• [UK] Britain to buy 138 f35s
    91 replies, posted
[QUOTE=abcpea;49176594]"we dont need machineguns" -every major power pre-ww1[/QUOTE] If Europe was still highly conflicted and tensions were high you may have a point, but the truth is there is no more boogeymen countries/alliances who can challenge us anymore or want to. Russia may like to talk shit and act odd at times but they'll never start anything serious.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49174089]Yeah, your government keeps saying you need to cut things like the NHS and the Military but they're are also cutting taxes. Your government right now is completely insane.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and they continue on massive, unnecessary corporate subsidies. It's like, right now, even though our rail services were privatised about 20 years ago, we're paying way way more "subsidising" rail companies than we ever did on actually owning our own rail system. and we sold off RBS and the Royal Mail to people who were literally mates with cabinet ministers, and they were sold off for way, way less than they were worth at a massive cost to the public pocket They've also borrowed way more money than the last Labour government. The austerity narrative is a complete, transparent, disgraceful lie and needs to fuck off. I can't believe how many people buy that shit. Also, we haven't regulated the banking system properly after the recession so we're gonna have another one of them soon, so there's something to look forward to. Hope it happens while the tories are in power so people wake up to the lie that they're good at the economy (despite the fact that most top economists have said they're full of shit, Gideon doesn't know shit about economics) And they've just passed some draconian spying laws. And they're publically and despicably lying about the policies and views of the opposition, and are calling them a 'threat to national security' wtf.. Oh oh also we're the only country in the G7 to have had its wealth inequality INCREASE since 2000. What the fuck is that. Oh oh god also the government changed how you statistically define poverty, so statistically it looks like it's decreased, and they've actually gone on about that in debates before, even though the reality is that poverty is increasing. Oh fuck and they're forcing people to work shit jobs in order to receive their jobseekers benefits, meaning they're earning way less than the minimum wage, simultaneously filling up jobs which could be being done for real, whilst being paid for the government, meaning for the employer, it's free labour. Not to mention they've literally killed their own people, by cutting off their disabled benfits when they're clearly unable to work, leading a shocking and depressing number of people to suicide. Just four and a half more years guys. I bet by the next election, everyone will have forgotten how awful they are like last time. Didn't mean to write a post this long, but this shit writes itself. There's more shit.
Not to mention Cameron personally is complete scum who's willing to use his dead son to further his motives, at the expense of his poor wife. He also openly insulted the opposition leader and fucked some dead pig. Also if that twat Boris gets elected in 2020 over Jeremy I'll flip some serious shit.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49178837]They've also borrowed way more money than the last Labour government. The austerity narrative is a complete, transparent, disgraceful lie and needs to fuck off. I can't believe how many people buy that shit. [/QUOTE] Well, some of this post is I suppose vaguely true and some is outright bollocks, but I'll pick up on this bit because a commonly thrown around bit of faulty logic. Yes - they have borrowed more money than the previous government, since the previous government left a massive budget deficit. Austerity measures have been to lower the deficit to lower the amount we're borrowing per year - which has happened. As the deficit lowers, the amount we borrow per year lessons. The plan is that by 2020 (I think) we start generating a budget surplus off the back of cuts made and a strengthening economy, then we can start to pay back the money we borrow. Horrendous thought, I know. Unfortunately - you can't just cut all the money that we borrow in one fel swoop as it doesn't work and isn't really fair. This is proven by the latest welfare proposals getting a kicking in the Lords. [QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;49178867]....and fucked some dead pig.[/QUOTE] And you have added to the legions of the uninformed who inexplicably decide to believe the assertion of a multi millionaire Tory peer who was angry because he didn't get a cabinet post. Well done.
[QUOTE=Tacooo;49177885]While cutting public spending, benefits and the NHS while refusing to pay our doctors a decent salary? It's really not worth it, I'd rather have a functioning country than one filled with jets and Tridents that we will never fucking use[/QUOTE] Lol I looks like you don't insurance on your car!
[QUOTE=Jame's;49179219]Lol I looks like you don't insurance on your car![/QUOTE] You're legally obliged to have insurance on your car. Nice try with the comparison but it didn't get far. Despite your attempt it was a feeble retort. It might have gone further with a little more thought.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49177745]Key figures (michael gove was also involved in this project hes current justice secetary who supports death penalty, ex education minister and ex whip who gained his position through the merit of his journalism degree) in government don't want nationalised healthcare, they want a private system which they and their private school buddies can profit from at the expense of the consumer.[/QUOTE] Also note Gove intentionally turning up at an urgent care centre for a broken foot, then spinning up a whole sob story about how "he awaited the pleasure of the hospital radiographer" and various other things when there was no x-ray coverage, the reason for which being cuts and budget freezes forcing the closure of A&E and downsizing to an Urgent Care Centre without radiology support on weekends. If he really suspected he had broke it, he should have gone to an A&E, and he full well knew it, I don't believe he is stupid.
[QUOTE=Matriax;49178946]Well, some of this post is I suppose vaguely true and some is outright bollocks, but I'll pick up on this bit because a commonly thrown around bit of faulty logic. Yes - they have borrowed more money than the previous government, since the previous government left a massive budget deficit. Austerity measures have been to lower the deficit to lower the amount we're borrowing per year - which has happened. As the deficit lowers, the amount we borrow per year lessons. The plan is that by 2020 (I think) we start generating a budget surplus off the back of cuts made and a strengthening economy, then we can start to pay back the money we borrow. Horrendous thought, I know. Unfortunately - you can't just cut all the money that we borrow in one fel swoop as it doesn't work and isn't really fair. This is proven by the latest welfare proposals getting a kicking in the Lords.[/QUOTE] Oh they want to sort out the defecit? So why aren't they increasing taxes? Why are they reducing taxes in stead? Why aren't they cutting the shit loads we spend unnecessarily subsidising massive corporations? Why aren't they really reigning in corporate tax evasion? Why aren't they investing in getting people into work, reducing the amount needed to be spent on benfits? Why aren't they increasing the minimum wage to an actual living wage, in stead of their """"""living wage"""""" for over 25s (which IIRC isn't even an increase in minimum wage in line with inflation since it last went up) so they don't have to spend anywhere near as much on benefits for people who don't make enough money to live? There's a lot of ways to reduce the defecit without fucking people over this much. There is quite clearly something else driving them, something ideological. Economically, austerity is a mess. Impoverishing all of your consumers is an awful idea in a service based economy, it stops the movement of money, and it means the government has to borrow more to make up for it. It has left us with an increase in wealth inequality. Besides, it's all for nothing. This religious hatred of the defecit isn't even unanimous among prominent economists. [url=http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/12/academics-attack-george-osborne-budget-surplus-proposal]but don't[/url] [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/two-thirds-of-economists-say-coalition-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html]take it[/url] [url=http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/23/budget-deficit-could-hit-40bn-pounds-autumn-statement-george-osborne]from me.[/url] Don't want to hear it from the lefty liberal Guardian and Independent? [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6481458/Tory-economic-tightening-plans-could-be-a-disaster-warns-survey.html]here it is in the fucking Telegraph[/url] But hey yeah, vaguely call my perfectly reasonable (albeit very ranty and angry) post bollocks without backing it up, whatever.
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;49178867]Not to mention Cameron personally is complete scum who's willing to use his dead son to further his motives, at the expense of his poor wife. He also openly insulted the opposition leader and fucked some dead pig. Also if that twat Boris gets elected in 2020 over Jeremy I'll flip some serious shit.[/QUOTE] anyone deserves to be elected over corbyn, including a rotting maggot infested corpse, and I fucking hate Boris
Canada has official stepped out of buying the F-35 right? Glad we don't have to pay for this shit
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49177745]We have had complaints about lack of beds and long waiting times. Our doctors are striking because they aren't being fairly compensated for their time. Well the NHS was found to be the most efficient healthcare system in the world. [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10375877[/url] They might have increased funding this year but for the past 5 years budget has been near constant, despite inflation. Its not a lack of efficiency, its a lack of funding. In Direct Democracy, the book co authored by our health secretary jeremy hunt ([url]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/08/jeremy-hunt-homeopathy-studies-chief-medical-officer[/url] he also seems to advocate homoeopathy?) there is a call to dismantle the NHS criticising it as a state run monopoly and advocates and american style insurance lead private healthcare system. Key figures (michael gove was also involved in this project hes current justice secetary who supports death penalty, ex education minister and ex whip who gained his position through the merit of his journalism degree) in government don't want nationalised healthcare, they want a private system which they and their private school buddies can profit from at the expense of the consumer.[/QUOTE] almost the entire of the world has an insurance based system, including most of Europe. We almost certainly will move to an insurance based system as people do not want to pay what is needed to the NHS due to the aging population. [url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2015/10/love-and-other-drugs[/url] Here is a very good article on the topic. Basically, for all the lip service both from politicians and from the public themselves, when it comes down to it, people don't want to pay on the whole.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;49179923]Canada has official stepped out of buying the F-35 right? Glad we don't have to pay for this shit[/QUOTE] You guys would buy the F-35A. The A variant has quietly been doing quite well. It is the smallest one and the only entry with an internal cannon. It performs better and only launches from airfields, so it doesn't have all the STOVL or arrestor hook+ frame strengthening bullshit of the B and C variants.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49179928]almost the entire of the world has an insurance based system, including most of Europe. We almost certainly will move to an insurance based system as people do not want to pay what is needed to the NHS due to the aging population. [url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2015/10/love-and-other-drugs[/url] Here is a very good article on the topic. Basically, for all the lip service both from politicians and from the public themselves, when it comes down to it, people don't want to pay on the whole.[/QUOTE] An opinion piece written by a neo liberal would advocate privatisation using statements like "If the taxpayer-funded model is not politically workable," "THE NHS is in a mess." Compains about it not getting enough funding. The budget has been frozen for the last 5 years despite inflation and population growth. Of course its under funded. Its not an issues with the system. They've made an issue by by underfunding the NHS. Now nuts like this and people in government are suggesting its abolishment as a solution.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49180223]An opinion piece written by a neo liberal would advocate privatisation using statements like "If the taxpayer-funded model is not politically workable," "THE NHS is in a mess." Compains about it not getting enough funding. The budget has been frozen for the last 5 years despite inflation and population growth. Of course its under funded. Its not an issues with the system. They've made an issue by by underfunding the NHS. Now nuts like this and people in government are suggesting its abolishment as a solution.[/QUOTE] Do you understand what neoliberalism actually is, and how it differs from classical liberalism, or it just a word you call the meanies? And if people don't actually want to fund a more expensive NHS, it clearly is an issue with the system, and that is what I expect is the case. [editline]24th November 2015[/editline] It doesn't even push for its abolition. It simply says that the NHS has two options: More funding or death, and the author thinks that the British public would rather it would die.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49180234]Do you understand what neoliberalism actually is, and how it differs from classical liberalism, or it just a word you call the meanies? [I]And if people don't actually want to fund a more expensive NHS[/I], it clearly is an issue with the system, and that is what I expect is the case.[/QUOTE] If the budget (in pounds) has been frozen for 5 years without adjusting for inflation (as mdeceiver appears to be saying), the NHS has been facing cuts - it has [I]not[/I] become more expensive, and adjusting its budget for the last few years' inflation would only restore its budget to what it was five years ago.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49180234]Do you understand what neoliberalism actually is, and how it differs from classical liberalism, or it just a word you call the meanies? And if people don't actually want to fund a more expensive NHS, it clearly is an issue with the system, and that is what I expect is the case.[/QUOTE] I'd be fine spending more on healthcare. It is provenly efficient, frankly I trust the NHS more than any private sector parasites. US is far more expensive per person. Privatization is poor value.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49180289]If the budget (in pounds) has been frozen for 5 years without adjusting for inflation (as mdeceiver appears to be saying), the NHS has been facing cuts - it has [I]not[/I] become more expensive, and adjusting its budget for the last few years' inflation would only restore its budget to what it was five years ago.[/QUOTE] Regardless of that, it [I]will[/I] become more expensive as people get older and die from more complicated conditions as they are older, logically. I don't know about whether it has or hasn't become more expensive (I strongly expect it has on top of the frozen budget), but it logically will in the future. [editline]24th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49180305]I'd be fine spending more on healthcare. It is provenly efficient, frankly I trust the NHS more than any private sector parasites. US is far more expensive per person. Privatization is poor value.[/QUOTE] It is talking about moving to a system like those seen in Germany, for example, where there is state-provided insurance (like what the US is moving to). Although it isn't as efficient, it is more politically viable if people don't want to fund the NHS properly.
