UK Elections

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: stumason

Labour also said we'd have a double dip recession - we didn't - and they also said the cuts would hamper our economy - it didn't

The Tories said The U.K. would maintain it's Triple A Credit Rating.....it didn't. The Tories said they wouldn't raise VAT...they did, The Tories said they would halve the deficit by the end of The Parliament....they haven't.

The Tories are a bigger bunch of liars as the rest of them.

Ah, lost on the frontbenchers argument, so now changing tack.. Ok, I can deal with this one too -

The UK hasn't maintained it's AAA rating? Funny that, because it seems they have...

Yes, they lied about VAT - but I am unsure why you think that is my fault? Labour lied about tuition fees in 2005 - politicians lie, we know this. What's your point?

And the deficit has been reduced by 41%, so not far off really and a damned site better than if we had kept Brown in power who simply had no plan at all and hoped to just spend his way out of debt....

How anyone can vote for a party that used the official secrets act to protect paedophiles is beyond me.

And for balance, How anyone can vote for a party who lied to it's people so it could illegally invade sovereign nations with the end result the deaths of a estimated 1.3 million citizens and rising is beyond me. And these are just some of the crimes they are getting away with on a daily basis.

if you vote for either party you are complicit in the crimes mentioned above.

It's time for a change to the whole system and those responsible need to be held to account.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
How anyone can vote for a party that used the official secrets act to protect paedophiles is beyond me.

Let's just see what happens with the enquiry - was it a "party decision", or was it a decision by individuals/civil servants to protect the status quo? At any rate, no one will be prosecuted under the OSA for coming forward now, so hopefully this sorry, disgusting mess can be sorted out and those responsible are punished - harshly.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
And for balance, How anyone can vote for a party who lied to it's people so it could illegally invade sovereign nations with the end result the deaths of a estimated 1.3 million citizens and rising is beyond me. And these are just some of the crimes they are getting away with on a daily basis.

It's up to 1.3 million now, is it? I assume you're talking about Iraq.. That's the highest I've heard you claim yet, Solo. It's funny though, because almost every investigation into Iraq puts the numbers at a much lower figure of around 150,000 and the bulk of them caused by Iraqi on Iraqi violence, not Coalition activity.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
if you vote for either party you are complicit in the crimes mentioned above.

How so? It's not like anyone knew about what was going on in the 1970's or 1980's and saying that people now are guilty of crimes committed by other people 30 years ago is ridiculous and it's even worse to suggest that people voting for them today are somehow responsible. Likewise with Iraq, it's not like Labour had it in their manifesto!

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
It's time for a change to the whole system and those responsible need to be held to account.

On that, we agree. Sadly though, apathy rules and even those who voice their despair at the "corrupt system" in this very thread are too bone idle to get off their arse's and do anything about it.

Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan...not to mention Syria and Libya.

Yeah, the Coalition are completely innocent of all charges with regards to the countries mentioned above...

Con Party formed 1834, Liberals 1859, Labour 1900. Don't you think we have given these parties long enough to get it right?
Yet year after year we still keep voting them in.

What do you expect them to do? They have a set amout of money that they get from taxes etc that they can spend. All each party does is divide that money up and give it to who they represent, so Con party=the rich, Labour=the poor, Liberals= yeah who knows!
The definition of madness;
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results!

HELLO, I will say that again

INSANITY: DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN EXPECTING DIFFERENT RESULTS


Can we not think for ourselves? Do we have to be led by the media all the time on who to vote for? There are other parties and people who in your local area who would better represent your aims, ambitions etc who are not affiliated to these main parties.

IT is up to YOU to find out who to vote for, NOT be told by the media.Do some research for a change don't blindly just put an X on the ballot paper for that person who is a candidate for said main three parties because you always vote for that party. Do you really think Con, Labour or Liberal will be any different next time? After all these years?
Do not be a sheep, instead be the shepherd. We are all fed up with politicians lies. Time for a HUGE change to this system.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
How anyone can vote for a party that used the official secrets act to protect paedophiles is beyond me.

On that, we agree. Sadly though, apathy rules and even those who voice their despair at the "corrupt system" in this very thread are too bone idle to get off their arse's and do anything about it.

England needs a English National party, ENP. The UK needs broken up. lets just go our own way and look after our own people.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Pakistan? Syria? The UK has done nothing in those countries, so fail there.

As for Libya - which had UNSC approval - I suppose you would have slept easy at night had we allowed Gaddafi to send in his tanks to Benghazi? That's not b"blood on our hands" though, I suppose, so you'd be happy to just ignore it. It would have been a massacre. We also cannot be held responsible for the bickering idiots now in charge of Libya for failing to bring the country to order - they had our assistance to do so and squandered it.

Afghanistan had UNSC approval and to be fair, was totally justified. It was a failed state harbouring dangerous terrorists.

Iraq - it could be argued they had UNSC approval depending on how you read it. Either way, even all those wars combined (with or without UK involvement) don't add up to 1.3 million dead.

Iraq - 174,000 (including combatant deaths)
Syria - 220,000 - roughly.
Libya - 25,000 in the Civil War to topple Gaddafi
Afghanistan - between 20-30,000 killed with the bulk of those caused by the Taliban.

It's always types like you that cause us to have this disjointed foreign policy - if we intervene to help, its "illegal" and "imperialist". If we don't help, we just don't "care in the west". We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I suppose you'd argue against our involvement in the Balkans, or Sierra Leone as well? If not, why not? Would you also argue that not doing anything in Rwanda was a good thing?

You're very selective on the "foreign wars" you complain about, selectively picking the ones for effect to make your point while ignoring others which poke holes in your thinking.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
How anyone can vote for a party that used the official secrets act to protect paedophiles is beyond me.

On that, we agree. Sadly though, apathy rules and even those who voice their despair at the "corrupt system" in this very thread are too bone idle to get off their arse's and do anything about it.

England needs a English National party, ENP. The UK needs broken up. lets just go our own way and look after our own people.

There is already one - English Democrats

I don't agree with your assessment that the UK need's braking up, however. Although it would be incredibly amusing to watch you guys founder without the Barnett Formula and the vast oil wealth you don't have, although no doubt even things that would go wrong after independence would still be the fault of those "bastard English"....

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
How anyone can vote for a party that used the official secrets act to protect paedophiles is beyond me.

And for balance, How anyone can vote for a party who lied to it's people so it could illegally invade sovereign nations with the end result the deaths of a estimated 1.3 million citizens and rising is beyond me. And these are just some of the crimes they are getting away with on a daily basis.

if you vote for either party you are complicit in the crimes mentioned above.

It's time for a change to the whole system and those responsible need to be held to account.

My con MP was 2005+ so nothing to do with the pedo mps.

Although she did vote for libya she did vote down syria,

As she was 2005 she cant be blamed for Iraq,

Still if you think SNP candidates represent your views vote SNP.
I think haveing major parties power diluted is a good thing.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
How anyone can vote for a party that used the official secrets act to protect paedophiles is beyond me.

On that, we agree. Sadly though, apathy rules and even those who voice their despair at the "corrupt system" in this very thread are too bone idle to get off their arse's and do anything about it.

England needs a English National party, ENP. The UK needs broken up. lets just go our own way and look after our own people.

"bastard English"....

The only person i have seen on here who constantly drags up the words "English Bastards" is you. You did the same in the referendum thread on countless occasions now you are doing it here once again.

As for the Barnett formula, same day same old schtick from you.

We Scots do have our own stand alone economy without Oil and gas...90% of North sea Oil is in Scottish waters. not sure about gas but i'm sure the percentages of oil fields favours Scotland than more than England..

But hey, who cares, because according to you, if and when Scotland becomes independent and the oil and gas revenue generated in Scotland falls into Edinburgh coffers and not Westminster's, Remember, the majority of it comes through Scotland's terminals, Westminster still has a valid claim to it?....we'll see.

rt.com... I suppose the figure,s depend on who you get them from and who you believe , But when they,re based on a lie to take us into war , Does it really matter ?

a reply to: stumason

Ah, lost on the frontbenchers argument, so now changing tack.. Ok, I can deal with this one to

No i didn't lose that argument. Do you have short term memory loss? I gave you 3 Shadow Minsters who where not even in Parliament before 2010. Yes they where members of the Labour Party before then, but so are many Local Councilors etc. Do you want to blame them for the National Debt also?

And the deficit has been reduced by 41%,

Are you making this up as you go along? ( like The Tories did yesterday with their £3,000 tax bombshell if labour gets elected. A claim that was instantly shot down in flames by both Financial Institutes and Commentators. )

The deficit has actually been reduced by 33%.


www.independent.co.uk...

The Nasty Party are still alive and well. Oh , Nasty Party was a phase used by Teresa May by the way.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: stumason




The deficit has actually been reduced by 33%.

Stu will tell everyone reducing the deficit is the dog bollocks, but he fails to mention the most important figures, The figures that the National debt is expected to rise to above £1.6 trillion and these figures come direct from his beloved OBR...truly shocking figures and i suspect the OBR is being economical with the truth when it published it findings.

originally posted by: alldaylong
No i didn't lose that argument. Do you have short term memory loss? I gave you 3 Shadow Minsters who where not even in Parliament before 2010. Yes they where members of the Labour Party before then, but so are many Local Councilors etc. Do you want to blame them for the National Debt also?

And I gave you 16 who were former ministers... And those were the only ones I could be arsed to check. As I pointed out to you, one of those 3 you found was actually working for Milliband as his Private Secretary, so was well involved in the machinations of Government long before she was elected.

originally posted by: alldaylong
Are you making this up as you go along? ( like The Tories did yesterday with their £3,000 tax bombshell if labour gets elected. A claim that was instantly shot down in flames by both Financial Institutes and Commentators. )

The deficit has actually been reduced by 33%.


www.independent.co.uk...

OBR report said, and I quote :

"We estimate that public sector net borrowing has fallen to £90.2 billion or 5.0 per cent of
GDP this year – down 41 per cent in cash terms and 51 per cent as a share of GDP relative
to the post-crisis peak in 2009-10"

Link - Section 1.8

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Righto - not doing that merry dance of idiocy again with you Solo - if you want to relive lost battles, you can go back and re-read those threads at your hearts content.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Yup, reducing the deficit is the key to stop the increasing national debt Solo - even my 4 year old could grasp the basics of that. If you don't have a deficit, you don't need to borrow - simples. However, as a student of SNP economics, this is probably lost on you.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: stumason




The deficit has actually been reduced by 33%.

Stu will tell everyone reducing the deficit is the dog bollocks, but he fails to mention the most important figures, The figures that the National debt is expected to rise to above £1.6 trillion and these figures come direct from his beloved OBR...truly shocking figures and i suspect the OBR is being economical with the truth when it published it findings.

The only way to reduce the overall debt is to reduce the deficiet.

As long as we have a deficiet we have to borrow.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: stumason




The deficit has actually been reduced by 33%.

Stu will tell everyone reducing the deficit is the dog bollocks, but he fails to mention the most important figures, The figures that the National debt is expected to rise to above £1.6 trillion and these figures come direct from his beloved OBR...truly shocking figures and i suspect the OBR is being economical with the truth when it published it findings.

The only way to reduce the overall debt is to reduce the deficiet.

As long as we have a deficiet we have to borrow.

And the more debt the more we have to borrow, We will never be out of debt, Government need the population to be up to it's eyeballs in debt, how else are they supposed to control us. as i said earlier, not only are we in debt, our unborn grandchildren have the pleasure of being £30,000+ in debt from the day they are born.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
How anyone can vote for a party that used the official secrets act to protect paedophiles is beyond me.

Let's just see what happens with the enquiry - was it a "party decision", or was it a decision by individuals/civil servants to protect the status quo? At any rate, no one will be prosecuted under the OSA for coming forward now, so hopefully this sorry, disgusting mess can be sorted out and those responsible are punished - harshly.

Considering Thatcher knew about it and personally covered it up by conviscating police evidence under the Official Secrets Act and the current Tory government are continuing to cover it up, it obviously was and still is Tory Party Policy to allow it. However Cyril Smith's (liberal) arrest is what sparked the cover up.

a reply to: bastion

Which means it is more likely to be a problem with the Establishment (Civil Service, Police, Intelligence and Parliament) than just one party. These allegations go back further than the Thatcher Tory Government and into the previous Labour administration as well.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
And the more debt the more we have to borrow,

Er, no. The Government finances the deficit by issuing bonds, gilts etc. These are what make up the "national debt". If there is no deficit, then there is no need to finance it by issuing bonds/gilts.

However, it is worth pointing out that without the need to service that debt (currently £45Bn/3% GDP), the deficit wouldn't be as big.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
We will never be out of debt,

Actually, if a Government was to maintain strict fiscal control and not run a deficit, then the debt will be paid off, because the bulk of those bonds/gilts etc are fixed term - they will eventually mature.

Assuming that the UK continues to service debt at the current level and maintains strict fiscal controls and never runs a deficit, the debt could be paid off in cash terms within 31 years (£1.4Tr/£45Bn a year). Although, again, it is worth pointing out these bonds tend to be 5yr, 10yr fixed term things, so in theory it could be done quicker.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Government need the population to be up to it's eyeballs in debt, how else are they supposed to control us.

National debt and personal debt are entirely separate - why are you conflating them? If you really want to scare people though, the amount of debt the UK owes, including personal debt as well as that owed by the Government, it is currently running at around 400% GDP.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
as i said earlier, not only are we in debt, our unborn grandchildren have the pleasure of being £30,000+ in debt from the day they are born.

Hyperbole. You are not personally liable for the debt held by the Government.