UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
don4l said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
don4l said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Try me.

Can you explain what it is that UKIP would do in govt that is different from the current situation? No-one else on here has so far
I answered you politely on Saturday, and you called me stupid and ignorant.

That won't help you get other people to converse with you in a civilised manner, but I will try anyway.

So, why don't you tell me what I said that was stupid, and we can possibly get a polite discussion going?

To save you searching through the thread, you need pages 55/56.
Actually I never said you were stupid or ignorant, I asked you to explain why you thought the current govt was responsible for the large deficit, so that I could assess which of those or other options were applicable.

You answered that the govt could just stop borrowing and thus cut the deficit overnight. So in that sense you are partly right, I do believe that your statement betrays a complete lack of the realities of the complexities of government expenditure and finances. It cannot just stop money being paid out and thus the need for loans. Even if the items you mention (that would only save a small part of the deficit) need legislation, negotiation etc. There are often also costs in stoping money (for example redundnacy payments where jobs are cut) that mean that the corrections can initially make the costs go up.

Whereas in fact this govt decided to save the money elsewhere and has already saved far more than your solutions.
I don't recall saying the bold bit, or anything like it. Could you point me to the page where you think that I said the above please?



What I actually said was:-
don4l said:
We can stop spending £18Bn a year on the utterly useless Climate Change act.

We could easily scale back the £12Bn Foreign Aid budget to the £4Bn that Labour had before the lunatic Cameron took office. This would save £8Bn a year. I don't know how much we would save if we leave the EU, but I do know that the business that I run would save 5% of its running costs.
If you would like to discuss those points, then feel free.
witha bit of creative post dissembling JustAnotherLogin said:
don4l said:
I may come across as a bit thick

justanotherlogin said:
Do you understand that no-one, not even High Wizard Farage, can wave a wand and stop the country hemorrhaging (sic) money overnight?
No, I do not understand that at all.
justanotherlogin said:
I just want to know so that I can tell whether your comment was through ignorance, stupidity, political zealotry or just plain contrariness,
Question answered. Thanks
Then wonder why some responses are a bit chippy.

JustAnotherLogin

1,127 posts

120 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
Don, you actually said

Don41 said:
I may come across as a bit thick, but yes, I do understand that there was a huge deficit the year before the Tories took power.

That doesn't mean that there had to be one during the Tories first year in power, does it?

I take issue with the phrase "inherited a huge deficit". Think about it. You either carry on borrowing, or you don't. There is no such thing as "inheriting a huge deficit".
18th post on page 56. You got your quotes muddled up so it looks like you are quoting me saying it, but those words were typed by you

JustAnotherLogin

1,127 posts

120 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
Limits on migration within EU not so impossible after all?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29687248

Only time will tell I guess

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
Don, you actually said

Don41 said:
I may come across as a bit thick, but yes, I do understand that there was a huge deficit the year before the Tories took power.

That doesn't mean that there had to be one during the Tories first year in power, does it?

I take issue with the phrase "inherited a huge deficit". Think about it. You either carry on borrowing, or you don't. There is no such thing as "inheriting a huge deficit".
18th post on page 56. You got your quotes muddled up so it looks like you are quoting me saying it, but those words were typed by you
JustAnotherLogin said:
You answered that the govt could just stop borrowing and thus cut the deficit overnight.
Where did I say that the government "could just stop borrowing"?

You have simply made it up.

Astonishing behaviour from someone who wants to have a civilised conversation.

You ignore the things that I do say, and invent things that I didn't say, and you use these things to suggest that I must be stupid, ignorant etc.

Furthermore, based on the statement that you invented on my behalf you came to the conclusion that:-
JustAnotherLogin said:
I do believe that your statement betrays a complete lack of the realities of the complexities of government expenditure and finances.
I trust that you will agree that I have pointed out your error in a polite and factual manner.

This rather embarrassing situation can be avoided in the future if you don't make stuff up.



Esseesse

8,969 posts

207 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
Limits on migration within EU not so impossible after all?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29687248

Only time will tell I guess
This article only speaks about transitional controls.

Nick Robinson said:
This is just one of a number of options being considered, I'm told.
We have not heard what these other options are. I'm guessing they don't really exist. The 'emergency brake' thing is meant to be for things like after natural disasters etc.

JustAnotherLogin

1,127 posts

120 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
Don,

I really do not believe I made anything up. If I have made a mistake then I will apologise. Look at post 18 on page 56. See the text:

"You either carry on borrowing, or you don't."

Do you not believe that I am validly interpreting that as "you can just stop borrowing"
Or do you not believe you typed it?

