Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[dynamark]

First topic message reminder :

I think its a done deal -no doubt he will be sat with the owner tonight
Villa should be a big big club remember going to cup semis there but probably need an owner willing to throw in some quick money .
No messing around in football these days from any of the owners.

[beninho]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

[Diggers]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

Especially when you back that up with:
Nigel Farage
Rees Mogg
Bozza Johnson
Michael Gove
Andrea Ledson (she is one scary lady)

[dynamark]

Ha- Digs hell will freeze over before I vote for JC-believe me.Id rather stick pins in my eyes.Im no great fan of any of our MPs .Ive seen the likes locally of the odious Keith Vaz and David Tredennick in action but there are some well intentioned and very hardworking MPs.Ive always managed somehow to exist and do Ok under any government and I happen to think we should all be taking much more individual responsibility for our health and welfare,childrens upbringing(you must think at times I'm doing what the parents should be doing)neighbours elderly folk etc.The opportunity is there.Farage no but give the guy a bit of credit for commitment.
Mac Id just like to get brexit done no deal if the MPs cannot bring themselves to find a way and then they can get back to the other important stuff
Anyway weekend back to some footy at the KP(free beers for the late owners birthday)and a super day for it or golf if you can.Bit more daylight sunday onwards.

[beninho]

When looking at tge likely next pm, im scared that Gove, is probably the best option! Knowing Rudd won't get it.

Anyway..settling on Troon again in August, with hopes of turnberry. I have a few months to practice ( I probably wont) because troon chewed me up and spat me out 2 years ago!

[Diggers]

I think a lot of MP's get a hard time, Dyna, there are some really good ones out there. Sadly ours is a useless, pompous oaf with a voting record that would make Ghengis Khan look like a Liberal. I do want people to take responsibility for themselves, however the state can't completely abdicate responsibility for creating environments. We saw this week more children are falling into the poverty levels, that the gap between the rich and poor is ever increasing. For the first time we are seeing age expectancy gaps grow significantly between the rich and the poor, in particular women not living as long.
Of course people have a huge role to play, but we can try and ensure that we at least try and create a level playing field, it just doesn't exist and the people who really need support (not scroungers, just people who are having a hard time of are being affected by circumstances) are not getting the help they need. Great people in the community, who try and help and actively work to make life better, need state support for their projects. And these outrech projects work, there is data from all over the world to prove it.
It's not that I don't feel people should help themselves, of course I do, but I strongly believe this government (lets remember austerity is a policy) could do so much more.
And if you tell me they can't, we can't afford it, then where did the money to bribe the DUP come from? Where has the 4.2 billion to fund leave come from? Where did they find the additional funds for Universal Credit when even the Tory backbenchers were screaming it was not sufficiently funded? There is a money tree somewhere, that's for sure.

[Diggers]

Extra time, Kwini. Exactly what neither of us wanted!

[Diggers]

Good game, right side coming out on top though not slot in it, which is as you’d expect. From 85000 at Wembley (both clubs should be proud of that and the great atmosphere) to around 6000 at Accrington!

[kwinigolfer]

Now for promotion, but nice to have an appetiser. Sounds like a great occasion.

[super_realist]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

Especially when you back that up with:
Nigel Farage
Rees Mogg
Bozza Johnson
Michael Gove
Andrea Ledson (she is one scary lady)

or Jeremy Corbyn before his party reigned him in.

And if you tell me they can't, we can't afford it, then where did the money to bribe the DUP come from? Where has the 4.2 billion to fund leave come from? Where did they find the additional funds

Funny how you didn't ask where Corbyn was going to get his 500bn for his promises in the last election.

[dynamark]

Suoer you must have missed it -at the weekend Robinson announced they were going to get the money out of the post office !!
So that's all sorted then

[dynamark]

dooh John McDonald that was of course.

[Diggers]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

Especially when you back that up with:
Nigel Farage
Rees Mogg
Bozza Johnson
Michael Gove
Andrea Ledson (she is one scary lady)

or Jeremy Corbyn before his party reigned him in.

And if you tell me they can't, we can't afford it, then where did the money to bribe the DUP come from? Where has the 4.2 billion to fund leave come from? Where did they find the additional funds

Funny how you didn't ask where Corbyn was going to get his 500bn for his promises in the last election.

No, I didn't ask because it was laid out, through higher corporation tax, in their manifesto.
As usual you are a bit confused, so here goes.
Tories said there was .....no.....money.... to spend...none...no money tree...then found some ....money...lots of it... (so...money...existed). Understand so far?
Labour said...want to spend money....so will tax to find money...to spend (though apparently as Tories have proved the money as there all along!!!!)
Is that clear enough? I've made it as easy as possible to see the difference so fingers crossed.

[Diggers]

Suoer you must have missed it -at the weekend Robinson announced they were going to get the money out of the post office !!
So that's all sorted then

??? They suggested using the Post Office as a means to allow people access to non digital banking and help keep a bit of life in the High Street.
They've also suggested that flogging off state owned banks when they become profitable might not bet he brightest idea. I suppose there is no logic in that either?

