Jump to content

Recommended Posts

MrBen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Where to start Henry old

> chap.......underpopulated, beautiful , the last

> true wilderness on the planet, mineral rich, an

> attractive exchange rate and one of the highest

> standards of living outside of Sweden. Excellent

> fly fishing, positive attitude to entrepreneurs,

> Albertan steak. Albertan women. Bears. Quiet

> roads. Uncrowded ski slopes. An incredible social

> health care system and solid and underlying

> constitutional principles born of Scottish

> sensibilities and fairness.

>

> And best of all.....they're not American.


'mineral rich'. Never had that as top of my list of reasons for moving to a new country/continent before. I suppose it depends on what industry you are in. Did you forget canoes? Thought Canada was famous for those too? Also, poutine...!

Today's Telegraph splash has me all kinds of hulk-angry. I link to it only for information purposes:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11507586/General-Election-2015-Labour-threatens-Britains-recovery-say-100-business-chiefs.html


Now, there are so many things wrong with this I'm not even sure where to start.


1) This is a non-story. Big business and the people running/owning them support the Conservative Party. Well, blow me down with a feather and call me Shirley. How the feck is that a story. A 10 year old should be able to tell you that. Of course they do. They always have. That's who the party is meant to represent. If they were supporting Labour, that would be a story. If trade union leaders were backing Cameron, that would be a story. But this?!


2) Some of these people are already Conservatives, party members or donors. Karen Brady is pictured. She's a Tory life peer in the House of Lords. And now she's going to support the Tories at the election?! Wowzers. What next? "Miliband votes for himself in Doncaster constituency - the arrogance of the man."???


3) It's not even true. Look at levels of foreign investment in the UK since 1997. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/foreign-direct-investment The idea that this government has made Britain "open for business" is clearly BS. Levels of investment are at a modern low.


4) Is there anything more pathetic than a bunch of people who have more money than they could ever need or spend bleating about paying their fair share of tax while heading up companies who avoid tax, pay minimum wage (that they would have opposed in the first place) and have workers on zero-hour contracts. When was the last time you heard normal people whining like this about paying tax?


As Tim Burgess has said:


"When should we share the letter from all the rich people we have made richer at the expense of everyone else?"

"April Fools Day?"

"Cool."


It'd be funny except it's true.

Meanwhile the Centre for Macroeconomic Studies destroys the coalition myth about...well....everything.


http://cfmsurvey.org/surveys/importance-elections-uk-economic-activity


From Robert Peston:


The Centre for Macroeconomics, which groups leading economists from Cambridge University, LSE, University College London (UCL), the Bank of England and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), polled what it calls its 50 experts on whether the ?austerity policies of the coalition government have had a positive effect on aggregate economic activity (employment and GDP) in the UK?.


Its result was a decisive no.


Two-thirds of the 33 economists who responded disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposition that austerity had been good for the UK.


Now to be clear, this is not a scientifically robust poll of those who know best. But nor is the Telegraph?s letter - and those those who took part in the economists? survey are no less distinguished in their field than the business signatories.


Among those who disagreed strongly that austerity had been a good thing, Oxford University?s Simon Wren-Lewis (never shy to express an opinion) asked if the question was ?a joke?, adding that ?the only interesting question is how much GDP has been lost as a result of austerity? (which he thinks could be as much as 10% of national income).


John Van Reenen of the LSE, who also disagreed with austerity, said ?UK GDP is about 15% below where we would have expected on pre-crisis trends... Premature austerity has damaged UK welfare and, as I and others argued at the time, delaying consolidation would have left the UK in a much stronger position than it is today.?

Have you just woken up from a long coma, DC? All the papers are biased and print crap in the run up to elections.


The one that made me laugh yesterday was the terrible Guardian "Reality Check" page, which attempts to emulate the excellent Channel 4 one. They took on the Tories claim they'd created 1000 jobs a day. An unnecessarily long thesis involving a lot of graphs finally, grudgingly, concluded that the claim was probably correct, but then threw in the entirely unrelated "but there are lots of food banks too". Just can't help themselves.

No one seems to care or be interested in this today so I'll make this my last point.


Of the 100 people on the list:


3 Tory Peers

5 Tory Advisors

12 Tory Donors

1 employee of the Telegraph

Rooney Anand - head of Greene King brewery who concocted a highly articificial tax avoidance scheme

Richard Joseph - a convicted fraudster

Lord Bamford - originally withdrew from peerage due to allegations abouthis tax affairs


And that's a cursory search done by me and some folk on twitter.


Never mind the links to HSBC which led to the Telegraph's chief political commentator quitting because of editorial bias. This is the shoddiest front page I've seen in an election campaign.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No one seems to care or be interested in this

> today so I'll make this my last point.

>

> Of the 100 people on the list:

>

> 3 Tory Peers

> 5 Tory Advisors

> 12 Tory Donors

> 1 employee of the Telegraph

> Rooney Anand - head of Greene King brewery who

> concocted a highly articificial tax avoidance

> scheme

> Richard Joseph - a convicted fraudster

> Lord Bamford - originally withdrew from peerage due to allegations abouthis tax affairs



You missed the non-exec board member of the Guardian Media Group that signed it!


I don't know why you are getting so het up about this. 100 businessmen supporting the Tories is about as exciting as 100 senior union members supporting Labour.

DulwichMum is the leader of The Absolutely Fabulous Party and I am the Sheriff.. under a Twitter pseudonym


(until she tells me otherwise)



My main responsibility is maintaining the Ducking Stool. Currently in storage .


Awaiting my instructions.. Long list of prospective candidates.


DulwichFox

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No one seems to care or be interested in this

> today so I'll make this my last point.


I was interested, I just didn't feel I had anything valuable to say.


Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Have you just woken up from a long coma, DC? All

> the papers are biased and print crap in the run up

> to elections.

>

> The one that made me laugh yesterday was the

> terrible Guardian "Reality Check" page, which

> attempts to emulate the excellent Channel 4 one.

> They took on the Tories claim they'd created 1000

> jobs a day. An unnecessarily long thesis

> involving a lot of graphs finally, grudgingly,

> concluded that the claim was probably correct, but

> then threw in the entirely unrelated "but there

> are lots of food banks too". Just can't help

> themselves.


It's not entirely unrelated though. The fact is that jobs are being created which are barely worth having, and so food banks are needed. It'[s an important point which should be pointed out every time the tories boast about their record numbers of people in work.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not entirely unrelated though. The fact is that jobs are being created which are barely worth

> having, and so food banks are needed. It'[s an important point which should be pointed out every

> time the tories boast about their record numbers of people in work.


In a wider sense of the current economy, I fully agree. But when they set yourself up as a 'myth busting service' but then widen the remit, then they look foolish. Especially if you don't look even deeper to show that it is the beneficiaries of these new jobs that are attending food banks.


As I said, the Channel 4 FactCheck did this sort of thing with much, much more credibility.

Excellent posts David Carnell. I'll just throw in that under the coalition we spend ?28 billion a year subsidising low paid workers with child tax credits and Housing Benefit. Everything the Tories claim about Britain recovering with a strong economy is crap.


Is productiity up under the coalition? No.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32143552


Are tax receipts up now all those jobs have been created under the coalition? No.


Are exports up? No. In fact they are down.


http://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/how-has-uks-coalition-government-performed


Osbourne is a fantasist.

Productivity and tax receipts are indeed down, blah blah, and that is a big black mark against the coalition. But it would be plain wrong to say the economy is not growing - and at a rate that is currently faster than most major western economies. Even the Guardian (grudgingly) admits that. But another Guardian article also points out this is also the slowest recovery since the 1920's. Both views are correct. Tories will concentrate on one view. Labourites the other. It's always the way with one-eyed support. It's why I find newspapers during elections particularly useless unless you read a few and try and find the real truth.


Personally, I think the economy is - relative to the rest of the world - in pretty good shape. But I also suspect that is more down to Osbourn being lucky rather than competent.


And without knowing what housing benefit and child tax credit costs were in, say, 2007 (pre crash) and 2009 (pre-Tories) that single figure of benefits is hard is hard to judge. Is ?28bn good, bad or normal? I can find housing benefit in 2009 (?21.5bn according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11466178) but I can't find any of the others.

That in work benefits bill is up Loz. It has a lot to do with low wages and increasing costs of living, namely rent.


I disagree with you Loz in that a growing economy where tax receipts, productivity and exports are down, it reflects the scenario that what growth there is, is being hoovered up by a few sectors (finance being one). So for me, it is not the sign of a healthy economy at all. Low wages, poor exorts, productivity etc, affect things like national debt. We are still borrowing more than we did in 2010. We've done nothing to change the aspects of the economy that caused the crash. Business in banking is the same as ever, and we gave them billions of our money to get back there.


What I would say is that these are the problems of an economy that has been in decline for the last 50 years. And yes Osbourne has been as lucky as Gordon Brown was unlucky to be the scapegoat of a massive global crash. Well that's just the ways it goes. But to think for one minute that Osbourne is delivering anything but more of the same, when we all know that more of the same hasnt worked for at least two decades, is fantasy.