Mrr T

12,151 posts

264 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
don4l said:
We can stop spending £18Bn a year on the utterly useless Climate Change act.
I do not disagree with the sentiment but you do realise this is not Government spending so would not directly reduce the deficit.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
Limits on migration within EU not so impossible after all?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29687248

Only time will tell I guess
that's a crock..

you just know that will not work, it will just get dragged though the courts for years... (all on legal aid know-doubt)

jogon

2,971 posts

157 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
Esseesse said:
We have not heard what these other options are. I'm guessing they don't really exist. The 'emergency brake' thing is meant to be for things like after natural disasters etc.

18 years of Blair and his emulating successor Dave has been a national disaster. How do we enact it?

handpaper

1,290 posts

202 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
EFDD group in the EP back on track; this chap has joined, fulfilling the requirement for MEPs from at least 7 member states.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124886/ROBER...
Listed as a member of the Polish 'Congress of the new Right', which has four EP seats. Whether they've all joined EFDD or he's left his party to do so is unclear at the moment.

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
JustAnotherLogin said:
Don,

I really do not believe I made anything up. If I have made a mistake then I will apologise. Look at post 18 on page 56. See the text:

"You either carry on borrowing, or you don't."

Do you not believe that I am validly interpreting that as "you can just stop borrowing"
Or do you not believe you typed it?
I understand how the confusion has arisen. Thank you.

The comments that I made were factually correct. However, if you look at the rest of that I said, you will see that I am advocating cutting what I regard as wasteful or inefficient spending.

Foe each £100B that we borrow, we need to collect an extra £4b a year in taxes just to pay the interest. This year I believe that this amounts to £40Bn. Next year, it will be £44Bn. This is a not insubstantial proportion of the taxes that we pay.

I find the growth in Foreign Aid to be especially irksome. It was riddled with corruption before the increase. Trebling it when it wasn't managed efficiently in the first place is criminal IMHO.

Someone else has pointed out the £18Bn Climate Change isn't collected via the tax system. How it is collected is not really relevant. It is being taken out of the economy and being given to, largely, foreign owned companies.


Four weeks ago I sent off £950.00 to a company so that they can recycle our electronic waste as per the EU WEEE directive. The only trouble is that over the last 22 years we have not had a single piece of equipment for recycling. This is money that is simply being flushed down the toilet.

A few years ago one of our suppliers closed down (with the loss of 80 jobs) when they decided that it would be too expensive to comply with the RoHS directive. That, of course, had a direct impact on our sales.

I don't support UKIP because I am a swivel eyed loon, as Mr Cameron would say. I support them because they are the only party who come anywhere close to sharing my views.


Wombat3

11,962 posts

205 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
don4l said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Don,

I really do not believe I made anything up. If I have made a mistake then I will apologise. Look at post 18 on page 56. See the text:

"You either carry on borrowing, or you don't."

Do you not believe that I am validly interpreting that as "you can just stop borrowing"
Or do you not believe you typed it?
I understand how the confusion has arisen. Thank you.

The comments that I made were factually correct. However, if you look at the rest of that I said, you will see that I am advocating cutting what I regard as wasteful or inefficient spending.

Foe each £100B that we borrow, we need to collect an extra £4b a year in taxes just to pay the interest. This year I believe that this amounts to £40Bn. Next year, it will be £44Bn. This is a not insubstantial proportion of the taxes that we pay.

I find the growth in Foreign Aid to be especially irksome. It was riddled with corruption before the increase. Trebling it when it wasn't managed efficiently in the first place is criminal IMHO.

Someone else has pointed out the £18Bn Climate Change isn't collected via the tax system. How it is collected is not really relevant. It is being taken out of the economy and being given to, largely, foreign owned companies.


Four weeks ago I sent off £950.00 to a company so that they can recycle our electronic waste as per the EU WEEE directive. The only trouble is that over the last 22 years we have not had a single piece of equipment for recycling. This is money that is simply being flushed down the toilet.

A few years ago one of our suppliers closed down (with the loss of 80 jobs) when they decided that it would be too expensive to comply with the RoHS directive. That, of course, had a direct impact on our sales.

I don't support UKIP because I am a swivel eyed loon, as Mr Cameron would say. I support them because they are the only party who come anywhere close to sharing my views.
don4l said:
"I may come across as a bit thick, but yes, I do understand that there was a huge deficit the year before the Tories took power.
That doesn't mean that there had to be one during the Tories first year in power, does it?"
Lets just suppose they had slashed spending by £130+Bn in year one.

What would the effect have been? (in your estimation of course)

Secondly, where do you think they could have reduced spending by that amount?


don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
Wombat3 said:
Lets just suppose they had slashed spending by £130+Bn in year one.

What would the effect have been? (in your estimation of course)

Secondly, where do you think they could have reduced spending by that amount?
I really depends on where they made the cuts.

Assuming across the board cuts, then we would have had a much deeper recession. However, I feel that it would have been a shorter recession. A case of "short term pain - long term gain".

Wombat3

11,962 posts

205 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
don4l said:
Wombat3 said:
Lets just suppose they had slashed spending by £130+Bn in year one.

What would the effect have been? (in your estimation of course)

Secondly, where do you think they could have reduced spending by that amount?
I really depends on where they made the cuts.

Assuming across the board cuts, then we would have had a much deeper recession. However, I feel that it would have been a shorter recession. A case of "short term pain - long term gain".
You clearly think it was possible, so which budgets would you have cut to a total of £130Bn inside one year?

(see http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/... )

Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 18:20


ETA - Link fixed



Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 19:15

mrpurple

2,624 posts

187 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
Wombat3 said:
don4l said:
Wombat3 said:
Lets just suppose they had slashed spending by £130+Bn in year one.

What would the effect have been? (in your estimation of course)

Secondly, where do you think they could have reduced spending by that amount?
I really depends on where they made the cuts.

Assuming across the board cuts, then we would have had a much deeper recession. However, I feel that it would have been a shorter recession. A case of "short term pain - long term gain".
You clearly think it was possible, so which budgets would you have cut to a total of £130Bn inside one year?

(see http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/...

Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 18:20
Link broken..........your'e fired........there a start to making some savings.

brenflys777

2,678 posts

176 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
Wombat3 said:
You clearly think it was possible, so which budgets would you have cut to a total of £130Bn inside one year?

(see http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/...

Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 18:20
Foreign aid budget of £13bn.

10% of the way there. Every little helps, a billion there, a billion here, pretty soon you're talking serious money biggrin

It's all about priorities. Cameron's are protecting, even enlarging a knowingly corrupt system of aid.


JustAnotherLogin

1,127 posts

120 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
Don, you did advocate some ways of saving money. However as you acknowledge that is not gather by taxes, is not govt spending and so is not part of the deficit, so I still believe your statement that you can either borrow or not is ridiculous.

Probably not the right thread to discuss the merits or not of the directives you mention.

Wombat3

11,962 posts

205 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
mrpurple said:
Wombat3 said:
don4l said:
Wombat3 said:
Lets just suppose they had slashed spending by £130+Bn in year one.

What would the effect have been? (in your estimation of course)

Secondly, where do you think they could have reduced spending by that amount?
I really depends on where they made the cuts.

Assuming across the board cuts, then we would have had a much deeper recession. However, I feel that it would have been a shorter recession. A case of "short term pain - long term gain".
You clearly think it was possible, so which budgets would you have cut to a total of £130Bn inside one year?

(see http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/...

Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 18:20
Link broken..........your'e fired........there a start to making some savings.
Bad form is not checking links - apologies

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/doc...

Original link fixed too smile

Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 19:16

Wombat3

11,962 posts

205 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
brenflys777 said:
Wombat3 said:
You clearly think it was possible, so which budgets would you have cut to a total of £130Bn inside one year?

(see http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/... )

Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 18:20
Foreign aid budget of £13bn.

10% of the way there. Every little helps, a billion there, a billion here, pretty soon you're talking serious money biggrin

It's all about priorities. Cameron's are protecting, even enlarging a knowingly corrupt system of aid.

Keep going..... (only £117 Bn to find - though more in reality because the foreign aid budget probably wasn't that big in 2010).

This is a very specific question - where would Don have cut £130Bn from in 2010 ?

(He's the one who said it could be done, not me)


Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 19:21

brenflys777

2,678 posts

176 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
Wombat3 said:
Keep going..... (only £117 Bn to find - though more in reality because the foreign aid budget probably wasn't that big in 2010).

This is a very specific question - where would Don have cut £130Bn from in 2010 ?

(He's the one who said it could be done, not me)


Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 19:21
Oh yes! The foreign aid budget was INCREASED under Cameron! How could I think that austerity measures were a serious effort to cut spending and borrowing...

I don't know where all the savings could be made. I don't have the expertise, but this seems a common sense start. We spend more than we earn. We make cutbacks until it's better. Cameron's priorities are not traditional conservative values.

Would we as a country be better or worse off cutting foreign aid? If it's a choice between cutting Police budgets and increasing foreign aid - what would you expect normal people to choose?


TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED