Happy new year! Have a great 1930!

[hart's shirt]

No disrespect to HT, but as far as genuine "Happy New Year" greetings on NSC go, I'm struggling to think of a worse one over the years.

 

[Soulman]

No disrespect to HT, but as far as genuine "Happy New Year" greetings on NSC go, I'm struggling to think of a worse one over the years.

Still he has got 11 pages of replies to his small attempt at humour. Maybe it is a Germany type.

 

[Hastings gull]

Adds little to the debate? Don't you think it is important to consider how the conservatives would have handled the crisis. Firstly, you need to acknowledge that it was a global crisis which you seem a little sceptical about. The old chestnut about deregulation of the banks always creeps in but there never seems to be any acknowledgement that this was started by the Tories during the 80s and 90s and that they were advocates of further deregulation! Looking at the crisis itself, how would the Tories have handled it? Would they have propped up the banks or would they let them fail as some suggested, taking with them a lot of peoples savings! Also, the Tories were against QE but the attached would suggest they were wrong! http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/17/uk-better-off-quantitative-easing

As for labour being 'profligate', prior to the crisis, national debt had gone up but it was not much bigger than it had been during the 80s and 90s. Some would argue that increased spending on the public sector was necessary are 18 years of the previous incumbents cutbacks. Or, are you suggesting they were 'profligate' during the crisis and if so, what evidence do can you give? No doubt you will only quote the note left at the treasury as your evidence!

What is the point of hypothetical questions and debating what might have happened -it didn't ! Unless, of course you are trying to cover up the errors of one party and try to justify it by saying what would the other party have done. By the way, I won't read the attachment -this is a part of a long line of attachments, which simply confirm the sender's bias, but presented as fact. I think I my original post, if you read it again, I did say that Labour were justified to an extent in quoting the global crisis, but then all politicians are good at this, as this deflects from their errors. There were economic problems everywhere - this is not in doubt, just that to what extent the global crisis and not the government were to blame. At the time, I recall that there were many examples of spending quoted, but now 5 years later, this would be hard to research. and no I would not quote the note -this was meant as a joke, I fully accept.

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

Crikey, was you not around when John Major was prime minister.

You are right, things did get a bit sticky in the early 1990's. But at least they were able to get the economy back on track. Labour had 2 years in power after the financial crises hit in 2008, but they were not able to get the economy stabilised, let alone growing. The Conservative's managed to steady the ship and now we have the fastest growing economy in Europe. I am not saying that things are perfect but it is a lot better than the mess they inherited 5 years ago.

The Labour party have such a poor record of looking after the economy and they certainly can't be trusted at the moment. Their last mess has only just be cleared up.

 

[drew]

What is the point of hypothetical questions and debating what might have happened -it didn't ! Unless, of course you are trying to cover up the errors of one party and try to justify it by saying what would the other party have done. By the way, I won't read the attachment -this is a part of a long line of attachments, which simply confirm the sender's bias, but presented as fact. I think I my original post, if you read it again, I did say that Labour were justified to an extent in quoting the global crisis, but then all politicians are good at this, as this deflects from their errors. There were economic problems everywhere - this is not in doubt, just that to what extent the global crisis and not the government were to blame. At the time, I recall that there were many examples of spending quoted, but now 5 years later, this would be hard to research. and no I would not quote the note -this was meant as a joke, I fully accept.

Great cop out. Not sure why you bothered responding.

 

[essbee]

Tubthumper -

You have fallen into exactly the same sort of childish boll*x that politicians
fall into - and that is: that trying to persuade people with your own personal
view of the situation actually persuades other people to do the same.

If anything - it persuades people to do the opposite. So think again before
you post such utter sh*t again.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Tubthumper -

You have fallen into exactly the same sort of childish boll*x that politicians
fall into - and that is: that trying to persuade people with your own personal
view of the situation actually persuades other people to do the same.

If anything - it persuades people to do the opposite. So think again before
you post such utter sh*t again.

EssBee -

I think you're taking this thread way too seriously.

 

[essbee]

Fair enough - then I feel suitably ashamed.

Please don't tell me you were being ironic?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Fair enough - then I feel suitably ashamed.

Please don't tell me you were being ironic?

No. certainly not. I don't do ironic; that's for the younger generation

 

[beorhthelm]

... And Amazon clearly make "profit" from trading in the UK. There is no doubt about this, but they hide behind "booking" the sales elsewhere and I understand this is being questioned in the high-court as all the effort from driving the sale through to delivery is primarily done in the UK.

there are many issues with many companies and how they transfer sales and taxation. in the case of Amazon, they dont realise much profits anywhere. their main trick is to sell through Luxemburg subsidary to charge lower VAT, so undercutting the market. Google on the other hand like to book their sales through Ireland even though the ads are being served to eyeballs in the UK (or other europeans). arguably they should be booking through the UK office and taxed, but as their servers are in Ireland this is is going to be difficult - you dont expect the UK to tax BMW GmbH for making profits on cars sold in UK franchise? the local franchise pays tax on its profits, decreased of course through transfer pricing to the parent company.

which seems perfectly legitimate. then theres Starbucks who cunningly charge their franchise large sums for the trademarked cups etc, payments for which go though Holland and Swiss offices. all above board on international accountancy rules. most international companies will have some foreign subsidary they will funnel money through if it means realising a profit in a lower taxed nation, as general agreement is you get taxed once. then the profits can go back to the parent with further taxation.

so yes, it is complex and requires radical change, starting with how and where sales occur. so headlines about how much revenue (not profit) Amazon makes are silly.

 

[Hastings gull]

Great cop out. Not sure why you bothered responding.

When there is bad news and it coincides with problems on the international stage, politicians always stress the latter as being the cause of all the woes -the point is that it is hard to decipher the total truth - to what extent is one to blame and not the other or both. On this occasion it was the time of the Labour government, and I have no doubt that the tories would have reacted in exactly the same way by putting all the blame on the global crisis. I am not certain which, and I am sure that you are not either, though you doubtless presume to know. It is not a cop out - just an acceptance that it is hard to give a definitive answer.
As stated, I used to read all the attachments as this seemed the reasonable thing to do, but do not bother any more, as it is invariably one journalist's view of the situation, which happens to coincide with the view of the post. I have no doubt that if the situation were in reverse, and a post quoted a paper you do not read, then you would have been equally disbelieving or at least sceptical.
I hope that this post is seen as written with rather more humility than your sneering reply.

 

[beorhthelm]

Calling them degree courses is merely acknowledging that nursing and paramedics are equal in their attitude to their profession as those that might study accountancy or law for example. Back in the 70s, you trained to be a state enrolled nurse and then a further 2 years to become a state registered nurse. It just wasn't called a degree then but was 3 years! The big difference is that instead of doing all your training at a hospital, you now spend time at a university.

calling them "degrees" means they have to be studied at university and come with a large set of tuition fees etc. Degrees imply (and universities usually insist upon) an amount of acedemic rigor that is not related or relevent to vocational or technical careers. theres certainly a place for nursing degrees but it shouldnt be the main default pathway, especially as they still have to the on the job training in parallel. there's no reason why they couldnt have continued the pre-degree training, adding anything they felt necessary. i'd rather we just recognise that those qualified as nurse have done the same, indeed far more, training and study than a media, arts or whatever students. they've screwed the system and now there are consequences.

(as there are degrees and then there are degrees, pretending that a degree status puts any profession on the same and equal standing as others is preposterous anyway).

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

calling them "degrees" means they have to be studied at university and come with a large set of tuition fees etc. Degrees imply (and universities usually insist upon) an amount of acedemic rigor that is not related or relevent to vocational or technical careers. theres certainly a place for nursing degrees but it shouldnt be the main default pathway, especially as they still have to the on the job training in parallel. there's no reason why they couldnt have continued the pre-degree training, adding anything they felt necessary. i'd rather we just recognise that those qualified as nurse have done the same, indeed far more, training and study than a media, arts or whatever students. they've screwed the system and now there are consequences.

(as there are degrees and then there are degrees, pretending that a degree status puts any profession on the same and equal standing as others is preposterous anyway).

Ah, this old chestnut. If you choose to go down this road of argument you need to know arts and media are worth 8 million an hour to the UK economy. Long may the UK continue to highly educate people in these fields.

 

[essbee]

No. certainly not. I don't do ironic; that's for the younger generation

In that case - do you really feel that strongly about politics that you can come
onto this site and peddle such b*llox?

(I would say that irrespective of most parties/politicians btw).

 

[Mr Bridger]

In that case - do you really feel that strongly about politics that you can come
onto this site and peddle such b*llox?

(I would say that irrespective of most parties/politicians btw).

Don't you know he has a degree in "utter boll@x" ?

 

[drew]

calling them "degrees" means they have to be studied at university and come with a large set of tuition fees etc. Degrees imply (and universities usually insist upon) an amount of acedemic rigor that is not related or relevent to vocational or technical careers. theres certainly a place for nursing degrees but it shouldnt be the main default pathway, especially as they still have to the on the job training in parallel. there's no reason why they couldnt have continued the pre-degree training, adding anything they felt necessary. i'd rather we just recognise that those qualified as nurse have done the same, indeed far more, training and study than a media, arts or whatever students. they've screwed the system and now there are consequences.

