[Archived] Election

[Guest bluerovers]

Stop using ad-hominems. Nasty practice.

Only I didn't use an ad-hominem attack.

I did not infer that I was an idiot. I assumed that is what you meant.

The difference being? That like me saying 'I didn't imply you were an idiot, I called you one by using other words that leaned toward that conclusion without explicitly stating it'.

Why not just admit you didn't know what infer meant instead of trying to dig yourself out by coming up with words that for the most-part mean the same thing. I suspect you made the common mistake of thinking imply and infer were synonymous, don't worry it's a common mistake.

[rebelmswar]

Since when has infer and assume mean the same thing?

I checked wum on wiki and it states" wind up merchant"

A viscous and needless attack.

[Guest bluerovers]

Since when has infer and assume mean the same thing?

No don't, they differ ever so slightly. That's why I said they meant the same thing "for the most-part" and why I didn't say they were exactly identical words. I find actually reading what a person said helps when making a valid rebuttal. I digress, the difference, as you well know, is that 'infer' means to come to a conclusion using logic/evidence and 'assume' means to come to conclusion without evidence or reason.

Given that, coupled with your posting history, I'm happy to infer that you 'assumed'.

I checked wum on wiki and it states" wind up merchant"

A viscous and needless attack.

"You are a WUM" would have been an ad-hominem attack.

"Are you a WUM?", as I said, is a question.

I know, they do look similar (but not as similar as the definitions of 'infer' and 'assume' are ).

[rebelmswar]

No don't, they differ ever so slightly. That's why I said they meant the same thing "for the most-part" and why I didn't say they were exactly identical words. I find actually reading what a person said helps when making a valid rebuttal. I digress, the difference, as you well know, is that 'infer' means to come to a conclusion using logic/evidence and 'assume' means to come to conclusion without evidence or reason.

Given that, coupled with your posting history, I'm happy to infer that you 'assumed'.

"You are a WUM" would have been an ad-hominem attack.

"Are you a WUM?", as I said, is a question.

I know, they do look similar (but not as similar as the definitions of 'infer' and 'assume' are ).

Sweet Jesus.

That's the end as far as I am concerned. There is no point discussing anything with you whatsoever, it always comes down to semantics to an anal scale that Jenna Jamison wouldn't approach.

About the posting history.

[Guest bluerovers]

Sweet Jesus.

That's the end as far as I am concerned. There is no point discussing anything with you whatsoever, it always comes down to semantics to an anal scale that Jenna Jamison wouldn't approach.

Ha ha that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. Go back and see who brought semantics into it, You by not understanding my simple sentence in the first place, mistaking it with "imply" and then trying to dig yourself out by using semantic technicalities by introducing 'assume' (which you got wrong anyway)! You have a worse memory than George Michael after a collision with Snappy Snaps. Oh look, a celebrity-based jibe..aren't I clever

Oh and I presume you mean Jenna Jameson, by the way.

[rebelmswar]

You are the best.

[modes98]

I have to say Jim I was impressed with Ed's speaking ability today, he has certainly improved from some of the debates before hand. He needs to steer well clear of the unions though, they should not have any input into his decisions.

1. There are other way of reducing deficits - such as growing the economy to increase tax receipts-HOW? THE PEOPLE THAT EARN MONEY CAN`T AFFORD TO JUST SPEND WILLY-NILLY,IF THE LAST GOVERNMENT HADN`T ACTED LIKE A KID IN A SWEET SHOP AND SPENT ALL THE POCKET MONEY,WE WOULDN`T BE IN THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE!

2. clamping down on tax avoidance by large corporations and rich individuals-LIKE WHO? NAME AND SHAME PLEASE!

3. and increasing taxes on the super wealthy-WHY SHOULD THEY PAY TAXES TWICE BECAUSE OF OTHER PEOPLE`S INCOMPETENCE?

4. The Tories however have chosen to reduce the deficit by attacking the poorest, the weakest and the most vulnerable in society-IF BY THAT YOU MEAN BENEFIT CLAIMERS WHO HAVE NOT BROUGHT A PENNY INTO THE ECONOMY,I THINK IT`S ABOUT TIME! (AND OBVIOUSLY I DON`T MEAN GENUINE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST JOBS OR THE GENUINELY DISABLED)

5. The Tories might not be perfect,but at least you know where you stand with them unlike Labour who will say one thing to your face and do another behind your back. Labour has brought this country to it`s knees through it`s irresponsible spending policies,question is why would any WORKING person vote for them?

1. Child in a sweet shop? Oh please! Most countries run a deficit during recession years and to say that it was because of wild spending is just plain wrong. The spending policies employed were designed to vastly improve a public service network which had fallen behind the majority of the world and needed heavy investment to catch up. You can't argue against the high standards now employed across the public services network, although you will be able after the high cuts coming.

A less intense cutting of spending would allow the economy to keep recovering whilst decreasing the deficit. Whilst there have to be cuts in public spending doing it so rapidly creates serious issues for both public and private companies and will result in big unemployment level rises. The NHS' "protected budget" sees us having to implement spending cuts of around 20% and this is only likely to increase in the next few years.

2. I think it was on Question Time with Vince Cable admitting there is some massive figure in unpaid/uncollected tax, mainly from large companies. A figure of £7bn springs to mind but that is probably not right. Unfortunately rich individuals and companies always pay accountants a high wage to avoid paying tax.

3. Because rich people in society can afford to support those less well off and should look after others. Afterall it is Mr Cameron who wants a "Big Society". High earners only pay the 50% tax on earnings above the £100k mark and if your earning that amount of money what difference does it make? You are not worried about where your next meal is coming from or how to pay your heating bill.

4. People who don't even try to pay into the system don't see much of a return from it and rightly so. There has to be at least a willingness to work, even if the jobs aren't there.

5. The Tories are even worse for secrets, back stabbing and taking advantage. None of the parties are perfect but Labour are perfectly clear about where they intend to put resources, the flip side is the Tories are perfectly clear about where they will take them away. The country is not on it's knees, far from it in fact. We have a debt which can be repaid over a fairly long time frame if so desired, the Tories have pushed this urgency upon everyone and it is merely a front for what they always do, only this time they have Clegg to hold them back a tiny bit.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Angry David Miliband leaves Manchester for London

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I have to say Jim I was impressed with Ed's speaking ability today, he has certainly improved from some of the debates before hand. He needs to steer well clear of the unions though, they should not have any input into his decisions.

1. Child in a sweet shop? Oh please! Most countries run a deficit during recession years and to say that it was because of wild spending is just plain wrong. The spending policies employed were designed to vastly improve a public service network which had fallen behind the majority of the world and needed heavy investment to catch up. You can't argue against the high standards now employed across the public services network, although you will be able after the high cuts coming.

A less intense cutting of spending would allow the economy to keep recovering whilst decreasing the deficit. Whilst there have to be cuts in public spending doing it so rapidly creates serious issues for both public and private companies and will result in big unemployment level rises. The NHS' "protected budget" sees us having to implement spending cuts of around 20% and this is only likely to increase in the next few years.

2. I think it was on Question Time with Vince Cable admitting there is some massive figure in unpaid/uncollected tax, mainly from large companies. A figure of £7bn springs to mind but that is probably not right. Unfortunately rich individuals and companies always pay accountants a high wage to avoid paying tax.

3. Because rich people in society can afford to support those less well off and should look after others. Afterall it is Mr Cameron who wants a "Big Society". High earners only pay the 50% tax on earnings above the £100k mark and if your earning that amount of money what difference does it make? You are not worried about where your next meal is coming from or how to pay your heating bill.

4. People who don't even try to pay into the system don't see much of a return from it and rightly so. There has to be at least a willingness to work, even if the jobs aren't there.

5. The Tories are even worse for secrets, back stabbing and taking advantage. None of the parties are perfect but Labour are perfectly clear about where they intend to put resources, the flip side is the Tories are perfectly clear about where they will take them away. The country is not on it's knees, far from it in fact. We have a debt which can be repaid over a fairly long time frame if so desired, the Tories have pushed this urgency upon everyone and it is merely a front for what they always do, only this time they have Clegg to hold them back a tiny bit.

