"The Conservatives will cut everything, Labour will invest...''

[Каие]

NHS 'faces huge budget shortfall'


....and who's passing the NHS cuts? Labour.



http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehou...cent-cut.thtml

All hidden away in the budget.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehou...e-budget.thtml



...and who's spending more on the NHS? Tories.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8091427.stm

Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said: "We are committed to real terms increases in spending on the NHS because as our population ages demand will increase. "But if we are going to improve the quality of healthcare in this country we will need to make substantial improvements using current resources. The idea of getting more for less must apply in the NHS just as in any other public service."

Some hard Tories are not happy.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/th...th-policy.html

Liars. They just can't stop lying. Liebour and B.liar never went away. It is still the party made up entirely of liars. At least Tebitt in 1980's has no problem admitting that unemployment was a temporary necessary side effect of liberalisation.

Labour keeps saying; "We will invest, Tories will cut"
The truth is; "We will cut, Tories will invest and cut waste (which Labour considers 'vital') "

Every other country is cutting waste and luxuries, except Labour. They cut front-line services, then hide it. They can't spend properly, and they can't cut properly. Their bastard plan was to cut front-line services in time for the Tories to get in, being stuck with them, and then blame the Tories for it all. Like the 1981 recession.

Fact is I support cuts. Read this book "SQUANDERED by David Craig" to see exactly how an increase in spending, tripled from 200 billion to 600 billion has not helped any area of government. In 1997 Labour said government must understand that spending a lot more does not mean better services and better results, yet they did just that, and the services are not better. The solutions are qualitative not quantitative.

So enough of the; ''Labour will invest and they are helping us through the economic crisis, while the Tories would cut vital services and ''do nothing''. Labour is not investing it's irresponsibly cutting as it irresponsibly spent, they are not helping anyone, they are sitting tight hoping it will be over in 2010 or hoping to leave the Tories with the worst of it in 2010. And now they want to change the voting system so the Tories can never win again.

[justicar5]

NHS 'faces huge budget shortfall'


....and who's passing the NHS cuts? Labour.



http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehou...cent-cut.thtml

All hidden away in the budget.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehou...e-budget.thtml



...and who's spending more on the NHS? Tories.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8091427.stm



Some hard Tories are not happy.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/th...th-policy.html

Liars. They just can't stop lying. Liebour and B.liar never went away. It is still the party made up entirely of liars. At least Tebitt in 1980's has no problem admitting that unemployment was a temporary necessary side effect of liberalisation.

Labour keeps saying; "We will invest, Tories will cut"
The truth is; "We will cut, Tories will invest and cut waste (which Labour considers 'vital') "

Every other country is cutting waste and luxuries, except Labour. They cut front-line services, then hide it. They can't spend properly, and they can't cut properly. Their bastard plan was to cut front-line services in time for the Tories to get in, being stuck with them, and then blame the Tories for it all. Like the 1981 recession.

Fact is I support cuts. Read this book "SQUANDERED by David Craig" to see exactly how an increase in spending, tripled from 200 billion to 600 billion has not helped any area of government. In 1997 Labour said government must understand that spending a lot more does not mean better services and better results, yet they did just that, and the services are not better. The solutions are qualitative not quantitative.

So enough of the; ''Labour will invest and they are helping us through the economic crisis, while the Tories would cut vital services and ''do nothing''. Labour is not investing it's irresponsibly cutting as it irresponsibly spent, they are not helping anyone, they are sitting tight hoping it will be over in 2010 or hoping to leave the Tories with the worst of it in 2010. And now they want to change the voting system so the Tories can never win again.

news flash, the conservatives would have won under PR, if the votes in the EU election are a reflection of actual support.

[Каие]

I like ho you ignored the entire subject of the thread and focused instead on the off hand remark I made at the end. I guess you have no answer to the above.

[justicar5]

I like ho you ignored the entire subject of the thread and focused instead on the off hand remark I made at the end. I guess you have no answer to the above.

New Labour aren't socialist anymore, how is that new, they are infact to the right of where the tories where in the 1970's. Thats why I want PR, maybe then we will get parties with actually differences in policy, rather than in style.

[Каие]

So are the Liberals.

