patiirc Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 My point was that 'owd numbnuts' had picked a figure at random, DWP says that there are 5 million main jobless benefits. where his two million come from and what his figures include as are completely out of any context other than 'shock tactics'  If you're right on that, the impact on individuals affected is thus GREATER than Robinson's example.  No it isnt as Welfare doesnt just cover those claiming jobless related benefits though does it? what about state pensions for example which would also thus include pensioners of which there was estimated to be around 9.8 million (in total Id wager more than 2 million claim state pension or related benefits though) or those claiming other benefits all tied into welfare  Ive looked for figures and there is mention of benefits claimants excluding pensioners here 5.8 Million a year ago  So where does his 7 million come from that was mainly my point?  Iam on a number of benefits, this has been well established. At present Iam not going to be 1000 pounds worse off. So who and where is being effected by this 'claim' exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 You really are a fucking idiot. Half a million public sector workers losing their jobs, with zero growth measures put in place. Johnson's performance was excellent.  'fucking idiot' ? How? Please justify that criticism  Losing their jobs? How? What was announced for those losses was natural wastage and 80 percent turnover anyway and not replacing them ( so if they leave their jobs or are sacked it isnt losing is it?) iirc what was said that would be the main part of the job losses and 'some' (whatever that means, in these terms) redundancies.  Johnson's was performance excellent how exactly? He was like a cat who got the cream, yet this is coming from an albeit restructured party that put the country in a mess (necessary or otherwise) in the first place. To me it was mainly show-boating with lil substance as was his first chance to show off in his new role, rather than treating it with a necessary sense of occasion. ' Spreadsheet when to jeer and cheer' is hardly relavent to what ever case he is trying to make is it?  "7 million people will be 1000 pounds worse off ... through a 7 Billion cut in something" Yes, that would be the case if its an specific targetted split to whomever you are trying to scare and ignoring every other thing under the sun,  It's a seven billion cut in welfare. Welfare isn't evenly split among the population. Seven million families receiving welfare sounds credible.  My point was that 'owd numbnuts' had picked a figure at random, DWP says that there are 5 Million main jobless benefits. where his two million come from and what his figures include as are completely out of any context other than 'shock tactics' He continues to be a completely biased political 'Tory' editor ( even though I think his politics are now more in keeping with being anti-Tory and coalition) on a supposedly 'netural' broadcaster. I wouldnt have a problem, if there was ever any counterpoint to his editorial. Unfortunately there never is   The worst part about it was how smugly Osborne was announcing everything, forgetting hes announcing half a million job cuts. Johnson was absolutely right to show him up as he did. Osborne is the most dislikeable prick in Politics, and thats saying something.  I think that Osbourne is a strange un, very stilted and deathly dull or at least that's how he comes across in general. Regarding the smugness every Chancellor Ive seen since Kenneth Clarke has been smug when doing their fiscal thing, I think thats part of the grand theatre that comes with it,. I cant remember in recent times the Chancellor for which ever party is in charge, not showboating when delivery financial news such as reviews and budgets.  Absolutely, and I like a bit of personality and flair in Politics but not when you are delivering news which to alot of families would be absolutely devastating and potentially ruinous to a large number of people, hard working people, and doing it with a smirk on your face and a swagger in your shoulders leaning across as if he was getting one over on Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 When all these people end up redundant following these cuts, pay no tax and claim benefits, won't the economy be in a worse state? Indeed it shall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Nick's just said 8 million on the 5 o'clock news hour to Huw Edwards.. He is making these figures up your honour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 Nick's just said 8 million on the 5 o'clock news hour to Huw Edwards.. He is making these figures up your honour Well, if that's the case then I guess everything will be okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Nick's just said 8 million on the 5 o'clock news hour to Huw Edwards.. He is making these figures up your honour Well, if that's the case then I guess everything will be okay. My point tied into my earlier criticism of Nick Robinson. Â What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 My point tied into my earlier criticism of Nick Robinson. What's your point? My point is that regardless of it being 8 million or 7 million, the fact is that it's a major issue.  Johnson's was performance excellent how exactly? He was like a cat who got the cream, yet this is coming from an albeit restructured party that put the country in a mess (necessary or otherwise) in the first place. In what way did Labour put the country in a mess?  Genuine question, by the way. I'm interested in why you think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 My point tied into my earlier criticism of Nick Robinson. What's your point?  My point is that regardless of it being 8 million or 7 million, the fact is that it's a major issue.  The 11bn already cut isnt a major issue?  