DP]

Not often I say this but Thenodrog makes a very good point in that our support for one or t'other party appears to be as blindly loyal as our love of the Rovers.

The argument as to who is to blame for the financial meltdown is ridiculous. Free markets, Capitalsim and in the end greed caused a financial bubble which we couldn't control. Happened under New Labour, would have happened under the Tories. Both parties are to the right and would have chased the 'American Dream' either way. So this one is a pointless argument.

I can't quite take Cameron seriously but the current New Labour lot make me squirm. I'm totally undecided on my vote and it will probably be views on social (crime, education, health) issues that swings it for me as both parties will have to make unpopular tax cuts.

One question for everyone here though, how many of you vote for who you think will benefit you directly, or who you think will benefit our country as a whole? Morales over personal gain I suppose. I've never voted Torie before but it would probably be in my best interest to do so. Not sure it's the best thing for this country though. I think with everything that's happened we'd be better off with a sharp move to the left...

[American]

Sorry to be selective but tax cuts is the last thing we need. If the Tories win the election it is the poorer sections of society who will pay the bill. You say we need to repay the debt before the interest becomes too expensive, to do this taxes should be increased. I know now the next election will have no impact on our household, we won't pay anymore tax and we SHOULD do. I can afford to pay more, I'm prepared to do so but the Tory party want to solve this problem by hitting the lowest paid in society. It is not fair and doesn't sit well with Cameron's attack on Labour for failing the poor. You can be sure under the Conservatives those who can afford to pay WON'T and those who CAN'T will pay.

Not sure about here, but I know in the US you can pay as much in taxes as you want. Feel free to pitch in if you can here.

[DP]

Sorry to be selective but tax cuts is the last thing we need. If the Tories win the election it is the poorer sections of society who will pay the bill. You say we need to repay the debt before the interest becomes too expensive, to do this taxes should be increased. I know now the next election will have no impact on our household, we won't pay anymore tax and we SHOULD do. I can afford to pay more, I'm prepared to do so but the Tory party want to solve this problem by hitting the lowest paid in society. It is not fair and doesn't sit well with Cameron's attack on Labour for failing the poor. You can be sure under the Conservatives those who can afford to pay WON'T and those who CAN'T will pay.

Spot on Paul. The greed of the weatlhy in this country is frightening.

[Paul]

deleted

[philipl]

Interesting the the Financial Times is far from impressed with what the Tories have been wittering on about:

Phoney debate Incidentally, 90% of the rubbish numbers in the USA is conservative George W's legacy.

Slash and burn Tories

Brown is a pragmatist, a bumbling and somewhat incompetent one most of the time but he has made the really big calls right.

The Tories are now an ideologically driven party, not pragmatists. And in most of their ideology they follow the beliefs that got routed with the fall of Lehman Brother just as surely as state socialism got routed by the fall of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, the Tories haven't noticed that neo-conservatism doesn't work nor that their view of the world order is at least twenty years out of date.

This Labour Government is a total shambles but the Tories look frighteningly bad.

[arachnica]

I've never heard of The World Fact Book which has been used a source elsewhere in this thread to demonstrate the terrible state this country is in. Personally I'd prefer to use the IMF which i think most people would acknowledge as a reliabel source of information. According to the IMF debt as percentage of GDP 2008, i.e prior to recesssion:

Japan 198%

Italy 104%

Germany 76%

France 65%

USA 61%

UK 43%

Yeah excluding PFI liabilities (such as Northern Rock) and public pension liabilities both of which are significantly higher in the UK than elsewhere. More realistic estimates place it at over 100% (if I remember correctly it was Brown who changed the public accounting rules to ensure it stayed off the balance sheet). Using Japan, which co-existed with deflation for eight years (hence higher %) and is constantly being brought to its knees by its national debt is hardly a vote of confidence.

Debt servicing will cost around £35 billion next year. Not really a good use of cash.

And can someone remind me who got rid of the 10p tax rate meaning that hundreds of thousands of single earners who earn under £20k a year pay more tax.

[Paul]

I hadn't appreciated PFI was excluded and I certainly agree servicing debt, nationally or personally, is not a good way to spend real cash, however it is often unavoidable and tends to make the world go round. As for the 10p tax rate I quite agree, I thought that was a really good piece of taxation and should never have been abolished.

[broadsword]

Oh, I don't think Northern Rock was unavoidable, anything but.

You seem firmly entrenched Paul in your pro-Labour views and anti-Tory bias. When you say that the Tories will tax the poorest and give the wealthiest an easy ride, I can't square this with you having said previously that you don't know anything about what the Tories stand for. Presumably you see the Tories as far-right Thatcherites, and New Labour as compassionate socialists? Sorry if I've misrepresented your views, but I can't see anywhere where you've actually backed this up.

The days when you could caricature the parties as Labour being the party of the working man, advocating state control and tax and spend; and Conservatives being the party of big business, low tax and minimal state control are long gone. That went out of the window when Labour abolished Clause 4 and jumped into bed with the City.

I think the parties are closer together in ideaology than perhaps you'd like to admit.

[thenodrog]

This Labour Government is a total shambles but the Tories look frighteningly bad.

I wouldn't argue with that. It's a situation that we have had before every Gen Election since St Margaret got ousted. The current system of government is not good for the nation in either the short term nor the long term.