[dynamark]

Digs you are consistent if nothing else .
that's what post offices do the NatWest in my village closed because they had very little revenue from daily customers( my pal was manager) and the post office get that cash in/out business.He is well happy as he provides a range of other goods and services and gets the extra footfall.Not sure about the life in high street which needs to accept changes are happening cannot remember the last time I walked down what may be considered a high street.
JM has some hair brained idea about a national investment bank(based in the post office?) to buy back all the badly run stuff that was privatised and pay the bill out of the profits?
Selling off the state owned bits of banks that are still owned public is to my mind the way to get back the money 'we' put in which seems perfectly reasonable.
Wider subject if we continue to mess about and delay for years an early election may well be on the charge sheet for this bunch of timewasters( who are refusing to accept the will of the people) and then we will see what the people really want and hopefully elect some solid MPs

[Diggers]

Digs you are consistent if nothing else .
that's what post offices do the NatWest in my village closed because they had very little revenue from daily customers( my pal was manager) and the post office get that cash in/out business.He is well happy as he provides a range of other goods and services and gets  the extra footfall.Not sure about the life in  high street which needs to accept changes are happening cannot remember the last time I walked down what may be considered a high street.
JM has some hair brained idea about a national investment bank(based in the post office?) to buy back all the badly run stuff that was privatised and pay the bill out of the profits?
Selling off the state owned bits of banks that are still owned public is to my mind the way to get back the money 'we' put in which seems perfectly reasonable.  
Wider subject if we continue to mess about and delay for years an early election may well be on the charge sheet for this bunch of timewasters( who are refusing to accept the will of the people)  and then we will see what the people really want and hopefully elect some solid MPs

So we bail out a bank, because it was massively mismanaged. It starts to turn a profit, so we can make a return on an investment that kept the bank afloat, we then choose to sell that profitable capital back to the private sector. How does that make sense?
What is the exact will of the people? I don't know. I don't think you do either. Of the leavers I have spoken to I have seen massive disagreements. Some want no deal, some want May's deal, some want a softer Brexit and some want to change their minds. And that's just the people who voted leave then.
Why do you think we end up with lots of different people standing? I'd say by and large you'll get the same MP's running again. Unless you think we will suddenly have a rush to vote in UKIPers, heaven help us, we've seen their true rabid racist colours in the past few months. Plus they have to agree what they are running for...which goes back to my previous paragraph. What do they put on their manifesto, especially the Tories. Not had an answer to that question yet.

[McLaren]

Super

Like football, you don't need to put on an act that you understand politics. Diggers is schooling you here and it would be wise for you to listen.

[navyblueshorts]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

Especially when you back that up with:
Nigel Farage
Rees Mogg
Bozza Johnson
Michael Gove
Andrea Ledson (she is one scary lady)

or Jeremy Corbyn before his party reigned him in.

And if you tell me they can't, we can't afford it, then where did the money to bribe the DUP come from? Where has the 4.2 billion to fund leave come from? Where did they find the additional funds

Funny how you didn't ask where Corbyn was going to get his 500bn for his promises in the last election.

No, I didn't ask because it was laid out, through higher corporation tax, in their manifesto.
As usual you are a bit confused, so here goes.
Tories said there was .....no.....money.... to spend...none...no money tree...then found some ....money...lots of it... (so...money...existed). Understand so far?
Labour said...want to spend money....so will tax to find money...to spend (though apparently as Tories have proved the money as there all along!!!!)
Is that clear enough? I've made it as easy as possible to see the difference so fingers crossed.

You two need to get a room. Try to stick to debating the points, not the person. Yes, I know I'm guilty of this too often too!

As to your Tory/Labour points Digs, perhaps the Tories, you know, borrowed it? As Nation states can get away with. I'm not sure that extending our national credit debt is better/worse than crippling the Country in some sort of Marixst Utopia. Both probably suck.

[Eyetoldyouso]

"No, I didn't ask because it was laid out, through higher corporation tax, in their manifesto."
You seem to be confused, so here goes.

2017-18 - total HMRC receipts for Corporate Taxes (incl Bank Levy, Petroleum Revenue Tax) about £54 billion

2017-18 - Total HMRC receipts £544 billion

I haven't had the benefit of reading Labour's manifesto so perhaps you can tell me, where is Labour going to get another £500billion?

[Diggers]

"No, I didn't ask because it was laid out, through higher corporation tax, in their manifesto."
You seem to be confused, so here goes.

2017-18 - total HMRC receipts for Corporate Taxes (incl Bank Levy, Petroleum Revenue Tax) about £54 billion

2017-18 - Total HMRC receipts £544 billion

I haven't had the benefit of reading Labour's manifesto so perhaps you can tell me, where is Labour going to get another £500billion?

Why don't you have that benefit then, it was a fully costed manifesto.
The point being, again, Labour is not guilty of saying it won't spend money (you can argue it doesn't have the ability to produce the money). Whereas the Conservatives chose austerity as a policy claiming they had no money. They have backtracked on this so many times, it's pretty hard to believe any of it.

[Diggers]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

Especially when you back that up with:
Nigel Farage
Rees Mogg
Bozza Johnson
Michael Gove
Andrea Ledson (she is one scary lady)

or Jeremy Corbyn before his party reigned him in.

And if you tell me they can't, we can't afford it, then where did the money to bribe the DUP come from? Where has the 4.2 billion to fund leave come from? Where did they find the additional funds

Funny how you didn't ask where Corbyn was going to get his 500bn for his promises in the last election.

No, I didn't ask because it was laid out, through higher corporation tax, in their manifesto.
As usual you are a bit confused, so here goes.
Tories said there was .....no.....money.... to spend...none...no money tree...then found some ....money...lots of it... (so...money...existed). Understand so far?
Labour said...want to spend money....so will tax to find money...to spend (though apparently as Tories have proved the money as there all along!!!!)
Is that clear enough? I've made it as easy as possible to see the difference so fingers crossed.