We think the last financial crash was bad. We are heading for something far worse unless we get back in control of our wealth. There isn't much left to give away to foreign shareholders tbh. The free market does NOT take care of all. the cost of housing IS out of control, the over 65's are going to become even more expensive to the state finances etc and no-one in government or in opposition really seems bothred enough by any of it. But then it seems, nor are we!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Doesn’t seem that simple   according to fullfact that’s a net figure   ” The £21.9 billion was a net figure. Gross additional pressures totalling £35.3 billion were identified by the Treasury, and approximately £13.4 billion of these pressures were then offset by a combination of reserve funds and other allowances. The additional pressures identified were as follows: 2024-25 public sector pay awards (£9.4bn) ”   I don’t think Labour have set expectation that changing government cures all the ills. In fact some people on here criticise them for saying exactly opposite “vote for us we’re not them but nothing will change because global issues”   I think they are too cautious across many areas. They could have been more explicit before election but such is the countries media and electorate that if they were we would now be stuck with sunak/badenoch/someone else with the 14 years of baggage of their government and infighting  the broad strokes of this government are essentially along right lines  also loving ckarkson today “ Clarkson: Your claim that I bought a farm to avoid taxes is false and irresponsible.  BBC: It’s your own claim.  Clarkson: What’s that got to do with anything?” and by loving I mean “loathing as much as I ever have”    
    • BBC and the IFS https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e12j4gz0o From BBC Verify:   Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank said Reeves "may be overegging the £22bn black hole". What about the rest of the £22bn? The government published a breakdown, external of how it had got from the Treasury's £9.5bn shortfall in February to the £22bn "black hole". It said that there was another £7bn between February and the actual Budget in March, as departments found out about new spending pressures and the government spent more on the NHS and the Household Support Fund There was a final £5.6bn between then and late July, which includes almost a month when Labour was in power. That was largely caused by increases in public sector pay. It was the Labour government that accepted the recommendations of the Pay Review Bodies (PRBs), but they said that the previous government should have budgeted for more than a 2% increase in public sector pay. Prof Stephen Millard from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research think tank told BBC Verify: "The 'political' question is whether you would count this as part of the fiscal black hole or not. If you do, then you get to the £22bn figure; if not, then you’re left with around £12.5bn to £13.5bn." It isn't this at all. When you run on an agenda of change and cleaning up politics and you put all of the eggs of despair in a basket at the door of the previous government you better hope you have a long honeymoon period to give you time to deliver the change you have promised. Look at the NHS, before the election it was all...it's broken because of 14 years of Tory incompetence and the implication was that Labour could fix is quickly. Then Wes Streeting (who is one of the smarter political cabinet members and is clearly able to play the long game) started talking about the need to change the NHS before the election - he talked about privatising parts of it (much to the annoyance of the left). He was being pragmatic because the only magic wand that is going to fix the NHS is massive reform - it's broken and has been for decades and throwing money at it has just papered over the cracks. Now Labour talk about the NHS needing 10 years of healing for there to be real difference and people are saying....what..... Words in opposition are easy; actions in government are a lot harder and I fear that given the structural issues caused by Covid, the energy crisis, the war in Ukraine (and now maybe a massive US/China trade war if Trump isn't bluffing) that we are heading to constant one-term governments. I don't think there was a government (and correct me if I am wrong) that survived Covid and in a lot of countries since Covid they have had regular government change (I think what is playing out in the US with them voting Trump in is reflective of the challenges all countries face). Labour massively over-egged the 14 years of hurt (who could blame them) but it is going to make things a lot tougher for them as they have set the expectation that changing government cures all the ills and as we have seen in the first 90 days of their tenure that is very much not the case. Completely agree but the big risk if Farage. If Labour don't deliver what they promised or hit "working people" then the populists win - it's happening everywhere. Dangerous, dangerous times ahead and Labour have to get it right - for all our sakes - no matter what party we support. P.S. Lammy is also one of the better Labour front-bench folks - he just is suffering from Labour's inability to think far enough ahead to realise that some posts might come back to haunt you...but in his defence did anyone really think Americans would be daft enough to vote him in again....;-)
    • My cat has been missing since Sunday evening 17th November he is British short hair male cat colour black with grey stripes. medium to large in size. He is easily identified by a large tooth missing on the top left of his mouth.  He lives in Upland Road just near the roundabout at Underhill Road. His name is Jack but he  only answers to Puss Puss please call me on 0208 299 2275 if you see him.   thank you Linda  
    • I think this could go on endlessly, so I suggest we finish it here!  But why don't you  track down the makers of the sign? Which hopefully has amused a lot of people, as well as brightening my bus journey. Tell  them that their directions to Dulwich are not only wrong, but they do not seem to know where the "real" Dulwich is 🤣 I'm sure they will be delighted 🤣  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...