General Election 2017

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

General Election 2017

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 29 of 450 < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 >

Hrolf The Ganger 20 Apr 17 4.30pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle It proves that between 1997 and 2010 the government increased spending on NHS in real terms to address chronic underfunding. Since 2010 the Tories have cut spending in real terms despite a desperate need for increases in funding. No. It shows that Labour spent money we did not have in order to fund an ever increasing demand for health care. That cannot be a long term solution and you know it.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

20 Apr 17 4.30pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

It proves that between 1997 and 2010 the government increased spending on NHS in real terms to address chronic underfunding. Since 2010 the Tories have cut spending in real terms despite a desperate need for increases in funding.

No. It shows that Labour spent money we did not have in order to fund an ever increasing demand for health care.

That cannot be a long term solution and you know it.

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 20 Apr 17 4.31pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle Spoken like someone who's never been in a group subjected to such discrimination. Yawn, spoken like someone who likes a good stereotype as the next person The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 20 Apr 17 4.31pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

Spoken like someone who's never been in a group subjected to such discrimination.

Yawn, spoken like someone who likes a good stereotype as the next person

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Apr 17 4.33pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Are you JamieMartin in disguise? The 'cure' for all this 'poverty' and 'inequality' seems to be to take money and opportunities away from people who do not suffer from 'poverty' and 'inequality' and give it to the sufferers, or put the money in some state scheme that is supposed to address the problems. In reality it makes little difference, apart from damaging the economy and the lives of people from whom the money is extracted. I think it really depends on how you spend the money and the opportunities you create. Social programs have to be directive towards resolving the issues that perpetuate poverty and restrict opportunities, even if its just focused on providing a route out for those who want to take advantage of the chances of a better life. Turns out, that really isn't the case. Labour has responded by giving money to people, and Conservatives by cutting public services and spending. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 20 Apr 17 4.33pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Are you JamieMartin in disguise?

The 'cure' for all this 'poverty' and 'inequality' seems to be to take money and opportunities away from people who do not suffer from 'poverty' and 'inequality' and give it to the sufferers, or put the money in some state scheme that is supposed to address the problems. In reality it makes little difference, apart from damaging the economy and the lives of people from whom the money is extracted.

I think it really depends on how you spend the money and the opportunities you create. Social programs have to be directive towards resolving the issues that perpetuate poverty and restrict opportunities, even if its just focused on providing a route out for those who want to take advantage of the chances of a better life.

Turns out, that really isn't the case. Labour has responded by giving money to people, and Conservatives by cutting public services and spending.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 20 Apr 17 4.34pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle But how well off might we have been if inequality hadn't been allowed to increase so markedly in the 80s and early 90s?? That is the important question. And more importantly what will the impact be going forward if nothing is done to address it compared with if we do address it. If we had carried on like we were before Thatcher we would now be far worse off. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 20 Apr 17 4.34pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

But how well off might we have been if inequality hadn't been allowed to increase so markedly in the 80s and early 90s?? That is the important question. And more importantly what will the impact be going forward if nothing is done to address it compared with if we do address it.

If we had carried on like we were before Thatcher we would now be far worse off.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 20 Apr 17 4.36pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I think it really depends on how you spend the money and the opportunities you create. Social programs have to be directive towards resolving the issues that perpetuate poverty and restrict opportunities, even if its just focused on providing a route out for those who want to take advantage of the chances of a better life. Turns out, that really isn't the case. Labour has responded by giving money to people, and Conservatives by cutting public services and spending. Like grammar schools you mean. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 20 Apr 17 4.36pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I think it really depends on how you spend the money and the opportunities you create. Social programs have to be directive towards resolving the issues that perpetuate poverty and restrict opportunities, even if its just focused on providing a route out for those who want to take advantage of the chances of a better life.

Turns out, that really isn't the case. Labour has responded by giving money to people, and Conservatives by cutting public services and spending.

Like grammar schools you mean.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 20 Apr 17 4.37pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle Given this guy has a Nobel Prize I respect what he writes. There is nothing in that article that says technological progress should be stopped or industries propped up despite waning demand. The point is more the rhetoric from governments around jobs and industry and the lack of action in providing opportunities, and in many casing denying opportunities, to people and communities which suffer as a result of structural changes. Just because solutions aren't simple it shouldn't follow that we just wash our hands of the problem and let the market run its course. Free markets have inefficiencies! Completely agree with this...I'd certainly like to see far more emphasis on apprenticeships for school leavers and a more joined up approach between businesses and colleges/schools in doing so. Who remembers having a careers advisor at their school when they hit 5th year? Mine was bloody useless and essentially told me I should look to be a footballer instead! The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 20 Apr 17 4.37pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

Given this guy has a Nobel Prize I respect what he writes. There is nothing in that article that says technological progress should be stopped or industries propped up despite waning demand. The point is more the rhetoric from governments around jobs and industry and the lack of action in providing opportunities, and in many casing denying opportunities, to people and communities which suffer as a result of structural changes.

Just because solutions aren't simple it shouldn't follow that we just wash our hands of the problem and let the market run its course. Free markets have inefficiencies!

Completely agree with this...I'd certainly like to see far more emphasis on apprenticeships for school leavers and a more joined up approach between businesses and colleges/schools in doing so.

Who remembers having a careers advisor at their school when they hit 5th year? Mine was bloody useless and essentially told me I should look to be a footballer instead!

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 20 Apr 17 4.40pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Didn't I answer this post already? The left don't seem to be able to clarify their position. The complain about cuts and then complain about the defect. They complain about living standards but support mass immigration and the suppression of wages that it creates. They complain about the NHS but have never once solved the crisis in all their years in office. They complain about housing but the Wilson Government built some of the worst housing ever created and Labour had years in government under Blair and Brown to address it, they didn't. What they did do was open the flood gates for thousands of Eastern European immigrants to make the problem much worse. Wake up. I'm not sure what you've found unclear in the stance of "the left". At no point have I complained personally about the deficit itself, but actually about using the deficit as an excuse for ideological cuts and targeting cuts on those least able to cope and those least likely to vote Tory. The deficit will actually get worse, and has done, as a result of the austerity we've seen for the last 7 years. I've previously mentioned that immigration, particularly from the EU, has resulted in net economic benefits. Standards of living are much more heavily impacted by low levels of productivity, inequality and government economic policy. If you believe low wages are a problem then why not advocate an appropriate living wage set by law? Or perhaps better funded and better targeted education and training? Immigration has also done a lot more in terms of filling skills gaps and shortages than increasing a huge oversupply of labour. Why is it some sort of universal truth that an immigrant would work for less than a native person? Their living costs would be the same if not more as they are less able to live with family and more likely to have dependants. Housing issues have been ignored by successive governments. It's no preserve of the left. What floodgates are these that Blair and Brown opened? We've been a member of the EU since Heath. Transitional arrangement for new members could only ever be transitional!
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 20 Apr 17 4.40pm

Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Didn't I answer this post already?

The left don't seem to be able to clarify their position.
The complain about cuts and then complain about the defect.
They complain about living standards but support mass immigration and the suppression of wages that it creates.
They complain about the NHS but have never once solved the crisis in all their years in office.
They complain about housing but the Wilson Government built some of the worst housing ever created and Labour had years in government under Blair and Brown to address it, they didn't. What they did do was open the flood gates for thousands of Eastern European immigrants to make the problem much worse.

Wake up.

I'm not sure what you've found unclear in the stance of "the left". At no point have I complained personally about the deficit itself, but actually about using the deficit as an excuse for ideological cuts and targeting cuts on those least able to cope and those least likely to vote Tory. The deficit will actually get worse, and has done, as a result of the austerity we've seen for the last 7 years.

I've previously mentioned that immigration, particularly from the EU, has resulted in net economic benefits. Standards of living are much more heavily impacted by low levels of productivity, inequality and government economic policy. If you believe low wages are a problem then why not advocate an appropriate living wage set by law? Or perhaps better funded and better targeted education and training? Immigration has also done a lot more in terms of filling skills gaps and shortages than increasing a huge oversupply of labour. Why is it some sort of universal truth that an immigrant would work for less than a native person? Their living costs would be the same if not more as they are less able to live with family and more likely to have dependants.

Housing issues have been ignored by successive governments. It's no preserve of the left. What floodgates are these that Blair and Brown opened? We've been a member of the EU since Heath. Transitional arrangement for new members could only ever be transitional!

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 20 Apr 17 4.43pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle It proves that between 1997 and 2010 the government increased spending on NHS in real terms to address chronic underfunding. Since 2010 the Tories have cut spending in real terms despite a desperate need for increases in funding. The problem is they spent it in the wrong areas...instead of nurses and doctors it was spent on Admin and middle management...there's a shyteload of wastage still in the sector...its just the people making the decisions are looking after themselves at the cost of the real requirements such as frontline staff. The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 20 Apr 17 4.43pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

The problem is they spent it in the wrong areas...instead of nurses and doctors it was spent on Admin and middle management...there's a shyteload of wastage still in the sector...its just the people making the decisions are looking after themselves at the cost of the real requirements such as frontline staff.

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

Nest 20 Apr 17 4.44pm
[Tweet Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Nest

20 Apr 17 4.44pm

[Tweet Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 20 Apr 17 4.45pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger That only matters if you can show that people have actually become worse off as a result. Can you do this? As to how much richer we could be, that is a good question. A better question would be how rich would we need to be to satisfy the Left? I suspect that all the time someone was richer than another they would find fault with society. If we could equalise wealth without damaging the mechanisms that allow commerce to function effectively and allow for the society we have then I would be interested to see it. What we have is a political system that supports corporate interests and no party will alter that situation in my view. Much as I object to corporate interference and over influence in government, we must be careful what we wish for. Yes, just go around parts of the north-east and see for yourself.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 20 Apr 17 4.45pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

That only matters if you can show that people have actually become worse off as a result.
Can you do this?
As to how much richer we could be, that is a good question.
A better question would be how rich would we need to be to satisfy the Left?
I suspect that all the time someone was richer than another they would find fault with society.
If we could equalise wealth without damaging the mechanisms that allow commerce to function effectively and allow for the society we have then I would be interested to see it. What we have is a political system that supports corporate interests and no party will alter that situation in my view. Much as I object to corporate interference and over influence in government, we must be careful what we wish for.

Yes, just go around parts of the north-east and see for yourself.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 20 Apr 17 4.46pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 If we had carried on like we were before Thatcher we would now be far worse off. At what point has anyone advocated that?
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 20 Apr 17 4.46pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

If we had carried on like we were before Thatcher we would now be far worse off.

At what point has anyone advocated that?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Apr 17 4.48pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger No. It shows that Labour spent money we did not have in order to fund an ever increasing demand for health care. That cannot be a long term solution and you know it. Hasn't government spending increased, along with the deficit under the Coalition and Conservative governments though, which is arguably spending money they don't have, to fund a country: all despite austerity "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 20 Apr 17 4.48pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

No. It shows that Labour spent money we did not have in order to fund an ever increasing demand for health care.

That cannot be a long term solution and you know it.

Hasn't government spending increased, along with the deficit under the Coalition and Conservative governments though, which is arguably spending money they don't have, to fund a country: all despite austerity

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 29 of 450 < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

General Election 2017

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors