Who is right about the British economy?

First topic message reminder :

As Lloyd Grossman would say "lets look at the evidence"

26th January 2010 - this was the date that the UK recession was finaly over, our growth returned back into the black again at 0.1% later revised upwards to 0.4%.

This was also a news story back in January 2010
--------------------------------------------------------

The begining of 2010 has seen some improvement in the uk housing market. People's confidence seems to have returned to pre uk recession levels.(Zoopla.co.uk)

In the second quarter of 2010 the economy of the United Kingdom was growing at 1.2%, the fastest rate of growth for nine years.

By July the new coalition government had been in power for a couple of months, the chancellor gave his first budget and the nation was put on alert for the waves of spending cuts and redundancies which were to follow soon.

Towards the end of 2010 UK growth began to go backwards again, and actualy went back into negative growth in the 4th quarter, perilously close to recession again.

So here we are in October 2011, 19 months after this government entered office and our growth figures are lower than what they were when they came to office in May 2010.

But not only is growth stagnant, unemployment is higher, inflation is higher, confidence is lower, no sign of a recovery in the housing market, and the promise that the private sector can take up the slack of the thousands made redundant hasent happened.

As we approach the 18 month mark, is time begining to run out for David Cameron and George Osborne. ?

We shall always need an Opposition to keep the others relatively honest.

Never thought of that. Always thought it was the fact that the pantomime needs heroes and villains.

One thing, the pantomime been running longer than 'The Mouse Trap', although the cast has often changed.

astra wrote:

Now where is the money coming from

I am sure you know like the rest of us that the NHS could be run with much less money going to useless do nothing middle men!

The NHS is now being run like the coal, Steel, and all the old nationalised industry of the past.

People selling to the service have no mercy and demand/recieve over the top prices for the little value commodities they provide - ie light bulbs for £27 each, etc etc.
The politicians use the NHS as a dumping ground for the unemployed - admittedly that stroke is a little harder now where porters and groundsmen are concerned, but in the high and mighty vaults of the administration machine, no one knows WHAT the hell goes on!!

The new computer programmes that are being talked about, do not really do anything for you if on your back with morphine drips and all kinds of wires coming from you. They are only there for the vast number of unnecessary number-crunchers, parachuted in by successive governments. (Does the Gubmint not already have an office of statistics, give them the effin' job iffin' it's so necessary!)

Here in Washington, the Ambulances are refuelled by the most EXPENSIVE retailer in the area!! I don't CARE what the amount per gallon/litre is in the contract, their (our) fuel JUST HAS to be cheaper where I go about 3 miles out of town!

Most of the world can produce goods far more cheaply than we can.

If you care to remember, one of the British selling points was QUALITY! The witch did away with that ethic when in Heath's administration and products were made "Good Enough" THAT was the downfall of our industry. Even in 1984, nowhere in the world could produce NAVAL BRASS to the quality of Vickers Armstrong, Scotswood Road Newcastle.

I agree with much of what you say. However, all the savings we make, though worthwhile, will not keep the NHS going over the next decade, even if inflation is low. I agree that the worst decision made was the so-far £14B? spent on a useless computer system. I don't have the answer.
Again, quality was our password. In some cases it still is where quality is essential - aircraft engines and similar items. But cost is the important criteria today - refer Bombardier, BAE.
I believe our Government did nothing to help either of these companies secure orders, and, to me, that is unforgiveable.
But today we have a throwaway society. As long as it does the job while it lasts - when it goes wrong, throw it away. This is what we have become used to from imports. To change that frame of mind is probably not possible.

Quote : " I realise I was being deprecating in my choice of words. For that I apologise. "

How refreshing, in an increasingly vulgar and uncaring world,to see such good manners.

I like to think that I, too, would have the humility to apologise in the extremely unlikely and unique event that I ever found myself being wrong about anything.....

".... nowhere in the world could produce NAVAL BRASS to the quality of Vickers Armstrong, Scotswood Road Newcastle."

Therein lies a tale, of typical British over-engineering in everything we made, using excess material, excess weight, massive reinforcement and designed to last a hundred years. (Have you ever seen anything more grotesque than the 13Amp three-pin plug? It pulls fittings off the skirting board with its weight, compared to the foreign alternatives).

The Asians who have driven Britain off the market, know that electronics halve in size and double in their efficiency every five years.