(as there are degrees and then there are degrees, pretending that a degree status puts any profession on the same and equal standing as others is preposterous anyway).

But for a lot of the degree courses in healthcare the fees are paid for by the NHS who previously would have paid for the training anyway?

 

[essbee]

Don't you know he has a degree in "utter boll@x" ?

I'm beginning to see that,

 

[drew]

When there is bad news and it coincides with problems on the international stage, politicians always stress the latter as being the cause of all the woes -the point is that it is hard to decipher the total truth - to what extent is one to blame and not the other or both. On this occasion it was the time of the Labour government, and I have no doubt that the tories would have reacted in exactly the same way by putting all the blame on the global crisis. I am not certain which, and I am sure that you are not either, though you doubtless presume to know. It is not a cop out - just an acceptance that it is hard to give a definitive answer.
As stated, I used to read all the attachments as this seemed the reasonable thing to do, but do not bother any more, as it is invariably one journalist's view of the situation, which happens to coincide with the view of the post. I have no doubt that if the situation were in reverse, and a post quoted a paper you do not read, then you would have been equally disbelieving or at least sceptical.
I hope that this post is seen as written with rather more humility than your sneering reply.

It's about opinions and, hopefully backing up those opinions with facts. I agree that a lot of attachments are opinion but by reading them it helps form your own views whether for or against the view expressed in the article. Same with statistics, the same stats are sometime used to support both sides of an argument.

The wording of your original post seemed quite dismissive of a major global crisis and that it was used just as an excuse by Labour. You suggest that they were profligate but don't back it up!

I do agree that had the Tories been in power in 2008 then they too would be blaming the global crisis but that isn't the issue. The issue is how they would have proposed dealing with the crisis at the time. They were against QE and were keen to let major banks fail and let the market sort itself out. A laissez faire attitude if you will. Well that's all well and good if you haven't got your life savings in one bank or another! Or that you work for said bank and are then out of a job with a mortgage to pay. To save you the time, the article I attached expressed the opinion of a senior economist at the Bank of England that QE had added £50 billion to the economy of the UK suggesting we were better off doing than not. Maybe there are articles from the opposite political spectrum that might suggest that without QE the economy would also be £50b better off. I haven't seen it yet though.

With regard to your opening sentence above, is it really that hard to decipher? Global meltdown and most economies in freefall. Most people would agree that it was not caused by the labour government (nor, had the Tories been in power at the time, that it was their fault). What most people will argue about is whether what they did after it was the most effective way of minimising the consequences of that recession on the UK economy.

This is a forum for opinions and debate on a host of subjects. It helps when expressing opinions if you can back it up with something.

 

[Hastings gull]

It's about opinions and, hopefully backing up those opinions with facts. I agree that a lot of attachments are opinion but by reading them it helps form your own views whether for or against the view expressed in the article. Same with statistics, the same stats are sometime used to support both sides of an argument.

The wording of your original post seemed quite dismissive of a major global crisis and that it was used just as an excuse by Labour. You suggest that they were profligate but don't back it up!


I do agree that had the Tories been in power in 2008 then they too would be blaming the global crisis but that isn't the issue. The issue is how they would have proposed dealing with the crisis at the time. They were against QE and were keen to let major banks fail and let the market sort itself out. A laissez faire attitude if you will. Well that's all well and good if you haven't got your life savings in one bank or another! Or that you work for said bank and are then out of a job with a mortgage to pay. To save you the time, the article I attached expressed the opinion of a senior economist at the Bank of England that QE had added £50 billion to the economy of the UK suggesting we were better off doing than not. Maybe there are articles from the opposite political spectrum that might suggest that without QE the economy would also be £50b better off. I haven't seen it yet though.

With regard to your opening sentence above, is it really that hard to decipher? Global meltdown and most economies in freefall. Most people would agree that it was not caused by the labour government (nor, had the Tories been in power at the time, that it was their fault). What most people will argue about is whether what they did after it was the most effective way of minimising the consequences of that recession on the UK economy.

This is a forum for opinions and debate on a host of subjects. It helps when expressing opinions if you can back it up with something.

Thanks for your reply. Yes, you are right, in that I did not back it up -just that I recall accounts of spending beyond their means. Of course, it "helps" if you can back it up with something, or perhaps just that it makes the post more pleased with him/herself. But your post was such that the attachment was presented as proof, and this is what I took issue with. I don't know if the issue is really what the tories would have done -is it worth debating something that did not happen?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Don't you know he has a degree in "utter boll@x" ?

PhD, Dr Bollocks.