You two need to get a room. Try to stick to debating the points, not the person. Yes, I know I'm guilty of this too often too!

As to your Tory/Labour points Digs, perhaps the Tories, you know, borrowed it? As Nation states can get away with. I'm not sure that extending our national credit debt is better/worse than crippling the Country in some sort of Marixst Utopia. Both probably suck.

Fine, borrowing is fine...though that of course breaks their manifesto pledge to reduce borrowing. So, apparently you can then pick your manifesto pledges to break, if that's the case then they can stop bleating on about having to honour their Bexit manifesto pledge.

[JAS]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

Especially when you back that up with:
Nigel Farage
Rees Mogg
Bozza Johnson
Michael Gove
Andrea Ledson (she is one scary lady)

or Jeremy Corbyn before his party reigned him in.

And if you tell me they can't, we can't afford it, then where did the money to bribe the DUP come from? Where has the 4.2 billion to fund leave come from? Where did they find the additional funds

Funny how you didn't ask where Corbyn was going to get his 500bn for his promises in the last election.

No, I didn't ask because it was laid out, through higher corporation tax, in their manifesto.
As usual you are a bit confused, so here goes.
Tories said there was .....no.....money.... to spend...none...no money tree...then found some ....money...lots of it... (so...money...existed). Understand so far?
Labour said...want to spend money....so will tax to find money...to spend (though apparently as Tories have proved the money as there all along!!!!)
Is that clear enough? I've made it as easy as possible to see the difference so fingers crossed.

You two need to get a room. Try to stick to debating the points, not the person. Yes, I know I'm guilty of this too often too!

As to your Tory/Labour points Digs, perhaps the Tories, you know, borrowed it? As Nation states can get away with. I'm not sure that extending our national credit debt is better/worse than crippling the Country in some sort of Marixst Utopia. Both probably suck.

I think the point Digs was trying to make Navy is that on the one hand they say “ there is no magic money tree” but then they DO pull fruit from that same magic money tree (that doesn’t exist) for their own ends when it suits them. Tories in lies/deception shock, who’ da thunk it??

Correct me if I’m wrong but in the FIAT monetary system that we have both banks and governments can “create” money. What do we think Quantatative easing is? Of course the downside is, create too much and you risk devaluing the currency.

Unfortunately, the banks can also “create” money by issuing loans and extending credit and therein lies the fatal flaw in Thatcher/Reagan free market basket case economics. You open the hen house door and let the foxes in, it’s never going to end well. Despite the 2008 crash there are still no governmental controls on banks issuing money, in other words banks ruin, Sorry run the world economy. Despite being on their knees in 2008 we helped them on their feet and gave them their sticks back to beat us with.

As far as eye’s point goes, and the £500bn gap. There’s no doubt some of that would have to come from borrowing, however if you’re borrowing to rebuild then when you rebuild and your economy recovers guess what, your tax receipts go up. Additionally, the comparison you missed was corporation tax receipts received Vs corporation tax receipts due. All this domiciled in Luxembourg/Panama/Cayman Islands Poopie has to stop. If ordinary Joe public can’t do it then neither should anybody else. THOSE are the Effing traitors to this country, not some guy in a dodgy raincoat who had words with Sinn Fein 30 odd years ago.

[dynamark]

Ofcom has received 2000 plus complaints about Jon Snows 'so many white people' comment the other night which it should.That will haunt him - the standard of questioning/interrupting on C4news is pretty poor frankly.
Digs I wouldnt expect a load of new MPs in a fresh election what I would expect is a bunch who understood what their remit was.Im not looking for an election I'm wanting the HOC to get on with a brexit as instructed by referendum but just got the feeling that s where we may end up.
We bailed out the banks to prevent a complete collapse in our financial system and they should be generally in the private sector IMO.

[Diggers]

Ofcom has received 2000 plus complaints about Jon Snows 'so many white people' comment the other night which it should.That will haunt him - the standard of questioning/interrupting on C4news is pretty poor frankly.
Digs I wouldnt expect a load of new MPs in a fresh election what I would expect is a bunch who understood what their remit was.Im not looking for an election I'm wanting the HOC to get on with a brexit as instructed by referendum but just got the feeling that s where we may end up.
We bailed out the banks to prevent a complete collapse in our financial system and they should be generally in the private sector IMO.

You are the only person I know who’s even noticed the Snow comment, Dyna. Surprised 2000 people watch C4 news, as you say, pretty poor in general.
Can’t really argue re the bank logic, if we sell off profitable shares to satisfy capitalist sensibilities, then that pretty well sums up pure capitalism for me.
Still seem very evasive on what the peoples will is. You haven’t got a cat in hells chance of a Tory party running on a no deal election promise, thank god. If I was you I’d be hoping for a soft Brexit option that might just get through, or risk it never happening. Not often I’m in line with the views of the main Tory whip, but it’s been obvious May’s red lines have been the main stumbling block throughout this whole process.

[super_realist]

Super

Like football, you don't need to put on an act that you understand politics.  Diggers is schooling you here and it would be wise for you to listen.

Diggers isn't schooling anyone Mac. I'm pointing out his double standard. It's fine to have a go at the Tories, they're doing a terrible job, but to completely ignore the laughable witterings of the Labour party to provide a viable alternative government is the shocking bit.

As has just been pointed out, Diggers thinks you can raise 500bn through higher corporation tax. That's Dianne Abbott type accounting and deserves as much ridicule, if not more than what the worthless turd Abbott would come out with. Raising another 500bn on top of the 500bn raised through taxation is absolutely effing hilarious. What company is going to hang around if they corporation goes up 100%? None. Companies already leave the UK for far more minor reasons than this. There will be a brain drain too if you put the taxes up of people, but then again Diggers has also claimed that Labour are NOT the party of high taxes. Well you can't have it both ways Diggers, if you've got 500bn in your spending, you can't borrow that much, you'll have to tax for it.

Labour clearly haven't costed this in the slightest, like they are keen on doing, they've just plucked a figure out of the air, safe in the knowledge that as a Marxist led party they don't stand a chance of getting in, even against the worst Tory government in living memory.

[super_realist]

Suoer you must have missed it -at the weekend Robinson announced they were going to get the money out of the post office !!
So that's all sorted then

??? They suggested using the Post Office as a means to allow people access to non digital banking and help keep a bit of life in the High Street.
They've also suggested that flogging off state owned banks when they become profitable might not bet he brightest idea. I suppose there is no logic in that either?

Mac, are you blind as well as unable to spell? Post offices are closing at an astonishing rate, equitable to the loss of high street banks. There used to be post offices everywhere. In the villages I grew up in there are now NONE.

[JAS]

We bailed out the banks to prevent a complete collapse in our financial system and they should be generally in the private sector IMO.

Yes we did
Yes they should
However there’s a bit missing in the middle, the handing back to the private sector should NOT be done at a discount. The public purse must be recompensed for saving them.

Several reasons really...
1. The banking sector were the architects of their own downfall and should pay for their mistake.
2. To sell them off cheap sends the signal that it was all worthwhile for big money to shag the arse of the public purse and it could be done again.

Socialism for the banks and austerity capitalism for the masses is NOT a way forward, it will create an angry divided society....oh look it already has!!!

[I'm never wrong]

Naive question. Why are all the Brexit proposals offered individually? Why not prepare a list of all the options and an MP gets to choose one. They don’t say No, they just pick the one they prefer. The winner becomes our option for Brexit. Giving Parliament the option to say No at each opportunity means it just delays the process. My proposal is just what we have at an election anyway.

[Diggers]

Suoer you must have missed it -at the weekend Robinson announced they were going to get the money out of the post office !!
So that's all sorted then

??? They suggested using the Post Office as a means to allow people access to non digital banking and help keep a bit of life in the High Street.
They've also suggested that flogging off state owned banks when they become profitable might not bet he brightest idea. I suppose there is no logic in that either?

Mac, are you blind as well as unable to spell? Post offices are closing at an astonishing rate, equitable to the loss of high street banks. There used to be post offices everywhere. In the villages I grew up in there are now NONE.

Think you are the blind one. Do you not think the measure might also be a means to reverse that trend?

[Diggers]

Super

Like football, you don't need to put on an act that you understand politics.  Diggers is schooling you here and it would be wise for you to listen.

Diggers isn't schooling anyone Mac. I'm pointing out his double standard. It's fine to have a go at the Tories, they're doing a terrible job, but to completely ignore the laughable witterings of the Labour party to provide a viable alternative government is the shocking bit.

As has just been pointed out, Diggers thinks you can raise 500bn through higher corporation tax. That's Dianne Abbott type accounting and deserves as much ridicule, if not more than what the worthless turd Abbott would come out with. Raising another 500bn on top of the  500bn raised through taxation is absolutely effing hilarious. What company is going to hang around if they corporation goes up 100%? None. Companies already leave the UK for far more minor reasons than this. There will be a brain drain too if you put the taxes up of people, but then again Diggers has also claimed that Labour are NOT the party of high taxes. Well you can't have it both ways Diggers, if you've got 500bn in your spending, you can't borrow that much, you'll have to tax for it.

Labour clearly haven't costed this in the slightest, like they are keen on doing, they've just plucked a figure out of the air, safe in the knowledge that as a Marxist led party they don't stand a chance of getting in, even against the worst Tory government in living memory.

A marxist party with a similar manifesto pledge to the Scandinavian models you say aren't even socialist. I'd like to see the post where I said Labour were not the part of high taxation. Unlike you're post on Zola being a massively prolific striker, I think you have interpreted that post incorrectly.

[Diggers]

Naive question. Why are all the Brexit proposals offered individually? Why not prepare a list of all the options and an MP gets to choose one. They don’t say No, they just pick the one they prefer. The winner becomes our option for  Brexit. Giving Parliament the option to say No at each opportunity means it just delays the process. My proposal is just what we have at an election anyway.

When around 100 MP's choose to abstain on any given vote they don't really tell us much anyway.

[navyblueshorts]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

Especially when you back that up with:
Nigel Farage
Rees Mogg
Bozza Johnson
Michael Gove
Andrea Ledson (she is one scary lady)

or Jeremy Corbyn before his party reigned him in.

And if you tell me they can't, we can't afford it, then where did the money to bribe the DUP come from? Where has the 4.2 billion to fund leave come from? Where did they find the additional funds

Funny how you didn't ask where Corbyn was going to get his 500bn for his promises in the last election.

No, I didn't ask because it was laid out, through higher corporation tax, in their manifesto.
As usual you are a bit confused, so here goes.
Tories said there was .....no.....money.... to spend...none...no money tree...then found some ....money...lots of it... (so...money...existed). Understand so far?
Labour said...want to spend money....so will tax to find money...to spend (though apparently as Tories have proved the money as there all along!!!!)
Is that clear enough? I've made it as easy as possible to see the difference so fingers crossed.