British over-engineering

Yeah but, No but, Well!

The Germans are not shy about over engineering, and still getting away with it!

Take any BMW Boxer Motorcycle engine to bits to see what I mean.
Even today on the bikes before electronic management systems, the carburrettors can be disembled on the kitchen table in an hour! Just watch that the "boss" aint around!

There is something very ironic about a chancellor who said in the autumn of 2010 that he had rescued the country from financial disaster, and that as a result our credit rating was now safe.

Our credit rating is now at greater risk than at anytime since the 1970s

QUOTE: "Take any BMW Boxer Motorcycle engine to bits to see what I mean"

If you mean it was designed in 1923, yes, we see what you mean.

Well now, even you blue have obviously come to the conclusion that Camer-con and Co are manufacturing a "shit economy". Now there is confidence for you and what a good reason for you continuing to make excuses for the barstewards..

Mel and Bobby....I don't think they are manufacturing a shit economy....the economy is shit and was when they took over. It remains to be seen if the coalition are taking the right action to get us on the right path to growth while dealing with the deficit. In my opinion they have the right idea, but need to focus more on investment and growth.
Sometimes governments have to make difficult if not 'nasty' decisions and I don't believe Labour are capable of doing this with the left having such an influence on party policy. The left will always keep spending money we don't have....it's in the make-up and they cannot change from this stance. I only have to read posts from Sickchip and Ivanhoe to see that however much debt the country is in, they will want to keep spending as much as possible with no thought on where that would lead us. Fortunately the majority of the electorate are more sensible and realise that 'some' things have to change and we have to live within our means or we will end up with a 'Greek Tradegy'.

If the economy has not improved significantly by the next election and Labour are voted back in I just cannot see how their idiology fits in with dealing with difficult economic decisions.....The militant side of the party and the unions will not stand for it. There will be strong calls from the party faithfull to reintroduce any benefits cut by the coalition...benefits that are unfair on the working class and that are unaffordable.......we can go into details again if you want to.

Look guys I know youre forever loyal to Labour no matter what, but if you can come back to me credible and affordable solutions to the problems we face, then I am all ears...If you just want to waste your time making constant criticisms of the coalition to your fellow posters, who are 95% Labour anyway....without discussing credible alternatives then we are not going to get anywhere.

It's like me just coming on here and posting ' Labour are Sh*t' and then leaving until I come on and post the same tomorrow. It doesn't mean anything and doesn't get anyone anywhere.
This is why I do not respond to every post aimed at me, because it's just the usual mud slinging and I would rather have some debate than name calling

blue. Quote "Mel....I guess it could be that Cameron and co would like to lose the next election and leave Labour to deal with a Sh*t ecomomy"

You used the sh*t word blue.

First and foremost the government are spending and borrowing well over their budget. Therefore let us not keep harping on Labours spending activities that occured well before sight of the Global Crisis. The Tories kept plugging that it was not a Global crisis but a Labour home grown one. Now the boot's on the other foot its "EURO CRISIS", maybe it will become that but at present it is Tory policy that is NOT working. In fact matters get worse rather than better with all the austerity measures.

Too many people with plenty of money are receiving benefits they do not need. Single them out via the Tax man and means test them for qualification.

Increase the min wage to £10 and pay people on the dole a living sum and force employers to take them on and train them free with reporting progress.

Rather than rhetoric, spend on our infrastructure, homes , schools, roads etc. This will mean growth as many industries will benefit, increasing employment and collectable tax revenues.

Stop fiddling with the NHS and leave it until there are some signs of recovery.

Finally force the banks to set up sectors of the industry purely to assist small business, with financial loans backed by government securuties.

Go past go and collect £200000000 billion

Mel wrote:blue. Quote "Mel....I guess it could be that Cameron and co would like to lose the next election and leave Labour to deal with a Sh*t ecomomy"

You used the sh*t word blue.

First and foremost the government are spending and borrowing well over their budget. Therefore let us not keep harping on Labours spending activities that occured well before sight of the Global Crisis. The Tories kept plugging that it was not a Global crisis but a Labour home grown one. Now the boot's on the other foot its "EURO CRISIS", maybe it will become that but at present it is Tory policy that is NOT working. In fact matters get worse rather than better with all the austerity measures.