Exactly.

[jim mk2]

The country is not on it's knees, far from it in fact. We have a debt which can be repaid over a fairly long time frame if so desired, the Tories have pushed this urgency upon everyone and it is merely a front for what they always do, only this time they have Clegg to hold them back a tiny bit.

Now that the Labour leadership issue is resolved the party should go on the attack and nail the lie perpetuated in the Tory media that the previous government was responsible for the budget deficit which was of course was caused by the collapse in tax receipts as a result of the worldwide recession, and the government's need to pump billions of pounds into the economy to keep it going through the recession in 2007-08 and into recovery in spring 2009.

This government "spending" helped to prevent the recession taking a greater toll on the economy and is a major reason why unemployment did not rise as high as in previous recessions. It should also not be forgotten that the opposition Tories had no plan whatsoever to deal with the recession, preferring to sit on their hands and let "market forces" do their work with the resultant potentially catastrophic effect on the business and jobs.

Labour bequeathed a recovering economy in May 2009 and budget deficit that could easily be reduced over time without the dogmatic cuts to public servies and the welfare state about to be imposed by the Tories.

On the Miliband story, the FT headline is misleading and poor journalism for a paper that prides itself on accuracy . There was nothing to suggest David Miliband is "angry" although no doubt the Tory press will make the most of the story in tomorrow's papers.

[den]

Without me taking an opinion of whether the war was right or wrong, David obviously would be upset at Ed's comments about this. Simply because his opinion was just that, an opinion. It's a brave decision for Ed to broach this subject in his first speech and I'm not sure how he sees that as beneficial to anyone inside the Labour party - whether they are supportive of the decision to invade Iraq, or against. It's more likely to divide opinion, than unite it.

That said, he can be a good leader. He speaks well and seems to be a progressive politician, which is what the country needs. His speech today seemed to me, to be lacking in direction though. The next few months will tell us whether he was the right Milliband for the labour party. I'm not sure TBH. Having said that though, it shouldn't take too much to highlight the short sightedness of the present coalition.

[RovertheHill]

There are some interesting points presented on here and I'm not saying who's right or wrong. However, the word deficit is thrown about with trivial abandon. Let's be clear - however it was arrived at (and it was doubled as a proportion of GDP during the last 12 years) - by next year it will have reached £1.1 trillion. So whilst collecting tax from higher earners and companies might recoup £7 billion as posted, and that is welcome, it's really not the complete answer is it? The problem with a deficit, as anyone with credit cards will know, is the interest. The more you delay paying off, the more you end up paying off in the long run. The interest as I understand it for this year alone will be £42 billion. Or £1800 per household. More than defence spending. Nearly as much as education. This is more than at any time other than after a world war. I don't think this is something that can be "easily" reduced and frankly it's puerile to suggest it is. It will certainly take longer than 5 years and therefore I suspect that Ed will get his chance. And time will tell who was right or wrong.

On a much lighter and more mischievous note, if you stuck a moustache on Ed then you have Borat. Niiiiiiiiice!

[jim mk2]

http://money-news.da...y_under_way_imf

Never let the truth get in the way of a good ol` rant eh Jim?

Prominent MPC member dismisses the IMF report calls for more quantitative easing, ie, printing more money to be pumped into a struggling economy.

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/regulation/news/mpc-member-calls-for-more-qe/1019254.article

[Smithy]

There are some interesting points presented on here and I'm not saying who's right or wrong. However, the word deficit is thrown about with trivial abandon. Let's be clear - however it was arrived at (and it was doubled as a proportion of GDP during the last 12 years) - by next year it will have reached £1.1 trillion. So whilst collecting tax from higher earners and companies might recoup £7 billion as posted, and that is welcome, it's really not the complete answer is it? The problem with a deficit, as anyone with credit cards will know, is the interest. The more you delay paying off, the more you end up paying off in the long run. The interest as I understand it for this year alone will be £42 billion. Or £1800 per household. More than defence spending. Nearly as much as education. This is more than at any time other than after a world war. I don't think this is something that can be "easily" reduced and frankly it's puerile to suggest it is. It will certainly take longer than 5 years and therefore I suspect that Ed will get his chance. And time will tell who was right or wrong.

On a much lighter and more mischievous note, if you stuck a moustache on Ed then you have Borat. Niiiiiiiiice!

Maybe the condems should try this.

[BuckyRover]

Let's print some more money!

It's the Zimbab-way to do it!

[Guest bluerovers]

Well done to bluerovers for turning this thread into a farce instead of debating like a human adult.

jim mk2 did that a long time before I showed up. Besides I'm the one debating like an adult, I'm not the one make cheap shot insults in each reply.

Prominent MPC member dismisses the IMF report calls for more quantitative easing, ie, printing more money to be pumped into a struggling economy.

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/regulation/news/mpc-member-calls-for-more-qe/1019254.article

So you're taking the opinion of someone who thinks the solution is to just print more money?

[dave birch]

So you're taking the opinion of someone who thinks the solution is to just print more money?

That's exactly what the people that run the world's biggest economy are doing, printing money!

Care to let the board in on the papers you've written on the subject?

[Guest bluerovers]

Care to let the board in on the papers you've written on the subject?

Eh? I have a Business degree if you must know but I don't see anyone else in this thread having to submit a paper for peer review before they can post an opinion on here.

The IMF backed the coalition's plans, then jim finds one bloke who thinks we should print more money instead...I know who I'll believe.

[BuckyRover]

QE is basically pumping money into the banks. (I prefer the phrase throwing out good money after bad).

You are a true socialist jim.

[Sandiway Blue]

Prominent MPC member dismisses the IMF report calls for more quantitative easing, ie, printing more money to be pumped into a struggling economy.

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/regulation/news/mpc-member-calls-for-more-qe/1019254.article

Haven`t we already done this a year or 2 ago?

[dave birch]

Eh? I have a Business degree if you must know but I don't see anyone else in this thread having to submit a paper for peer review before they can post an opinion on here.

The IMF backed the coalition's plans, then jim finds one bloke who thinks we should print more money instead...I know who I'll believe.

And I said that one of the world's biggest economies (actually two) are doing exactly what jim said. So it's actually more than "one bloke". I think I'll take the side of the Treasury in Japan and the US.

As anyone would know, QE is generally one of the situations you use when you can't use interest rates to help you out.

[jim mk2]

Haven`t we already done this a year or 2 ago?

And QE may have to happen again because growth is stalling. These are the risks the coalition is running with its aggressive programme of cuts. Ireland made similar drastic cuts 2 years ago and is in an even worse position today because its economy has ground to a halt.

http://www.ft.com/cm...html?ftcamp=rss

[dave birch]

QE is basically pumping money into the banks. (I prefer the phrase throwing out good money after bad).

You are a true socialist jim.

Your use of the word "socialist" in this context is rather strange, given that major economies that are "centre-right" or even further to the "right" are using this tactic in an attempt to sort out their respective problems.

[Guest bluerovers]

And I said that one of the world's biggest economies (actually two) are doing exactly what jim said. So it's actually more than "one bloke". I think I'll take the side of the Treasury in Japan and the US.

As anyone would know, QE is generally one of the situations you use when you can't use interest rates to help you out.

The Japanese and US economies are hugely different to ours. For a start they are much bigger, but both countries also still have a huge export industry. The US is a completely unique economy due to the way oil is traded in dollars meaning they don't even have to make a balance of trade surplus because of it unlike every other country in the World so just copying them isn't necessarily right for our smaller, service based economy. There isn't a one-size-fits-all economic policy, it has to be tailored to the region and it's unique factors withing it's economy.

And look what what happened last time we blindly followed US policy (Iraq)

[rebelmswar]

Plus we should always remember that printing money is so damaging to the economy that it is actually used as an offensive technique during war.

Printing copious amounts of cash was one of the more clandestine, and effective, ways in which the Union destroyed the Confederate economy in The War of Northern Aggression.

We did the same, on a smaller scale, to Germany after the retreat.

I firmly believe that sensible cuts to spending and cultivating business growth, while weaning ourselves off foreign products is the best way to work out of the hole.