b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Off Topic » Post 710220 | Search
This is a question Off Topic

Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.

(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Pages: Latest, 837, 836, 835, 834, 833, ... 1

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Bernard Bangor - Christie

Stupidist reason is every Labour supporter who mentions Thatcher as a reason to not vote conservative and vote labour. She was first in power 28 years ago, Labour have spent the most recent 10 years, the 10 most prosperous years of the modern age, racking up huge debts, this is stupid on a momumental scale.
(, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:03, 2 replies, latest was 16 years ago)
yeah, it was all down to them
totally, they somehow infiltrated all the other countries also suffering from recession ATM, damn those sneaky Laboutites!
(, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:06, Reply)
That's not what I said
the recession would still have happedned, but our debt would not be 65% of GDP, thus leaving us in a better postion economically.
(, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:10, Reply)
yes dear
I'm sure you're right.
(, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:15, Reply)
Government borrowing to combat the effects of the worldwide recession
is the only thing that has stopped our economy totally collapsing. THere are many reasons not to support Labour, such as the Iraq war, but their handling of the economy has actually been quite good. They have ploughed a lot of money into health and education and improved them a lot.
(, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:19, Reply)
Pre-recession

(, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:22, Reply)
It's interesting to note that the tax payer will make many billions of pounds out of propping up the banks
I'm surprised Labour aren't crowing to the rooftops about this, since they got so much shit saying it was terrible when they did it, but it's ended up being a very good investment.
(, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:24, Reply)
It is, however it is fundamentally against the rules of capitalism, which is driven by success
with the weak being left behind. This leaves a healthy selection of businessess who can prosper. It's economic Darwanism.
(, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:31, Reply)
I agree
but there wasn't actually a choice, the banks simply could not fail. However, the thing to do now would be to break them up into smaller companies to prevent it happening again. But that's just not going to happen, and capitalism runs on to it's inevitable conclusion of one massive business controlling everything. Welcome to Tesco, have a nice day.
(, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:32, Reply)
I think we may agree on something

(, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:34, Reply)
they haven't improved health or education
especially not relative to the sheer amount spent. Financial prolifigacy is not an indication of quality
(, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:23, Reply)
They have improved health
How can you see the length of waiting lists back in the mid 90s and say that at most you having to wait a month or two for operations is not an improvement. To say the opposite is naive at best and utter stupidity at worst.

As for education, yes your parents are teachers, so you base your argument on their anecdotal evidence without presenting a single piece of evidence as to why teaching is so much worse than it was in the 90s.
(, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:26, Reply)
Most teachers I know think it is worse; no statistics to massage no spin to be spun
although this is a universe of 4...
(, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 17:28, Reply)
Labour had forty consecutive quarters of economic growth whilst maintaining low inflation,
low interest rates and low unemployment. Which other government has ever achieved this? We have since had six quarters of negative figures due to a worldwide recession followed by a return to growth.

Borrowing always increases in a recession. Gordon Brown's early years as chancellor saw him reducing the debts that escalated during the recession of the early nineties.

It is simply incorrect to suggest that the Labour government has presided over years of famine.

That said of course, the election is about the next five years not about 1997.
(, Wed 28 Apr 2010, 18:26, Reply)

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Pages: Latest, 837, 836, 835, 834, 833, ... 1