1.Too many people with plenty of money are receiving benefits they do not need. Single them out via the Tax man and means test them for qualification.

2.Increase the min wage to £10 and pay people on the dole a living sum and force employers to take them on and train them free with reporting progress.

3.Rather than rhetoric, spend on our infrastructure, homes , schools, roads etc. This will mean growth as many industries will benefit, increasing employment and collectable tax revenues.

4.Stop fiddling with the NHS and leave it until there are some signs of recovery.

5.Finally force the banks to set up sectors of the industry purely to assist small business, with financial loans backed by government securuties.

6.Go past go and collect £200000000 billion

I hope you don't mind. I have added the point numbers to deal with points more easily

1. Agreed wholeheartedly.

2.While I actually agree with this, it will increase cost to employers who will pass that cost on, increasing costs to you and me, or their customers. Free training is not free. All training costs in terms of time and finance. I trained many staff, at the cost of time which I had to put in later to catch up with other work.

3.Do we borrow more? I actually agree with what you say. It is the problem of financing the spending in the short term I have difficulty with. In the long term I believe it would be self-financing with less dole money paid and more tax revenues as you say. Of course some would have to go on borrowing interest.

4. Do you mean signs of recovery economically, or signs of recovery in the NHS. I've already said I believe the NHS is in need of radical change to cope with future requirements. There are savings to be made undoubtedly, but these are minimal in terms of the NHS Budget. I am open to suggestions as to how we plan for the future.

5.Agreed with this in a previous post. I believe they are already 'encouraged' to do this. Perhaps more coercion is required. Recent reports indicate one Bank has started.

6.I passed go - can I have my money please.

Incidentally. For general information. I am an OAP, on government pension + plus very small extra. So I do have to budget and I do know how hard things are.

Mel. I believe I used some deprecating words in my last post which you took up. I apologised later, if you didn't see it.

Thank you trev. Free employees to train up would surely be worth an
employer taking on, even if the trainee only made the tea in return for example.

I LOOK FORWARD TO BLUE BOY'S COMMENTS UPON MY SUGGESTIONS.

The thing about training fellahs is that some companys may employ a training programme, but most will not. Those who do not, merely use those who do train staff as nurseries for their own pleasure. We had this in the North East, where my company was training staff, and puting them through the NVQ system. These trainees were then "wooed" away to other companys, and we had to start over agin with a new intake.

In days of old, (35 years ago!) Many companys would ask for a bond, say £600 and if the person left before an agreed time, say 3 years, part of the bond has to be paid back.

Guess who did away with THAT scheme?

[quote="Mel"]Thank you trev. Free employees to train up would surely be worth an
employer taking on, even if the trainee only made the tea in return for example.

Only if it's Earl Grey.

At last - Ed Balls finaly came up with a common sense alternative to the utter mess that the country now finds itself in.

Congratulations to the Labour front bench team for saying and promoting what everyone with common sense allready knows - that cuts cuts cuts without any for of stimulus dosent work, isent working.

A fiscal stimulus need not be more than a temporary measure, lasting perhaps one year, it would be a catalyst, a kick start to get things moving again, encourage activity, spending and growth.

The present policies have actualy increased borrowing because zero or no growth automaticly keeps debt as a percentage of GDP high.

We need more common sense alternatives from the two Ed s and the rest of the team.

I don't think there is a single politician who knows how to get Britain out of this financial mess which the Banks produced in 2007/8. Tinkering with VAT and tax thresholds is a luxury reserved for the good times when their impact is low. The same argument holds for creating unemployment, the logic of Bedlam.

There is presently no substitute for soldiering-on while waiting for the slow improvement which is all we can expect. The biggest comparable depression lasted from 1992 to 1996.

Who is right about the British Economy?

It's obvious, isn't it. Those emigrating out of Europe, to Australia etc.

Australia doesn't want whingeing Poms, and requires specific skills before granting residence.

oftenwrong wrote:Australia doesn't want whingeing Poms, and requires specific skills before granting residence.

Does that mean at 72 I'm too young?

I take it, 2539 is your d o b Trev.

bobby wrote:I take it, 2539 is your d o b Trev.

Almost. Very astute of you.

Who is right about the British Economy?

Well its not this lot....The way they have been going about it.....it would take them 30 years to make anything happen.....not sure if most folks can hang around that long. as so far they have been trying to run an economy with no fiscal growth policy......gee that is so smart

Hello Stox

Beleive me they have and had no intention of putting things right for the people and the country in general. Their purpose is to implement true Tory ideals by severe aysterity measures and further create a cheap labour market as always by creating mass unemployment. If in their eyes things improve without any effort to create growth, so be it, otherwise who cares as long as as much damage can be done to asist the rich at the expense of the poor the sick and now even the middle classes. All rushed through at lightning speed, irrispective of expert and majority public opinion.

Cameron forced the 5year term. Now we know why do we not?

Anyone got any idea of the number of new laws and amount of legislation which is going to hit us coz of the Lisbon Treaty? As far as I can remember, it starts in 2015 - hence the 5 year term methinks!

One of the "rules" is about habeas corpus and where foreign (european) police and law inforcement can come here un announced and lift yer without a by your leave!

Getting past this April and the amount of stealth legislation out there, sod Tesco's, the poor hoose awaits me!

astra wrote:Anyone got any idea of the number of new laws and amount of legislation which is going to hit us coz of the Lisbon Treaty? As far as I can remember, it starts in 2015 - hence the 5 year term methinks!

One of the "rules" is about habeas corpus and where foreign (european) police and law inforcement can come here un announced and lift yer without a by your leave!

Getting past this April and the amount of stealth legislation out there, sod Tesco's, the poor hoose awaits me!

Thought the Lisbon Treaty came into law Dec. 2009 with amendments for new countries till 2014-2017. Something to do with their general elections and allocation of number of seats in the European Parliament.
We have opted out of several things, including open borders - at least for the time. I'm not sure about the above 'unannounced arrests'. Crossborder co-operation is intended to be increased.
The Lisbon Treaty is a minefield for the unitiated like myself. It takes someone of MENSA mentality to understand all gobbledegook and jargon, and the opt-outs by different countries. 280 Pages? Ah well. Where's this weeks Beano

By the way. If it is correct about the police I shall have to alter my notice on the door which says 'Cannabis plants under cultivation, Police knock - and wait'. How many languages are there in Europe, for goodness sake.

Mel wrote:Hello Stox

Beleive me they have and had no intention of putting things right for the people and the country in general. Their purpose is to implement true Tory ideals by severe aysterity measures and further create a cheap labour market as always by creating mass unemployment. If in their eyes things improve without any effort to create growth, so be it, otherwise who cares as long as as much damage can be done to asist the rich at the expense of the poor the sick and now even the middle classes. All rushed through at lightning speed, irrispective of expert and majority public opinion.

Cameron forced the 5year term. Now we know why do we not?

Hiya Mel
I cannot agree with you more. The UK economy is as flat as you can get. However, it was interesting how the Tory media played todays economic news I thought.


ONS DATA 2012
Provisional estimates for current month
a current budget surplus excluding the temporary effects of financial interventions of £11.8 billion in January 2012
net borrowing excluding the temporary effects of financial interventions of -£7.8 billion in January 2012
net debt excluding the temporary effects of financial interventions was £988.7 billion, equivalent to 63.0 per cent of GDP

as they was very careful to try not to say this is now the same as 2008 but the main difference was the 63.0% of GDP. nor that we are now borrowing more than any other European country. interesting yes Mel?


Rachel Reeves, Labour's shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "The government is only on course for borrowing targets that are already a staggering £158bn off track, meaning David Cameron and George Osborne's promise to balance the books by 2015 now lies in tatters. This £158bn of extra borrowing is more than £6,500 for every household in the country. And it's the bill for economic failure and a growing dole queue, rather than to help create jobs and support the economy through difficult times.

Public Net Debt
Fiscal Years 2002 to 2011
Year GDP
£ billion Public Net Debt -total

2002 1075.56 29.33 a
2003 1139.75 30.45 a
2004 1202.96 31.82 a
2005 1254.06 33.81 a
2006 1325.8 34.92 a
2007 1398.88 35.74 a
2008 1448.39 36.25 a
2009 1395.87 44.19 a
2010 1453.62 52.25 a
2011 1526.5 59.56 e
Legend:
a - actual outturn
e - estimate in HM Treasury 2011 budget

This message was posted by ‘JonnyTooBad’ in response to a Steve Bell cartoon:-

“What irks me most about Cameron is that he assumes that anyone who owns a business or works for themselves is going to swallow his demented mendacity and automatically support him and his gang of fools. I have a number of friends who run small to medium size businesses (some of whom are probably Tory voters) and all are totally pissed off with their treatment at the hands of banks and large national and international companies and feel that they have absolutely no voice.

In my particular business we were recovering after the crunch right up until the election, when the 'blame Brown/Balls' message first began to play, and since then it has been downhill all of the way. Running down the economy as an election tactic followed up by Gidiot’s austerity TINA is driving many small businesses into the ground. I'm sure that Cameron considers an SME to be one with a turnover of £100 million or so and that anything less than that isn't worth even thinking about, but we do contribute, employ and create wealth. Cameron is the enemy of small enterprise and far more tribal than those who he attacks.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/feb/23/davidcameron-prince-charles?#post-area

Major Employers, including obviously Supermarkets, are the natural supporters for the Tory Party.

But IDS has pissed them off too.

Bring on the Clowns!

Ivan wrote:This message was posted by ‘JonnyTooBad’ in response to a Steve Bell cartoon:-

“What irks me most about Cameron is that he assumes that anyone who owns a business or works for themselves is going to swallow his demented mendacity and automatically support him and his gang of fools. I have a number of friends who run small to medium size businesses (some of whom are probably Tory voters) and all are totally pissed off with their treatment at the hands of banks and large national and international companies and feel that they have absolutely no voice.

In my particular business we were recovering after the crunch right up until the election, when the 'blame Brown/Balls' message first began to play, and since then it has been downhill all of the way. Running down the economy as an election tactic followed up by Gidiot’s austerity TINA is driving many small businesses into the ground. I'm sure that Cameron considers an SME to be one with a turnover of £100 million or so and that anything less than that isn't worth even thinking about, but we do contribute, employ and create wealth. Cameron is the enemy of small enterprise and far more tribal than those who he attacks.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/feb/23/davidcameron-prince-charles?#post-area

Ivan
There is a small band of small businessmen who do not support them...however,...the right wing run the small business group who think they speak for everyone..they do not...however, the media only report what they say.. all this is quite wrong

The majority of the workforce is employed by SMEs. Statistics for 2008 published by the BIS (previously BERR) Small Business Service (SBS) Statistics Unit show that out of 4.8 million businesses in the UK, 99.9% were SMEs (Small and Medium Sized Enterprise Statistics for the UK and Regions 2008, published 14th October 2009)
Despite governments and many of the multinational organisations targeting this group for special financial business support, there is no single definition for a SME either nationally or internationally.

In the UK, sections 382 and 465 of the Companies Act 2006 define a SME for the purpose of accounting requirements. According to this a small company is one that has a turnover of not more than £6.5 million, a balance sheet total of not more than £3.26 million and not more than 50 employees.



http://www.lib.strath.ac.uk/busweb/guides/smedefine.htm

oftenwrong wrote:
The majority of the workforce is employed by SMEs. Statistics for 2008 published by the BIS (previously BERR) Small Business Service (SBS) Statistics Unit show that out of 4.8 million businesses in the UK, 99.9% were SMEs (Small and Medium Sized Enterprise Statistics for the UK and Regions 2008, published 14th October 2009)
Despite governments and many of the multinational organisations targeting this group for special financial business support, there is no single definition for a SME either nationally or internationally.

In the UK, sections 382 and 465 of the Companies Act 2006 define a SME for the purpose of accounting requirements. According to this a small company is one that has a turnover of not more than £6.5 million, a balance sheet total of not more than £3.26 million and not more than 50 employees.



http://www.lib.strath.ac.uk/busweb/guides/smedefine.htm

Quite a fair summary ofenwrong

If someone has brought this up I apologise. Can't see anything on the threads.

While in the supermarket I took a shufty at the papers, to save buying one. According to one paper the EU monetary fund has given a multimillion aid package to Argentina. Our, UK, contribution to the fund £27m. To be used for invasion of the Falklands? Are we nuts.

trevorw2539 wrote:If someone has brought this up I apologise. Can't see anything on the threads.

While in the supermarket I took a shufty at the papers, to save buying one. According to one paper the EU monetary fund has given a multimillion aid package to Argentina. Our, UK, contribution to the fund £27m. To be used for invasion of the Falklands? Are we nuts.

I amend the above final sentence to 'We are nuts '

Mr Cameron is currently in Brussels talking ( or is that "lecturing" ) the EU how Europe must sweep away business regulations, of course as we all know the economies of northern Europe are all doing significantly better than the UK, no wonder that leaders such as Merkel laugh at Cameron behind his back.

What Cameron and the Tories are aiming for is to drive economic growth by forcing down wages, doing away with minimum rights, forcing young people into working for next to nothing, thereby driving up profits.

But Angela Merkel represents a completely different kind of Conservative politics that Cameron represents, the CDU Party in Germany are as proud of decent working conditions as they are of been business friendly, I am afraid that Angela Merkel will go down as a great stateswoman, and Cameron will be known for been the odd man out, the joke of Europe, eventualy to be gone and forgotten.

trevorw2539 wrote:

trevorw2539 wrote:If someone has brought this up I apologise. Can't see anything on the threads.

While in the supermarket I took a shufty at the papers, to save buying one. According to one paper the EU monetary fund has given a multimillion aid package to Argentina. Our, UK, contribution to the fund £27m. To be used for invasion of the Falklands? Are we nuts.

I amend the above final sentence to 'We are nuts '

ARGENTINA

Are we nuts? Well too many outside the UK and even inside it would sound like utter madness. However, we should first of all remember the Falklands is more of a political issue and not a economic trade issue...The UK is the sixth largest investor in Argentina, investing over US $2 billion in the last three years.
Argentina offers a wide range of business opportunities and has a large industrial base that has been favoured in recent years by a favourable exchange rate and other measures. This means that although opportunities abound, they will be in different niches and subsectors and not all across the board.

Argentine exports to the UK totalled $805 million dollars, while imports reached $655 million dollars with a surplus for Argentina of $150 million dollars. These markets together with the UK represented 9 billion dollars in Argentine exports in 2011. Last year Argentina had an overall trade surplus of $10.347 billion dollars compared to $11.632 billion in 2010. The UK ranks as the seventeenth supplier, in value, to Argentina and figures in position 26 regarding Argentine exports.
The main Argentine exports to the UK are soy oil, soy flour, wine, corn, oil pipes, some chemical products and peanuts. Among UK corporations operating in Argentina directly or through associates figure Shell, BP, Cadbury, Sweppes, Diageo, Nobleza Piccardo and HSBC among others.

i think this shows you mate how important Argentina's UK trade is with each other...The UK is held back over the political question that hangs over the whole question of the Falkland's.....as the main real issue is the whole question of Oil and Gas rights....as both Argentina and the UK would like these revenues.

So where are we?
Well Argentina would lose a great deal of very valuable GDP revenues if it was to attack the UK...However, Argentina's political leadership has to be seen as fighting for the Falklands...but in reality its not realistic...its my best guess that this has blown up over Shell finding a new Gas field down there...quite up-setting if you happen to be an Argentina political leader. what is a great shame is that both countries cannot come to some agreement over the development of these Gas and Oil fields together? but in saying this..you need to remember that for the Tory party the Falkland bring back magical memorise of the past...When what is needed is the two countries working together for the benefit of both our economies. yet this would require a sea change in both side attitudes over the question of the Falklands islands themselves...in the mean time both countries will go on trading at not there full level...

Hope this answer your question mate...if not ask me..as its nice to write about something without taking a side on it...

witchfinder wrote:Mr Cameron is currently in Brussels talking ( or is that "lecturing" ) the EU how Europe must sweep away business regulations, of course as we all know the economies of northern Europe are all doing significantly better than the UK, no wonder that leaders such as Merkel laugh at Cameron behind his back.

What Cameron and the Tories are aiming for is to drive economic growth by forcing down wages, doing away with minimum rights, forcing young people into working for next to nothing, thereby driving up profits.

But Angela Merkel represents a completely different kind of Conservative politics that Cameron represents, the CDU Party in Germany are as proud of decent working conditions as they are of been business friendly, I am afraid that Angela Merkel will go down as a great stateswoman, and Cameron will be known for been the odd man out, the joke of Europe, eventualy to be gone and forgotten.

Hello Witchy
I cannot agree more with you...its quite amazing that he should be telling the rest of the EU what is good for there economies while having his own economy failing so very bad...as none of his very own OBR data shows his banal government policy is in fact working. still what it does show us all, is how moronic he is as a PM. i Think they must just all sit around the table a laugh at what he is saying...

At least there is no room for doubt as to which side of the Employer/Employee relationship carries more weight with a Tory-led Coalition.

Stox 16. Thanks for your reply. I didn't know the figures you quote though I knew the general situation. My point was why do we/EU need to give them aid?

trevorw2539 wrote:Stox 16. Thanks for your reply. I didn't know the figures you quote though I knew the general situation. My point was why do we/EU need to give them aid?

As I understand it it all part of the UK's £50million European Union assistance package that Cameron agree with the IMF. British taxpayers are also contributing £20million to a £450million loan from the International Monetary Fund. EU foreign affairs supremo Baroness Ashton attempted to defend the aid to Argentina, saying the schemes were trying to support education and “people at the poorest end of the spectrum”.

The EU aid spending programme however is running from 2007 to 2013 while the IMF loan scheme has been operating for the last 12 years. These sorts of economic education support deals are quite common. not that I am a big fan of them at all.

Stox 16 wrote:

trevorw2539 wrote:Stox 16. Thanks for your reply. I didn't know the figures you quote though I knew the general situation. My point was why do we/EU need to give them aid?

As I understand it it all part of the UK's £50million European Union assistance package that Cameron agree with the IMF. British taxpayers are also contributing £20million to a £450million loan from the International Monetary Fund. EU foreign affairs supremo Baroness Ashton attempted to defend the aid to Argentina, saying the schemes were trying to support education and “people at the poorest end of the spectrum”.

The EU aid spending programme however is running from 2007 to 2013 while the IMF loan scheme has been operating for the last 12 years. These sorts of economic education support deals are quite common. not that I am a big fan of them at all.

I am happy with food aid for those who are starving. Most of Somalia is a mess, but it's not the fault of the women and children who are displaced, hungry and dying. Other places in North Africa and Asia who are genuinely in need too.

There's a passage in the Bible which gives instructions for charity. I will not quote it to keep religion out of it. In modern parlance it translates 'what goes round, comes round'. We reap what we sow. And that applies to whether we 'give' evil or good.

We are all human beings. We give, not in order to receive, but relieve suffering.

Back to the UK situation.

Cameron take note. You're acting like an elephant. Standing firm, not giving. Remember elephants have big ears. Get them flapping and listen, or we'll pack your trunks for you.

trevorw2539 wrote:

Stox 16 wrote:

trevorw2539 wrote:Stox 16. Thanks for your reply. I didn't know the figures you quote though I knew the general situation. My point was why do we/EU need to give them aid?

As I understand it it all part of the UK's £50million European Union assistance package that Cameron agree with the IMF. British taxpayers are also contributing £20million to a £450million loan from the International Monetary Fund. EU foreign affairs supremo Baroness Ashton attempted to defend the aid to Argentina, saying the schemes were trying to support education and “people at the poorest end of the spectrum”.

The EU aid spending programme however is running from 2007 to 2013 while the IMF loan scheme has been operating for the last 12 years. These sorts of economic education support deals are quite common. not that I am a big fan of them at all.

I am happy with food aid for those who are starving. Most of Somalia is a mess, but it's not the fault of the women and children who are displaced, hungry and dying. Other places in North Africa and Asia who are genuinely in need too.

There's a passage in the Bible which gives instructions for charity. I will not quote it to keep religion out of it. In modern parlance it translates 'what goes round, comes round'. We reap what we sow. And that applies to whether we 'give' evil or good.

We are all human beings. We give, not in order to receive, but relieve suffering.

Back to the UK situation.

Cameron take note. You're acting like an elephant. Standing firm, not giving. Remember elephants have big ears. Get them flapping and listen, or we'll pack your trunks for you.

cannot agree more with you...very well put

So, record petrol and diesel prices. Nothing to do with the Tories - it's all about world raw material prices , it seems.

Then there's the financial crisis. Nothing to do wth the Tories - it's a global problem, apparently.

How strange, then, that when the last government was in power both these critical issues were firmly put at their door by Cameron and his compliant media poodles. No suggestion at that stage that the problems could be due to external influences. Does anyone know why this should be...?