You two need to get a room. Try to stick to debating the points, not the person. Yes, I know I'm guilty of this too often too!

As to your Tory/Labour points Digs, perhaps the Tories, you know, borrowed it? As Nation states can get away with. I'm not sure that extending our national credit debt is better/worse than crippling the Country in some sort of Marixst Utopia. Both probably suck.

Fine, borrowing is fine...though that of course breaks their manifesto pledge to reduce borrowing. So, apparently you can then pick your manifesto pledges to break, if that's the case then they can stop bleating on about having to honour their Bexit manifesto pledge.

Well, perhaps they borrowed to pay off the DUP at that moment, but overall they're reducing borrowing? It's not black/white, despite so many wishing the World worked like that.

[navyblueshorts]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

Especially when you back that up with:
Nigel Farage
Rees Mogg
Bozza Johnson
Michael Gove
Andrea Ledson (she is one scary lady)

or Jeremy Corbyn before his party reigned him in.

And if you tell me they can't, we can't afford it, then where did the money to bribe the DUP come from? Where has the 4.2 billion to fund leave come from? Where did they find the additional funds

Funny how you didn't ask where Corbyn was going to get his 500bn for his promises in the last election.

No, I didn't ask because it was laid out, through higher corporation tax, in their manifesto.
As usual you are a bit confused, so here goes.
Tories said there was .....no.....money.... to spend...none...no money tree...then found some ....money...lots of it... (so...money...existed). Understand so far?
Labour said...want to spend money....so will tax to find money...to spend (though apparently as Tories have proved the money as there all along!!!!)
Is that clear enough? I've made it as easy as possible to see the difference so fingers crossed.

You two need to get a room. Try to stick to debating the points, not the person. Yes, I know I'm guilty of this too often too!

As to your Tory/Labour points Digs, perhaps the Tories, you know, borrowed it? As Nation states can get away with. I'm not sure that extending our national credit debt is better/worse than crippling the Country in some sort of Marixst Utopia. Both probably suck.

I think the point Digs was trying to make Navy is that on the one hand they say “ there is no magic money tree” but then they DO pull fruit from that same magic money tree (that doesn’t exist) for their own ends when it suits them. Tories in lies/deception shock, who’ da thunk it??

Correct me if I’m wrong but in the FIAT monetary system that we have both banks and governments can “create”  money. What do we think Quantatative easing is? Of course the downside is, create too much and you risk devaluing the currency.

Unfortunately, the banks can also “create” money by issuing loans and extending credit and therein lies the fatal flaw in Thatcher/Reagan free market basket case economics. You open the hen house door and let the foxes in, it’s never going to end well. Despite the 2008 crash there are still no governmental controls on banks issuing money, in other words banks ruin, Sorry run the world economy. Despite being on their knees in 2008 we helped them on their feet and gave them their sticks back to beat us with.

As far as eye’s point goes, and the £500bn gap. There’s no doubt some of that would have to come from borrowing, however if you’re borrowing to rebuild then when you rebuild and your economy recovers guess what, your tax receipts go up. Additionally, the comparison you missed was corporation tax receipts received Vs corporation tax receipts due. All this domiciled in Luxembourg/Panama/Cayman Islands Poopie has to stop. If ordinary Joe public can’t do it then neither should anybody else. THOSE are the Effing traitors to this country, not some guy in a dodgy raincoat who had words with Sinn Fein 30 odd years ago.

Good points. Can't really disagree. I wouldn't call Corbyn a traitor myself; just a jerk, same as those that avoid paying tax to the UK Exchequer in the way you describe.

[Diggers]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

Especially when you back that up with:
Nigel Farage
Rees Mogg
Bozza Johnson
Michael Gove
Andrea Ledson (she is one scary lady)

or Jeremy Corbyn before his party reigned him in.

And if you tell me they can't, we can't afford it, then where did the money to bribe the DUP come from? Where has the 4.2 billion to fund leave come from? Where did they find the additional funds

Funny how you didn't ask where Corbyn was going to get his 500bn for his promises in the last election.

No, I didn't ask because it was laid out, through higher corporation tax, in their manifesto.
As usual you are a bit confused, so here goes.
Tories said there was .....no.....money.... to spend...none...no money tree...then found some ....money...lots of it... (so...money...existed). Understand so far?
Labour said...want to spend money....so will tax to find money...to spend (though apparently as Tories have proved the money as there all along!!!!)
Is that clear enough? I've made it as easy as possible to see the difference so fingers crossed.

You two need to get a room. Try to stick to debating the points, not the person. Yes, I know I'm guilty of this too often too!

As to your Tory/Labour points Digs, perhaps the Tories, you know, borrowed it? As Nation states can get away with. I'm not sure that extending our national credit debt is better/worse than crippling the Country in some sort of Marixst Utopia. Both probably suck.

Fine, borrowing is fine...though that of course breaks their manifesto pledge to reduce borrowing. So, apparently you can then pick your manifesto pledges to break, if that's the case then they can stop bleating on about having to honour their Bexit manifesto pledge.

Well, perhaps they borrowed to pay off the DUP at that moment, but overall they're reducing borrowing? It's not black/white, despite so many wishing the World worked like that.

So it's OK to lecture people on why we have to decimate local support schemes, cut police numbers etc. But when you need money to bribe another party that's OK? The world we live in means that gets a free pass?

[navyblueshorts]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

Especially when you back that up with:
Nigel Farage
Rees Mogg
Bozza Johnson
Michael Gove
Andrea Ledson (she is one scary lady)

or Jeremy Corbyn before his party reigned him in.

And if you tell me they can't, we can't afford it, then where did the money to bribe the DUP come from? Where has the 4.2 billion to fund leave come from? Where did they find the additional funds

Funny how you didn't ask where Corbyn was going to get his 500bn for his promises in the last election.

No, I didn't ask because it was laid out, through higher corporation tax, in their manifesto.
As usual you are a bit confused, so here goes.
Tories said there was .....no.....money.... to spend...none...no money tree...then found some ....money...lots of it... (so...money...existed). Understand so far?
Labour said...want to spend money....so will tax to find money...to spend (though apparently as Tories have proved the money as there all along!!!!)
Is that clear enough? I've made it as easy as possible to see the difference so fingers crossed.

You two need to get a room. Try to stick to debating the points, not the person. Yes, I know I'm guilty of this too often too!

As to your Tory/Labour points Digs, perhaps the Tories, you know, borrowed it? As Nation states can get away with. I'm not sure that extending our national credit debt is better/worse than crippling the Country in some sort of Marixst Utopia. Both probably suck.

Fine, borrowing is fine...though that of course breaks their manifesto pledge to reduce borrowing. So, apparently you can then pick your manifesto pledges to break, if that's the case then they can stop bleating on about having to honour their Bexit manifesto pledge.

Well, perhaps they borrowed to pay off the DUP at that moment, but overall they're reducing borrowing? It's not black/white, despite so many wishing the World worked like that.

So it's OK to lecture people on why we have to decimate local support schemes, cut police numbers etc. But when you need money  to bribe another party that's OK? The world we live in means that gets a free pass?

I'm not justifying it; I'm suggesting that £1bil for the DUP doesn't mean net borrowing isn't decreasing overall. You're conflating other issues with this specific point.

[Diggers]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

Especially when you back that up with:
Nigel Farage
Rees Mogg
Bozza Johnson
Michael Gove
Andrea Ledson (she is one scary lady)

or Jeremy Corbyn before his party reigned him in.

And if you tell me they can't, we can't afford it, then where did the money to bribe the DUP come from? Where has the 4.2 billion to fund leave come from? Where did they find the additional funds

Funny how you didn't ask where Corbyn was going to get his 500bn for his promises in the last election.

No, I didn't ask because it was laid out, through higher corporation tax, in their manifesto.
As usual you are a bit confused, so here goes.
Tories said there was .....no.....money.... to spend...none...no money tree...then found some ....money...lots of it... (so...money...existed). Understand so far?
Labour said...want to spend money....so will tax to find money...to spend (though apparently as Tories have proved the money as there all along!!!!)
Is that clear enough? I've made it as easy as possible to see the difference so fingers crossed.

You two need to get a room. Try to stick to debating the points, not the person. Yes, I know I'm guilty of this too often too!

As to your Tory/Labour points Digs, perhaps the Tories, you know, borrowed it? As Nation states can get away with. I'm not sure that extending our national credit debt is better/worse than crippling the Country in some sort of Marixst Utopia. Both probably suck.

Fine, borrowing is fine...though that of course breaks their manifesto pledge to reduce borrowing. So, apparently you can then pick your manifesto pledges to break, if that's the case then they can stop bleating on about having to honour their Bexit manifesto pledge.

Well, perhaps they borrowed to pay off the DUP at that moment, but overall they're reducing borrowing? It's not black/white, despite so many wishing the World worked like that.

So it's OK to lecture people on why we have to decimate local support schemes, cut police numbers etc. But when you need money  to bribe another party that's OK? The world we live in means that gets a free pass?

I'm not justifying it; I'm suggesting that £1bil for the DUP doesn't mean net borrowing isn't decreasing overall. You're conflating other issues with this specific point.

No I'm not, you brought borrowing into my argument, I very much doubt this had anything to do with borrowing. My point is the monetary policy is clearly disingenuous and a movable feast to meet their own ends. If anything you conflated the argument.

[navyblueshorts]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

Especially when you back that up with:
Nigel Farage
Rees Mogg
Bozza Johnson
Michael Gove
Andrea Ledson (she is one scary lady)

or Jeremy Corbyn before his party reigned him in.

And if you tell me they can't, we can't afford it, then where did the money to bribe the DUP come from? Where has the 4.2 billion to fund leave come from? Where did they find the additional funds

Funny how you didn't ask where Corbyn was going to get his 500bn for his promises in the last election.

No, I didn't ask because it was laid out, through higher corporation tax, in their manifesto.
As usual you are a bit confused, so here goes.
Tories said there was .....no.....money.... to spend...none...no money tree...then found some ....money...lots of it... (so...money...existed). Understand so far?
Labour said...want to spend money....so will tax to find money...to spend (though apparently as Tories have proved the money as there all along!!!!)
Is that clear enough? I've made it as easy as possible to see the difference so fingers crossed.

You two need to get a room. Try to stick to debating the points, not the person. Yes, I know I'm guilty of this too often too!

As to your Tory/Labour points Digs, perhaps the Tories, you know, borrowed it? As Nation states can get away with. I'm not sure that extending our national credit debt is better/worse than crippling the Country in some sort of Marixst Utopia. Both probably suck.

Fine, borrowing is fine...though that of course breaks their manifesto pledge to reduce borrowing. So, apparently you can then pick your manifesto pledges to break, if that's the case then they can stop bleating on about having to honour their Bexit manifesto pledge.

Well, perhaps they borrowed to pay off the DUP at that moment, but overall they're reducing borrowing? It's not black/white, despite so many wishing the World worked like that.

So it's OK to lecture people on why we have to decimate local support schemes, cut police numbers etc. But when you need money  to bribe another party that's OK? The world we live in means that gets a free pass?

I'm not justifying it; I'm suggesting that £1bil for the DUP doesn't mean net borrowing isn't decreasing overall. You're conflating other issues with this specific point.

No I'm not, you brought borrowing into my argument, I very much doubt this had anything to do with borrowing. My point is the monetary policy is clearly disingenuous and a movable feast to meet their own ends. If anything you conflated the argument.

Yes, you are. You wondered where the Government found the DUP money. I suggested borrowing. You asked how that reduces overall Government borrowing. I suggested borrowing £1bil for DUP doesn't mean overall borrowing isn't reducing. You brought in whether doing that is morally justifiable. I suggest that's not relevant to the point we're discussing.

[Diggers]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

Especially when you back that up with:
Nigel Farage
Rees Mogg
Bozza Johnson
Michael Gove
Andrea Ledson (she is one scary lady)

or Jeremy Corbyn before his party reigned him in.

And if you tell me they can't, we can't afford it, then where did the money to bribe the DUP come from? Where has the 4.2 billion to fund leave come from? Where did they find the additional funds

Funny how you didn't ask where Corbyn was going to get his 500bn for his promises in the last election.

No, I didn't ask because it was laid out, through higher corporation tax, in their manifesto.
As usual you are a bit confused, so here goes.
Tories said there was .....no.....money.... to spend...none...no money tree...then found some ....money...lots of it... (so...money...existed). Understand so far?
Labour said...want to spend money....so will tax to find money...to spend (though apparently as Tories have proved the money as there all along!!!!)
Is that clear enough? I've made it as easy as possible to see the difference so fingers crossed.

You two need to get a room. Try to stick to debating the points, not the person. Yes, I know I'm guilty of this too often too!

As to your Tory/Labour points Digs, perhaps the Tories, you know, borrowed it? As Nation states can get away with. I'm not sure that extending our national credit debt is better/worse than crippling the Country in some sort of Marixst Utopia. Both probably suck.

Fine, borrowing is fine...though that of course breaks their manifesto pledge to reduce borrowing. So, apparently you can then pick your manifesto pledges to break, if that's the case then they can stop bleating on about having to honour their Bexit manifesto pledge.

Well, perhaps they borrowed to pay off the DUP at that moment, but overall they're reducing borrowing? It's not black/white, despite so many wishing the World worked like that.

So it's OK to lecture people on why we have to decimate local support schemes, cut police numbers etc. But when you need money  to bribe another party that's OK? The world we live in means that gets a free pass?

I'm not justifying it; I'm suggesting that £1bil for the DUP doesn't mean net borrowing isn't decreasing overall. You're conflating other issues with this specific point.

No I'm not, you brought borrowing into my argument, I very much doubt this had anything to do with borrowing. My point is the monetary policy is clearly disingenuous and a movable feast to meet their own ends. If anything you conflated the argument.

Yes, you are. You wondered where the Government found the DUP money. I suggested borrowing. You asked how that reduces overall Government borrowing. I suggested borrowing £1bil for DUP doesn't mean overall borrowing isn't reducing. You brought in whether doing that is morally justifiable. I suggest that's not relevant to the point we're discussing.

No I'm not. You bringing in borrowing as justification conflates an argument about morality. I'm not wondering where the money came from, I don't care. I care about the reason they see fit to spend it.

[navyblueshorts]

When Tommy Robinson becomes the voice for leave voters, surely you have to ask yourself if you are on the correct side.

Especially when you back that up with:
Nigel Farage
Rees Mogg
Bozza Johnson
Michael Gove
Andrea Ledson (she is one scary lady)

or Jeremy Corbyn before his party reigned him in.

And if you tell me they can't, we can't afford it, then where did the money to bribe the DUP come from? Where has the 4.2 billion to fund leave come from? Where did they find the additional funds

Funny how you didn't ask where Corbyn was going to get his 500bn for his promises in the last election.

No, I didn't ask because it was laid out, through higher corporation tax, in their manifesto.
As usual you are a bit confused, so here goes.
Tories said there was .....no.....money.... to spend...none...no money tree...then found some ....money...lots of it... (so...money...existed). Understand so far?
Labour said...want to spend money....so will tax to find money...to spend (though apparently as Tories have proved the money as there all along!!!!)
Is that clear enough? I've made it as easy as possible to see the difference so fingers crossed.

You two need to get a room. Try to stick to debating the points, not the person. Yes, I know I'm guilty of this too often too!

As to your Tory/Labour points Digs, perhaps the Tories, you know, borrowed it? As Nation states can get away with. I'm not sure that extending our national credit debt is better/worse than crippling the Country in some sort of Marixst Utopia. Both probably suck.

Fine, borrowing is fine...though that of course breaks their manifesto pledge to reduce borrowing. So, apparently you can then pick your manifesto pledges to break, if that's the case then they can stop bleating on about having to honour their Bexit manifesto pledge.

Well, perhaps they borrowed to pay off the DUP at that moment, but overall they're reducing borrowing? It's not black/white, despite so many wishing the World worked like that.

So it's OK to lecture people on why we have to decimate local support schemes, cut police numbers etc. But when you need money  to bribe another party that's OK? The world we live in means that gets a free pass?

I'm not justifying it; I'm suggesting that £1bil for the DUP doesn't mean net borrowing isn't decreasing overall. You're conflating other issues with this specific point.