[thenodrog]

And I suppose you are in favour of further tax breaks for the rich when unemployment under the Tories' plans (if elected of course) is projected to reach 5m ?

DO YOU THINK THAT THE TORIES OR ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO SEE UNEMPLOYMENT UP THERE? IT'D BE POLITICAL SUICIDE. SO ANY SUCH MEASURES SURELY HAVE TO BE UNAVOIDABLE.

I've said it before theno but your reading and comprehension skills are very poor.

I would suggest you visit the library and read children's Janet and John books. You might learn something.

And yet I have exactly the same voting power as you.

[thenodrog]

Sorry to be selective but tax cuts is the last thing we need. If the Tories win the election it is the poorer sections of society who will pay the bill. You say we need to repay the debt before the interest becomes too expensive, to do this taxes should be increased. I know now the next election will have no impact on our household, we won't pay anymore tax and we SHOULD do. I can afford to pay more, I'm prepared to do so but the Tory party want to solve this problem by hitting the lowest paid in society. It is not fair and doesn't sit well with Cameron's attack on Labour for failing the poor. You can be sure under the Conservatives those who can afford to pay WON'T and those who CAN'T will pay.

I'm not biased in either direction I just know what I believe in. Cameron said nothing today, absolutely bugger all. He's good at presentation, that's all, there was no policy, nothing. If this is modern Conservatism tells us what it really stands for because all I see is hit the poor and cut tax for the wealthy.

Cameron said he wanted to fix three broken things but didn't give us any method of ho this would be achieved.

Just as an aside .... Who gives a stuff about the poor? All my life they seem to be a major consideration at every Gen Election and yet they do sweet fa to improve their situation, never contribute anything significant to the economy or the environment and I never notice anybody displaying any gratitude at all to the people who are effectively subbing them. All they seem good at is whingeing, idling, scrounging and breeding more of the same... and rem a silk purse was never made out of two pigs ears was it? Heaven helps them that help themselves should be the way forward to incentivise the population. Two decades or so of boom years started under the tories and continued under new lab and there are still apparently huge numbers of 'poor' people living under the misleading term 'relative poverty'. If they aren't ill then why tf does any nation with a democratic govt bother to consider them when they have a the much more important and relevent issue of a country to run for the benefit of the majority? Subbing poor people should surely be the responsibility of a charity rather than a government shouldn't it? That'd be fairest so that Paul could chuck his life savings at em and get a fleeting warm feeling all over whilst I might even chuck a few coppers in myself at Christmas.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Can "call me Dave" objectively and fairly govern with such a high personal fortune?

And Tony Blair’s personnel wealth was?

Never seemed to bother New Labours voters- that Tony/Cherie had amassed a large personnel fortune and the PM received the privilege of private education.

But that’s Labour voters. They criticise the TorieHypocrisy s for announcing that they plan to weed out the benefit frauds- yet there own party plan to do the same- but are so weak the dare not announce it! hypocracy

And as for PhilipL’s declaration of Brown been a conviction politician- ha utter pish. Conviction politicians don’t dither on election decisions- when you up in the polls. Infact there are so many instances that I could site where brown has been anything but a conviction politician- but I don’t have the time or the energy to do so.

[stuwilky]

And Tony Blair’s personnel wealth was?

I dont know. I asked a question, just wondering on other's thoughts.

If you cant answer, just say so.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I dont know. I asked a question, just wondering on other's thoughts.

If you cant answer, just say so.

Yes of course he can. As I said above- it didn't stop Blair for decade. In any case your question was of the rhetorical, "loaded " type.

As an aside; what were your thoughts on Obama before he was elected?

[stuwilky]

There was nothing "loaded" about my question, it was as it reads. I trust David Cameron as much as I trust the rest of them, not at all. Although now that I appearently reside within the Ribble Valley (although I am south of Preston!) I expect my house price to go back up.

As for your aside, my thoughts on the US president remain the same as they always have been. I dont care a right lot. I think I was probably 'pleased' when he won, although Im not sure why.

[jim mk2]

Just as an aside .... Who gives a stuff about the poor? .

Do you want that on your headstone Gordon ?

Along with your reference to "St Margaret" thank you for finally coming out of your Tory closet.

I doff my cap to a Tory-voting BMW driver with 4 loos. Truly a man of substance.

[philipl]

Well I wrote

Brown is a pragmatist, a bumbling and somewhat incompetent one most of the time but he has made the really big calls right.

Bazza wrote

And as for PhilipL’s declaration of Brown been a conviction politician- ha utter pish. Conviction politicians don’t dither on election decisions- when you up in the polls. Infact there are so many instances that I could site where brown has been anything but a conviction politician- but I don’t have the time or the energy to do so

I thought a pragmatist was a bit different from a conviction politician but in Bazza's world they are obviously the same thing.

Then again Bazza did write

And Tony Blair’s personnel wealth was?

Go on Bazza, do tell us how many people Blair employed.

[philipl]

Do you want that on your headstone Gordon ?

Along with your reference to "St Margaret" thank you for finally coming out of your Tory closet.

I doff my cap to a Tory-voting BMW driver with 4 loos. Truly a man of substance.

Man of incontinence?