It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Elections

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: stumason

Read the bit you bolded. That states the £9.7Bn is outdated. The hint is in the word 'updated'. Why would I cite old discredited figures that the ONS no longer supports?


You what? Can you even read?

Here it is again:



Tuesday's update on the impact of the changes follows estimates last month from the ONS that in 2009 illegal drugs and prostitution boosted the economy by £9.7bn – equal to 0.7% of gross domestic product and roughly the same contribution as farming.


it clearly says that, in 2009, drugs and hookers boosted the economy by £9.7bn - equal to 0.7% GDP....

Where in there does it say anything about it being "outdated".

In fact, lets post the entire article from your link:



Britain's economy could be as much as £65bn bigger – almost 5% – when new GDP figures are published in September incorporating items such as prostitution and drug dealing under new statistical rules.

The Office for National Statistics said its latest estimate was that GDP in 2009 was 4.6% higher than previously stated on the back of the planned improvements in measuring the size of the economy.

The update will be part of a more inclusive approach to GDP that comes into force in September to comply with EU statistical rules and to "provide the best possible framework for analysing the UK economy and comparing it with those of other countries".

But economists said the change in the size of GDP in official figures, which is unlikely to change the pace of growth in the economy, meant little in reality.

"On paper the economy is £65bn bigger – which is massive. But it is purely an accounting treatment. These activities have always been there – particularly research and development activities – they just weren't necessarily taken into account in GDP previously," said Alan Clarke, an economist at Scotiabank.

"In isolation, if the economy is 4.6% bigger and nothing else changed, the public finances would look much better – since we tend to look at borrowing relative to GDP or debt relative to GDP. That would be the equivalent of public finances alchemy but we know that the ONS is going to adjust the way it accounts for debt as well – and this is going to be revised higher – so there is no free lunch here."

The ONS said it will release figures for the impact on the size of GDP in 2010-13 nearer to September. Looking further back, it said that over the period 1997 to 2009 the annual impact of the changes was on average to raise the level of GDP by 3.6%, rising from an additional £25bn (2.6%) in 1999 to £65bn in 2009.

Tuesday's update on the impact of the changes follows estimates last month from the ONS that in 2009 illegal drugs and prostitution boosted the economy by £9.7bn – equal to 0.7% of gross domestic product and roughly the same contribution as farming.

Your Guardian link

And another for good measure, from the Guardian again



originally posted by: bastion
I have no idea why links aren't working for me today - always worked before.


You're adding full stops and the like




posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

The statement was made in January, she made an even earlier one in November and in July last year. www.bbc.co.uk... Whistleblowing law has been in effect for decades I have no idea why you think May has added anything to it www.gov.uk...

How nice of you for mocking my disability, no wonder you vote Tory.

Read the first sentence where it says drugs and prostitution contributed £65Bn under the new estimates.It's also repeated several times in the article, explained at length and on the ONS website in the link already provided.
edit on 31-3-2015 by bastion because: (no reason given)


When something is updated, as it clearly states in the document, the old figures become outdated, this is basic English, sorry for assuming you understood it. If it helps the article you quoted mentiones they're updated and revised figures several times (hint hint, third paragraph, second word)
edit on 31-3-2015 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: stumason

The statement was made in January, she made an even earlier one in November and in July last year. www.bbc.co.uk...


It mentions nothing in that link about the Official Secrets Act or whistleblowers.


originally posted by: bastion
How nice of you for mocking my disability, no wonder you vote Tory.


It's clear you have a problem and need it fixing....


originally posted by: bastion
Read the first sentence where it says drugs and prostitution contributed £65Bn under the new estimates.It's also repeated several times in the article, explained at length and on the ONS website in the link already provided.


No, you read it:


Britain's economy could be as much as £65bn bigger – almost 5% – when new GDP figures are published in September incorporating items such as prostitution and drug dealing under new statistical rules.


It doesn't say that drugs and hookers accounted for all of it - as I said the new figures include charity spending and R&D, which it also says in the article - and in fact it elaborates on that by saying of that £65 billion, £9.7Bn was drugs/hookers.


originally posted by: bastion
When something is updates, as it clearly states in the document, the old figures become outdated, this is basic English, sorry for assuming you understood it.


haha, ironic - the man who cannot read his own sources telling me about "basic English"... You're going to feel really stupid when this finally dawns on you.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Whistleblowers have had immunity for decades read the link and law instead of swallowing May's garbage.

Come back when you've actually read my posts and the article, I stated a few pages back it's not all to do with drugs and prostitution.

Since when was mocking disabled people 'helping them' ? Last time I checked it was a hate crime.




edit on 31-3-2015 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
Whistleblowers have had immunity for decades read the link and law instead of swallowing May's garbage.




Not wanting to be part of your little quibble, but the allegation was that during the investigation into Cyril Smith in the 80's a member of the police has said that he was told (he didn't identify who the person who told him was, merely someone in a suit) not to take it any further as he would be in breach of the Official Secrets Act and in theory could be prosecuted as such - this is not the same as immunity for whistleblowers where the OSA is not potentially breached. As it happens, the Home Secretary doesn't have power to say such whistleblowing will not result in prosecution if the OSA is breached and she made it clear it was her hope that it would not.

At least check your facts before posting opinion.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason




It's in the thread for everyone to see - I even said that me saying the "entire front bench" was hyperbole on my part, yet I still showed my point was valid as most of them actually were. You have yet to come back with more than the 3 you found


Well here are another 5 who only became MP's in 2010:-

Gloria De Piero
Liz Kendall
Emma Reynolds
Michael Dugher
Owen Smith.

Makes your comment look even more ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted


At least check your facts before posting opinion.


I did. Check the .gov link I posted before - whistleblowers have immunity, even from OSA, if what they're leaking constitutes the public interest and/or reveals serious criminality. Even the Tories have admitted May was talking nonsense, hence voting down the move last month. The mystery police/SIS agent was lying when he told police otherwise.

OSA cannot interfere with the Crown Court, Police or Public Inquiries - May is talking complete nonsense to dupe the gullible into thinking her words have meaning. I used to do court reporting years ago and have lost count of how many were breached despite D8s and none of us ever went to jail or received more than an angry letter from the government.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: uncommitted


At least check your facts before posting opinion.


I did. Check the .gov link I posted before - whistleblowers have immunity, even from OSA, if what they're leaking constitutes the public interest and/or reveals serious criminality. Even the Tories have admitted May was talking nonsense, hence voting down the move last month. The mystery police/SIS agent was lying when he told police otherwise.

OSA cannot interfere with the Crown Court, Police or Public Inquiries - May is talking complete nonsense to dupe the gullible into thinking her words have meaning. I used to do court reporting years ago and have lost count of how many were breached despite D8s and none of us ever went to jail or received more than an angry letter from the government.



Sheesh, you don't give up do you? Will you agree that Theresa May was put in front of a Commons select committee and asked to confirm that anyone speaking out would be free from risk of prosecution? Did you watch the footage of that select committee? Now, given if there is no risk of anyone going to jail, why would the select committee have been called? Please, I'm interested in how you answer that one. Remember the select committee is multi party?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

ETA: Note that in that link it's the LABOUR MP Watson who wants immunity to be guaranteed... so does that mean Labour also were not aware that immunity is guaranteed? Or are you going to deflect that in some way?


edit on 31-3-2015 by uncommitted because: As per ETA



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

That's what I'm trying to point out. Criminal, independent, crown and public inquires are immune from OSA, internal ones aren't. There has been no change in the law as none was needed. It's in the governments own documentation.

The reason MPs met is because of Parliamentary Privellege which allowed them to speak about this without being sued for slander. The OSA aspect is just political theatre.

You don't have to take my word for it here's the 2008 paper detailing the last 100+ years of breaches and precedentsset fas.org...

I agree Watson is one of the main callers for this, alongside the Rotheram MP (his name escapes me). As I have no political party affiliation I have no problem admiting these two are cretins who need to read the constitution. Watson especially is notorious for making stuff up when it enters the public sphere to make it seem like he's an effective MP. The only decent thing e's ever done is blow the whistle on Trafigura.
edit on 31-3-2015 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: uncommitted

That's what I'm trying to point out. Criminal, independent, crown and public inquires are immune from OSA, internal ones aren't. There has been no change in the law as none was needed. It's in the governments own documentation.

The reason MPs met is because of Parliamentary Privellege which allowed them to speak about this without being sued for slander. The OSA aspect is just political theatre.

You don't have to take my word for it here's the 2008 paper detailing the last 100+ years of breaches and precedentsset fas.org...


I don't know, I'm kind of interested in why if you are using this as something to use against one political party, another one that was in power from 1997 until 2010 didn't seem to do too much about it.......



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
People who are trying to attribute blame for the cover up of paedophilia in Westminster to one particular party really should not be so naïve.
There has been an active paedophile group of 'Establishment' figures acting with impunity for donkey's years and within its members have been politicians of all persuasion, (along with senior Civil Servants, Judiciary, Police etc).
Blair and Brown are just as guilty for this cover up as the present incumbents, (I'm not accusing Cameron of being an active member), same as Major, Thatcher, Callaghan and probably ad infinitum.

Same as manipulating figures is not unique to this administration nor is pandering to bankers and industrialists and putting their interests before those of the people.

Same as the open door immigration policy that steadily increased immigration until the current massive influx of immigrants many of whom have no intention of offering anything positive at all to UK culture and society.
This massive increase began under Blair yet has remained more or less unchecked by Cameron despite his political posturing and empty promises.

Where this government does seem unique is in its demonization and targeting of the most vulnerable and needy in our society to justify a savage series of 'austerity cuts' in order to progress a political agenda.

Yes, there are some who receive benefits unfairly.
Yes, benefits have become a lifestyle choice for some.
Yes, the amount of benefits some receive are obscene.
And all of these need addressing with a matter of urgency.
But they represent the vast minority of benefit recipients and the current targeting of all on benefits is grossly unfair, unjust and in my personal opinion immoral.

And people tend to forget that the primary reason so many people are on benefits is because politicians of all persuasions, along with their banker friends, have serially mismanaged the economy and stripped this nation of its manufacturing heritage whilst milking the system dry and creaming off all profits.

We live in a society where the obsession with profit is all consuming and feelings and ideals like compassion, duty and community are deemed weak and undesirable.

This country achieved great things in the aftermath of WWII under severe circumstances......as far as I can see every single government since at least the 70's has strove to dismantle those achievements and take us back to a time of great social injustice and divides.

We need a radical change of thought and direction if we are to halt the slide.
edit on 31/3/15 by Freeborn because: grammar and typo's etc



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn

This country achieved great things in the aftermath of WWII under severe circumstances......as far as I can see every single government since at least the 70's has strove to dismantle those achievements and take us back to a time of great social injustice and divides.



Totally agree with most of your points, even from my differing political standpoint!

However, what i would say about the above quote is that if you talk to anyone who lived through the 50's (not kids) was that it was a bloody hard / boring decade. We acheived a great deal but that involved years of frugality to allow us to pay for it.

If the same principles could be applied to the current austerity, we could actually emerge in future with a much better society / future for our nation. Once the structural deficit is clawed back to manageable levels it may well be time for a change in social policies - one that could last long term.

Did you see the programme on the withdrawal of legal aid last night? The reason i ask is that i believe it is symptomatic of the problems we have these days in that i actually agreed with both sides of the argument! And therin lies the problem with the welfare state - it is both right and wrong so there is defibnitely much argument / discussion to be had there. However, it is an issue we will never be able to properly solve until we have the country on a sound financial footing - this means a manageable (declining long term) structural deficit and a large increase in manufacturing output.

For me, the sad part is that most will miss the obvious truth of this and instead get lost in the endless party squabbles we always see, whether here at ATS or in wider society.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: uncommitted

That's what I'm trying to point out. Criminal, independent, crown and public inquires are immune from OSA, internal ones aren't. There has been no change in the law as none was needed. It's in the governments own documentation.

The reason MPs met is because of Parliamentary Privellege which allowed them to speak about this without being sued for slander. The OSA aspect is just political theatre.

You don't have to take my word for it here's the 2008 paper detailing the last 100+ years of breaches and precedentsset fas.org...


I don't know, I'm kind of interested in why if you are using this as something to use against one political party, another one that was in power from 1997 until 2010 didn't seem to do too much about it.......



No problem it's a perfectly reasonable assumption. Personally I can't hink of any government since the Major years that hasn't abused OSA legislation in order to protect their own interests. I must admit a personal bias as my uncle was wrongly jailed by Michael Howard for arms dealing to Saddam but was later released once the tory government admitted they'd shredded all the papers allowing illegal arms dealing to go on to disguise the fact he was an MI5 informant under OSA (commonly known as the Matrix-Churchill case) however I'm under no illusion the war criminal Blair did the same with the Iraq inquiry and other abuses.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian



Totally agree with most of your points, even from my differing political standpoint!


Thank you, that's both refreshing and reassuring.



However, what i would say about the above quote is that if you talk to anyone who lived through the 50's (not kids) was that it was a bloody hard / boring decade. We acheived a great deal but that involved years of frugality to allow us to pay for it.


Yes, it was hard....we'd just fought a long and hard war, and an expensive one in terms of people and money and large parts of the country had been decimated and the infrastructure needed completely rebuilding.
But there was something of a national consensus, a 'vision' if you like, that crossed the political divide.
Everyone seemed to know what had to be done for the general good and they demanded a better standard of living and conditions than which they has endured before the war.

And bear in mind it was in 1957 when Harold Macmillan proclaimed 'You've never had it so good' due to the booming nature of the British economy and improved standard of living and lifestyles.

This was all fuelled by nations manufacturing base.

Of course times have changed, but the pitiful nature of our manufacturing industries at present are a fair reflection of the overall well being of the British people in general.



If the same principles could be applied to the current austerity, we could actually emerge in future with a much better society / future for our nation. Once the structural deficit is clawed back to manageable levels it may well be time for a change in social policies - one that could last long term.


I wish I could believe that.
The simple fact is that these 'austerity cuts' are more to further a political agenda than to aid the economy or national well being.
Enforce existing tax laws, re-nationalise key utilities and this country would have more than ample money to invest in real improvements.

Yes, bad practices need to be reformed, what we have at present is nothing short of persecution.



Did you see the programme on the withdrawal of legal aid last night?


As with most things, the legal aid system is open to abuse.
I agree with it on principal but same as everyone I've read the horror stories and that tends to cloud one's judgement.
I've only ever applied for legal aid once; I'd decided to follow the 'correct' procedure when someone had bumped me for a few grand - I was denied legal aid and was ripped off by the legal firm - an expensive lesson that I've never needed repeating.



However, it is an issue we will never be able to properly solve until we have the country on a sound financial footing - this means a manageable (declining long term) structural deficit and a large increase in manufacturing output.


Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.....but this will never happen with the current obsession of maintaining the obscene profit levels for those at the top, (who refuse to re-invest that profit), whilst keeping wage levels at an absolute minimum.



For me, the sad part is that most will miss the obvious truth of this and instead get lost in the endless party squabbles we always see, whether here at ATS or in wider society.


And those 'endless party squabbles' only serve to help maintain the current status quo.


edit on 31/3/15 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Flavian



Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.....but this will never happen with the current obsession of maintaining the obscene profit levels for those at the top, (who refuse to re-invest that profit), whilst keeping wage levels at an absolute minimum.



For me, the sad part is that most will miss the obvious truth of this and instead get lost in the endless party squabbles we always see, whether here at ATS or in wider society.


And those 'endless party squabbles' only serve to help maintain the current status quo.



I agree with the sentiment but.... and I know I'm going to get shot down in flames here -

If someone works for a private company and makes a lot of money, why are they honour bound to redistribute that wealth over and above what their tax rate says they must? I don't see Russell Brand donating more than he needs to from his profits from tours and DVDs, and I can't remember Wayne Rooney giving away half of his wages after tax, but for the dreaded bankers it seems to be a different matter.

Yes, I agree the wages for some in the finance industry are obscene, you'll get no complaint on that from me, but are we suggesting that a private company should only pay what the government of the day believes are acceptable levels? I'm not sure what gives any government that kind of right.

In an age where some footballers are now signing deals of over £10 million over the course of their term (if not a year including signing on bonus), do we need to level the argument a little rather than just continue to carry on a fight about who we think should be allowed to earn what? Before you say that areas such as football are different, you might want to note that at present only one or two clubs in the entire football league have signed up to pay a living wage to its employees. NHS doesn't pay a living wage (trust me, I know this) while some not particularly senior management individuals at a very localised level earn in a year over ten times the average of the majority of employees in their area - and this is the beloved NHS!!!



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

The bankers ripped the country off.

They nearly destroyed our Economy and we had to spend billions of PUBLIC money bailing there incompetent arses out.

Because of there stupidity and greed they have destroyed life's, cost us money and reeked social havoc!

And why punishment have they got? Nothing, just multi million bonuses and pensions and a champagne life style. Meanwhile the poor and middle classes have had to pay for THERE mess.


We are all in it together? Bull# The bankers caused the mess and they have left the rest of us to clean there # up.


Russel Brand and wayne rooney or hell Richard Brandson can earn what the hell they like and no complaint from me as long as they pay there taxes.

But the Bankers?

They have a lot to answer for!
edit on 31-3-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted




If someone works for a private company and makes a lot of money, why are they honour bound to redistribute that wealth over and above what their tax rate says they must?


Some of these individuals send money " off shore " or into secret bank accounts to avoid what they should be paying.

Agreed some don't. However we don't know the true figures.

Others put money into tax evasion schemes. Some chap from " Take That " rings a bell.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: uncommitted




If someone works for a private company and makes a lot of money, why are they honour bound to redistribute that wealth over and above what their tax rate says they must?


Some of these individuals send money " off shore " or into secret bank accounts to avoid what they should be paying.

Agreed some don't. However we don't know the true figures.

Others put money into tax evasion schemes. Some chap from " Take That " rings a bell.


Some of these individuals may put into off shore accounts for all I know, I wouldn't like to say they do or they don't, and yeah, the numerous people in the entertainment industry and probably many other 'normal' people with a few quid available who could scent a decent return did the same - I'm not saying any of that is good.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: uncommitted

The bankers ripped the country off.

They nearly destroyed our Economy and we had to spend billions of PUBLIC money bailing there incompetent arses out.

Because of there stupidity and greed they have destroyed life's, cost us money and reeked social havoc!

And why punishment have they got? Nothing, just multi million bonuses and pensions and a champagne life style. Meanwhile the poor and middle classes have had to pay for THERE mess.


We are all in it together? Bull# The bankers caused the mess and they have left the rest of us to clean there # up.


Russel Brand and wayne rooney or hell Richard Brandson can earn what the hell they like and no complaint from me as long as they pay there taxes.

But the Bankers?

They have a lot to answer for!


Yeah, yeah, yeah. If something criminal happened they should be prosecuted - independently if needs be. But you may have missed the point I was making. If an individual in the 2015 banking sector is given £3million for doing a good job and NOT committing the reckless acts that caused large issues over the last couple of decades, then that person is bad - they must be, they are a banker, right? If a footballer signs a contract at £250,000 a week, plus signing on bonus, image fees, cup runs, league place, then that's not the same? Both work for private companies - what's the difference? Before you say anything on that, I do agree that the sums are shocking, but if it's a private company they determine what they pay and to whom - at what point should any government intervene?

If your issue is with the banking institution, then I kind of agree, but would point out the lack of oversight that maybe or maybe should not have happened is no different in the UK to the majority of the western world.

ETA: Seeing as this is all about the General election, it might be worth pointing out that the very issues you speak about actually were prevalent in the previous (ie pre 2010) government, so what does that say about who should be trusted this time around? Ed Balls was in the treasury then and if he wasn't aware of the impending crisis then either he wasn't fit for the job or he was all to keen for the next party to carry the can. I can't think of another reason so does that make him incompetent or implicit?
edit on 31-3-2015 by uncommitted because: As per ETA



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

If a Banker was not involved in the crash and have earned there money honestly and pay there taxes then fine

And you make a good point in regards to Ed Ball, why the holy F would we wont him in charge of the country financial reins!




top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join