[justicar5]

So are the Liberals.

yes they are, which is a pity, but at least they are pro-EU and anti-authoritarian (sp?)

[Каие]

Aye, subjectivity is a fantastic thing right?

[justicar5]

Aye, subjectivity is a fantastic thing right?

meaning?

[Каие]

All the main three parties are pro-EU.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

The only lie I see here is the beleif that a welfare state can be maintained imdefinitely by making marginal adjustments.

[Каие]

Your theory has been proved wrong by 99 years now.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Your theory has been proved wrong by 99 years now.

How's that budget deficit looking?


99 years ago England was the most powerful nation on Earth commanding the world's trade routes. The welfare state has slowly whittled away everything. It has gotten so bad that generation yet unborn will come into this world owing the debt of multiple generations.

[Каие]

Oh goody, the worst argument ever. Lets see;

1. there was never any budget deficits before 1911 and the beginning of the welfare state?
2. there was never a surplus after 1911?

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Oh goody, the worst argument ever. Lets see;

1. there was never any budget deficits before 1911 and the beginning of the welfare state?
2. there was never a surplus after 1911?

You would have to be a simpleton not to recognize that Great Britain is trading away everything to hold onto its welfare state. It isn't alone of course, most every other welfare is traveling the same path.

[Каие]

Why did you bring up the deficit as your point, when you couldn;t answer the follow ups? What has a deficit got to do with the ''welfare state''? Whatever that is.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Why did you bring up the deficit as your point, when you couldn;t answer the follow ups? What has a deficit got to do with the ''welfare state''? Whatever that is.

Here I was almost ready to beleive you had a shread of intelligence, but here you go playiong dumb as fish in pretending there in no connection between welfare spending and ongoing deficits. You even play dumb on what a welfare state is, when your country practically invented!

But here is a primer for you,

A welfare state is a state that guarantees its citizens with a minimum standard of living through any number of machinations. It should be no suprise than that a welfare state spends a considerable proportion of its budget on meeting that promise.

A deficit is when a person or institution spends more than the revenue he takes in over a given persion of time (usually a year) and must borrow to make up the difference. Now we all know that deficit years have become the norm surplus years the exception, and certainly the suplus years have not been so frutiful as to cover all the cumulative deficits (known as debts)

Now when you combine these two incontrovertible facts, welfare spending in a welfare state accounts for a substantial portion of the budget, and regular deficits are ever building he debt, you must conclude that welfare spending is responsible for the debt in its fair proportion to all other spending.

[justicar5]

Here I was almost ready to beleive you had a shread of intelligence, but here you go playiong dumb as fish in pretending there in no connection between welfare spending and ongoing deficits. You even play dumb on what a welfare state is, when your country practically invented!

But here is a primer for you,

A welfare state is a state that guarantees its citizens with a minimum standard of living through any number of machinations. It should be no suprise than that a welfare state spends a considerable proportion of its budget on meeting that promise.

A deficit is when a person or institution spends more than the revenue he takes in over a given persion of time (usually a year) and must borrow to make up the difference. Now we all know that deficit years have become the norm surplus years the exception, and certainly the suplus years have not been so frutiful as to cover all the cumulative deficits (known as debts)

Now when you combine these two incontrovertible facts, welfare spending in a welfare state accounts for a substantial portion of the budget, and regular deficits are ever building he debt, you must conclude that welfare spending is responsible for the debt in its fair proportion to all other spending.

you actually didn't answer the questions then. Nor did you address the point that welfare had sod all to do with the loss of empire.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

you actually didn't answer the questions then. Nor did you address the point that welfare had sod all to do with the loss of empire.

The answers to the questions are obvious, yes there were deficits in the past, and their have relatively recent surplus. Those questions and answers of course hide the truth, that welfare spending is drowning out all other concerns, even the concern for the future.

I say Britain traded everything away because that is exactly what it did, faced with the massive problem of trying to hold together the empire after WW2, it said collectively said "screw it" and went off to concentrate on its welfare programs. It was a choice, empire or welfare, it chose welfare. That is obviously a simplification, but one that does not miss the mark in the grand scheme. Fast forward 60 years and Britain is in the same situation. It has to choose between remaining a welfare state that is eating up all of its resources that will impoverishing the country or to seriously curb it to maintain prosperity.