This is the BBC for fuck sake, paramount impartiality and reknowned as a source of accurate information or at least it's supposed to be and you cant see why 'making it up' isnt a problem?   Johnson's was performance excellent how exactly? He was like a cat who got the cream, yet this is coming from an albeit restructured party that put the country in a mess (necessary or otherwise) in the first place.  In what way did Labour put the country in a mess? Genuine question, by the way. I'm interested in why you think that.  Why?  Increased spending over a number of years, not offset by not making any other savings, to not much beneficial effect per amount spent, that I can see. (Still waiting for the massive pro-labour discussion away from the minimum wage?) selling off or running down of other reserves and bailing out the banks ( im not saying it was the wrongthing to do I'm just noting it as a cause of skintness) has left the country empty. This and a prepensity (sp?) to encourage borrowing on the never never to prop up the ecomony and keep things going was always going to result in trouble some time whether it was during a world wide crash or other wise. There is only so much money to borrow, and re use and re lend, if its not being paid for whatever reason its going to snarl and fubar at some point.  It did, and this government who ever it was would have to start repaying back some of the shit borrowed against the economy.It wouldnt matter how, the country has been living beyond its means for years, and something would need to give or would be bankrupt. 'We' were projected that 70 per cent of GDP would be debt related. That could take a generation or more to sort. So whether its now with a smaller figure or later with a larger figure to pay off, it still needs to be paid off and spending reduced.  That ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 This is the BBC for fuck sake, paramount impartiality and reknowned as a source of accurate information or at least it's supposed to be and you cant see why 'making it up' isnt a problem? I've been following a certain court case in the media that i'm also attending, and the BBC are doing a great job of not providing entirely accurate information regarding that, so i'm not suprised at all to hear about them doing the same in other instances.  Why? Increased spending over a number of years, not offset by not making any other savings, to not much beneficial effect per amount spent, that I can see. (Still waiting for the massive pro-labour discussion away from the minimum wage?) selling off or running down of other reserves and bailing out the banks ( im not saying it was the wrongthing to do I'm just noting it as a cause of skintness) has left the country empty. This and a prepensity (sp?) to encourage borrowing on the never never to prop up the ecomony and keep things going was always going to result in trouble some time whether it was during a world wide crash or other wise. There is only so much money to borrow, and re use and re lend, if its not being paid for whatever reason its going to snarl and fubar at some point.  It did, and this government who ever it was would have to start repaying back some of the shit borrowed against the economy.It wouldnt matter how, the country has been living beyond its means for years, and something would need to give or would be bankrupt. 'We' were projected that 70 per cent of GDP would be debt related. That could take a generation or more to sort. So whether its now with a smaller figure or later with a larger figure to pay off, it still needs to be paid off and spending reduced.  That ok? I was just wondering if you were one of the people who believe the Governments excuse that they constantly use in order to continue their plans of destroying the welfare state.  The truth though, in my opinion, is that the deficit is primarily the result of a collapse in tax revenue after a recession caused by the bankers.  The Labour party who held power until recently are to blame because the banking fiasco happened on their watch though, that much is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Its only fun if they are not watching you. Welcome back Big Brother  The storage capacity and cost for this will be insane and Iam sure that that it's not viable to do economically given the set up costs and running costs which was why Labour scrapped it in the first place?  In other news  Poor Jon Sopel on one of the big days of the year, politically too. Hope he gets better soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 21, 2010 Author Share Posted October 21, 2010 (edited) The Treasury today slapped a Edited October 21, 2010 by David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I cant even make it through a full episode of QT anymore and was it just me or were the Lib Dem's adsent from the show this week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted October 21, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted October 21, 2010 Since the election they only have one Conservative OR one Liberal Democrat on the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QT was fucking great last night. Caroline Lucas owned it. Great stuff from Toynbee and Denham too. Hammond answering the Scottish guy's question about what measures are being made to drive the economy by waffling about Labour's deficit was hilarious. He might aswell have said "actually we're doing fuck-all". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 QT was fucking great last night. Caroline Lucas owned it. Great stuff from Toynbee and Denham too. Hammond answering the Scottish guy's question about what measures are being made to drive the economy by waffling about Labour's deficit was hilarious. He might aswell have said "actually we're doing fuck-all". Â Watch or not watch.. hmmmm that is the question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts