Jump to content

Will David Cameron Be Re-Elected?


Recommended Posts

Clearly incompetent in most respects. I think Labour would be as mad, and bad.

 

The election result will be determined by which party scares voters the most.

 

What appalls me is that certain sections of society are being victimised/worked over more than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you answering a question I put to someone else?

 

And to answer you're question, so you don't think that DGP (which I never liked anyway) falling had anything to do with the global crash of 2008 then?

 

I'm allowed to respond to your post particularly when it is so ill-informed.

 

The term you are looking for is GDP. The crash was caused when a number of countries each had incompetent leadership and spent money that their economies couldn't afford, and brought one another down. It wasn't a global crash, and many countries such as Australia and Canada missed it altogether, whilst others like China and India carried on with 5-10% growth right through it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm allowed to respond to your post particularly when it is so ill-informed.

 

The term you are looking for is GDP. The crash was caused when a number of countries each had incompetent leadership and spent money that their economies couldn't afford, and brought one another down. It wasn't a global crash, and many countries such as Australia and Canada missed it altogether, whilst others like China and India carried on with 5-10% growth right through it all.

 

It was a global crash end of and it was felt all over the world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a global crash end of and it was felt all over the world

 

Do you not think if we (the govt.) hadn't overspent over the 11 years before the financial meltdown, that there had been some control over banks and we didn't bail out the banks therefore negating the only thing that controls capitalism (risk of failure) we would be in a better position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you not think if we (the govt.) hadn't overspent over the 11 years before the financial meltdown, that there had been some control over banks and we didn't bail out the banks therefore negating the only thing that controls capitalism (risk of failure) we would be in a better position?

 

The financial meltdown began in 1980 with deregulation of the banks and easy credit. The government of the time, despite introducing it, had a further 17 years to do something about it, despite being warned at the time, but didn't. All that bad debt from 30 years ago has now come home to roost. It has nothing to do with spending. If it did, how do you explain the the current government has already spent more than under three whole terms of the previous government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The financial meltdown began in 1980 with deregulation of the banks and easy credit. The government of the time, despite introducing it, had a further 17 years to do something about it, despite being warned at the time, but didn't. All that bad debt from 30 years ago has now come home to roost. It has nothing to do with spending. If it did, how do you explain the the current government has already spent more than under three whole terms of the previous government?

 

And how long did the following government have to do something about it? Also if you spend more than you have, you have a thing called debt and you have to pay interest on this debt. Hope that helps.

 

And I am well aware the Conservatives have carried on spending which I am pretty sure I've pulled you up on about a hundred times when you bang on about cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think it's none then, do you read what's happening in the media?

 

Answer the question Mecky.

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2013 at 11:32 ----------

 

how do you explain the the current government has already spent more than under three whole terms of the previous government?

 

Spent more or borrowed more? The two are somewhat different as I'm sure you know.

 

But if they truly have spent that much more, we will have no more whining about Tory cuts OK? Since if they are spending much more they sure as anything are not cutting psending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answer the question Mecky.

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2013 at 11:32 ----------

 

 

Spent more or borrowed more? The two are somewhat different as I'm sure you know.

 

But if they truly have spent that much more, we will have no more whining about Tory cuts OK? Since if they are spending much more they sure as anything are not cutting psending.

 

Really? So why benefits being cut, foreign aid being increased etc. If there are no cuts and borrowing is up. Just where is all the borrowed money going?

 

And I see you dodged the question about the Greggs Shopkeeper which I put to you, since hich the thread has now apparently "disappeared." Did you have anything to do with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answer the question Mecky. Spent more or borrowed more?

 

Both, I guess, it's neither one or the other. Now where has all the extra borrowed money gone with all these cuts?

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2013 at 11:51 ----------

 

Come on, I'm waiting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.