No I'm not, you brought borrowing into my argument, I very much doubt this had anything to do with borrowing. My point is the monetary policy is clearly disingenuous and a movable feast to meet their own ends. If anything you conflated the argument.

Yes, you are. You wondered where the Government found the DUP money. I suggested borrowing. You asked how that reduces overall Government borrowing. I suggested borrowing £1bil for DUP doesn't mean overall borrowing isn't reducing. You brought in whether doing that is morally justifiable. I suggest that's not relevant to the point we're discussing.

No I'm not. You bringing in borrowing as justification conflates an argument about morality. I'm not wondering where the money came from, I don't care. I care about the reason they see fit to spend it.  

We're talking about different things then. Moving on...

[dynamark]

Quite relevant that during these indicative votes there have been an awful lot of abstainers/not bothered to turn up which means they are not very indicative.
Re post offices it s really quite difficult to close a post office from a planning point of view.We bought one(a former office) 10 years ago and it took about two more years of applications and documents to permanently close it and redevelop .Similar with pubs/licensed premises.
Definite move now though to revive the local office with other services/uses some are combining with pubs and cafes.If folk use em(and the pubs) they are fine bit like the high street shops.

[Diggers]

Quite relevant that during these indicative votes there have been an awful lot of abstainers/not bothered to turn up which means they are not very indicative.
Re post offices it s really quite difficult to close a post office from a planning point of view.We bought one(a former office) 10 years ago and it took about two more years of applications and documents to permanently close it and redevelop .Similar with pubs/licensed premises.
Definite move now though to revive the local office with other services/uses some are combining with pubs and cafes.If folk use em(and the pubs) they are fine bit like the high street shops.

Sadly, in my town, they have closed the old, traditional style post office and I think it's now offices. They have reopened it, but as part of a convenience store, less staff and not the same friendly service.

[McLaren]

For those posters who worry about government borrowing could you tell me what it is about higher borrowing that worries you?

[JAS]

For those posters who worry about government borrowing could you tell me what it is about higher borrowing that worries you?  

...and of course the accompanying questions...who are the Government borrowing from and what are the payback terms?

Looking forward to the answers to Macs question and that one because they really get stuck in to the unspoken misconceptions, myths and assumptions of Left and Right managed Treasuries.

[Roller_Coaster]

The Government sell debt to whoever will buy it (from you and me up to the largest companies and governments in the world) through different routes.

Anyone have Premium Bonds, or an NS&I account? Lending to the Government.
Anyone have an Annuity/pension? Part of that is likely to be UK Government Bonds which is lending to the government.

Payback terms are whatever the "prize" pot for premium bonds is, paid out in winnings to holders or interest rates on the cash accounts (just like banks).

Payback on bonds is whatever rate it takes to tempt people to buy the bonds in the first place. Interest is normally paid back Semi-annually or annually (I think, usually) but can be paid on whatever days/dates the instrument is structured to do. Generally the full amount borrowed plus a final interest payment is made on the specified maturity date.

Depending on what interest rates are, the world economy and a whole host of other factors are they sometimes have to borrow money at a lower rate to buy back higher rate bonds to manage cashflow. Sometimes, the opposite. Consolidation loans or the equivalent of payday lending at the highest level!

The problem (well, part of) with borrowing is paying it back. Or the opportunity cost of the interest you have to pay. And yes, you do have to pay it back. Or people, companies or countries either won't lend it to you or won't lend it to you at a reasonable interest rate. If you borrow a sh*tload and the economy blows up, it means that you have to make cuts to ensure you can pay back rather than invest in the country.

[McLaren]

Roller

I didn't ask for a dummies guide to government borrowing, I want to know why you are against higher rates (or any) government borrowing, if indeed that fits your opinion?

(Unless are you saying the UK might fail to meet debt payments?, given your expertise in the area I assume not)

[Diggers]

There used to an awful lot of fuss about countries credit ratings during the banking crisis, daily updates as to whether we'd be downgraded, which we eventually were. Never really gets a mention anymore, mind you what does apart from Brexit and knife crime.

[McLaren]

What a surprise, when challenged to give reasoning for a political position there are zero replies.

[Diggers]

So May is now going to reach out to Labour, presumably admitteding finally that her deal as it stands is done as Labour will at the very least insist on a customs union.
Irony is if that gets through it will be on the back of Labour (and other parties) rather than Tory MPs as the more rabid Brexiteers will be calling her a traitor.
Hard to imagine how TM and JC agree on anything, especially this, but who knows.

[NedB-H]

May is trying to call Corbyn in for talks while still holding out on the pledge to not contest the next European elections. If Corbyn falls for that he’s lost a mug’s game. As soon as we confirm we’re not contesting the elections, we can’t stay any later than Election Day, so May gets a new deadline to play brinkmanship with. So she’ll never agree to what Corbyn will look to compromise on, knowing that she will have a final “my deal or no deal” card to play before the election.

If Corbyn wants to negotiate his way to his version of soft Brexit, he’s going to need more time, and to get more time he’ll have to get a commitment to the Euro elections being contested.

[dynamark]

Hey I thought Roller did pretty well there on govt borrowing.Its about risk and reward a bit like some golf decisions.
We have as a country to maintain our credit rating like any other entity.I just cannot see JC releasing the shackles on his MPs while he has a sniff of an election in his sights.One thing I know for sure whatever happens is at the next election there are some MPs who are going to get an almighty kicking on both sides.

[McLaren]

Dyna

Be specific. What is it about higher borrowing that you object to?

[Sponsored content]