[justicar5]

The answers to the questions are obvious, yes there were deficits in the past, and their have relatively recent surplus. Those questions and answers of course hide the truth, that welfare spending is drowning out all other concerns, even the concern for the future.

I say Britain traded everything away because that is exactly what it did, faced with the massive problem of trying to hold together the empire after WW2, it said collectively said "screw it" and went off to concentrate on its welfare programs. It was a choice, empire or welfare, it chose welfare. That is obviously a simplification, but one that does not miss the mark in the grand scheme. Fast forward 60 years and Britain is in the same situation. It has to choose between remaining a welfare state that is eating up all of its resources that will impoverishing the country or to seriously curb it to maintain prosperity.

because not having an NHS would have magically conjured up an army powerful enough to hold the empire..... out of a nation that had been devestated by war.

The NHS was born out of necessity, that necessity being the Blitz and the need to treat military wounded.

National insurance was born out of the Boar war, when a large percentage of military recruits where to unhealthy to serve, they had work, but it paid so little that they where starving to death, they did not have enough income to maintain 'physical effeciency' meaning that even if they did nothing but buy food they would still have been malnourished. That was what Laisse faire got us, a malnourished and impoverished population. Also look at how much the US health system costs per head of population, then look at the NHS (hint the NHS is cheaper). and BTW the US is currently getting handed it's arse by 'welfare states' when it comes to growth, so that really can't be it.

[Thorn777]

@The Devil's Sergeant

First off, I don't even know why it would be desirable to maintain a world-wide empire? Is it a TWC:ETW thing?

Here I was almost ready to beleive you had a shread of intelligence, but here you go playiong dumb as fish in pretending there in no connection between welfare spending and ongoing deficits.

Of course the welfare-state costs are responsible for a huge part of the budget-expenditures, in Germany it even extends around 3/4 of the budget(most of it to pay pensions).

You even play dumb on what a welfare state is, when your country practically invented!

Guess you forgot about Bismarck, although indeed GB did good by introducing improved living-conditions for the ones working their asses of in the factory's etc and then later Manchester-capitalism.

But here is a primer for you,

A welfare state is a state that guarantees its citizens with a minimum standard of living through any number of machinations. It should be no suprise than that a welfare state spends a considerable proportion of its budget on meeting that promise.

Correct, good thang it is.

A deficit is when a person or institution spends more than the revenue he takes in over a given persion of time (usually a year) and must borrow to make up the difference. Now we all know that deficit years have become the norm surplus years the exception, and certainly the suplus years have not been so frutiful as to cover all the cumulative deficits (known as debts)

It boggles my mind how you strictly connect welfare-expenditures to debts.

For one, these expenditures enable a huge amount of profitable side-effects, like consumer-spending, education, low crime-rates, healthy populations etc etc.
Two, In Germany(a welfare state I know all about), our taxes are on most areas even lower or practically equal compared to the ones in the US. Then taxes like the heritage-tax are not even taken serious over here, as well as the non-existence of share-trading taxations. In other words: we have all the means to raise our budgets as we could easily level the playing-field if necessary.
Three, the US isn't exactly a role-model when it comes down to raising surpluses.

Now when you combine these two incontrovertible facts, welfare spending in a welfare state accounts for a substantial portion of the budget, and regular deficits are ever building he debt, you must conclude that welfare spending is responsible for the debt in its fair proportion to all other spending.

So are military expenses in the US. Id rather have my tax-money spend on a welfare-state, then on maintaining a world-wide empire quite clearly.

btw. As I mentioned before, the pension payments for the baby-booming generations with their high-wages takes up the highest share of the social-budget, and is causing the deficits as the balance is lost with the changing demographics. Its not at all about the ongoing maintenance of the minimum standard of living.

This is indeed a problem, but the babyboomer demographic are a powerful one not ready to chip in for the sake of the younger generations to come. They do though have a good argument in saying they payed allot of taxes back then to insure their pensions now, and they are backed by the conservative party's insuring their interests, who then of course have a huge voters-pool with their elderly clientèle.

In the end it certainly can not be said that a welfare-state is per definition one of deficits. It all comes down to checks and balances in a solidar-society.