People do want to fund the NHS properly though, dunno where you're getting otherwise.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49180560]People do want to fund the NHS properly though, dunno where you're getting otherwise.[/QUOTE] People are becoming, in general, far less 'socialist' and interested in the common good, and far more individualistic according to polls, with, despite a bunch of fanatical vocal lefties supposedly being the 'youth' vote, younger people being the most individualistic and the most skeptical of government institutions like the NHS.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49179348]Oh they want to sort out the defecit? So why aren't they increasing taxes? Why are they reducing taxes in stead? Why aren't they cutting the shit loads we spend unnecessarily subsidising massive corporations? Why aren't they really reigning in corporate tax evasion? Why aren't they investing in getting people into work, reducing the amount needed to be spent on benfits? Why aren't they increasing the minimum wage to an actual living wage, in stead of their """"""living wage"""""" for over 25s (which IIRC isn't even an increase in minimum wage in line with inflation since it last went up) so they don't have to spend anywhere near as much on benefits for people who don't make enough money to live? There's a lot of ways to reduce the defecit without fucking people over this much. Economically, austerity is a mess. Impoverishing all of your consumers is an awful idea in a service based economy, it stops the movement of money, and it means the government has to borrow more to make up for it. It has left us with an increase in wealth inequality. Besides, it's all for nothing. This religious hatred of the defecit isn't even unanimous among prominent economists. [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/12/academics-attack-george-osborne-budget-surplus-proposal"]but don't[/URL] [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/two-thirds-of-economists-say-coalition-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html"]take it[/URL] [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/23/budget-deficit-could-hit-40bn-pounds-autumn-statement-george-osborne"]from me.[/URL] Don't want to hear it from the lefty liberal Guardian and Independent? [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6481458/Tory-economic-tightening-plans-could-be-a-disaster-warns-survey.html"]here it is in the fucking Telegraph[/URL] But hey yeah, vaguely call my perfectly reasonable (albeit very ranty and angry) post bollocks without backing it up, whatever.[/QUOTE] Well increasing taxes goes against a conservative ideology, the one that the electorate voted for, but that's not really that important I suppose.... The torygraph reference you linked is from 2009 - so is 6 years out of date, but good try. Yes, they do want to sort out the deficit, but hey you can't solve that sort of massive economic problem 10+ years in the making over 5 years. They also massively are investing in getting people into work, hence the unprecedented growth in employment rate. You're talking out of anger, and out of your arse.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49180576]People are becoming, in general, far less 'socialist' and interested in the common good, and far more individualistic according to polls, with, despite a bunch of fanatical vocal lefties supposedly being the 'youth' vote, younger people being the most individualistic and the most skeptical of government institutions like the NHS.[/QUOTE] The biggest anti austerity ever in the UK happened this year. Corbyn and his radical ideology (radical compared to the right wing stance of most parties) has attracted more people to join the labour party than were in the lib dems.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49180137]You guys would buy the F-35A. The A variant has quietly been doing quite well. It is the smallest one and the only entry with an internal cannon. It performs better and only launches from airfields, so it doesn't have all the STOVL or arrestor hook+ frame strengthening bullshit of the B and C variants.[/QUOTE] I thought they'd learned their lesson about getting rid of internal cannons during Vietnam.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49180610]The biggest anti austerity ever in the UK happened this year. Corbyn and his radical ideology (radical compared to the right wing stance of most parties) has attracted more people to join the labour party than were in the lib dems.[/QUOTE] And? This is a minority of vocal people, and polls and elections prove it. A hundred thousand people at an anti-austerity march or a hundred thousand people joining Labour to vote Corbyn proves nothing. A second election victory for the centre-right (and a global decline for the left) and Conservative support soaring against plummeting Labour support in spite of tax credits, internal scandals and the junior doctors proves that left-wing, anti-austerity ideology is not as popular as people think. Why? Firstly, people are confused into believing it is widely popular because the people that they surround themselves by, the people who are most politically vocal, are often left-wing. But they are an unrepresentative sample of the British public. Secondly, people are not doing as badly as everyone says they are in an atmosphere of general recovery in Britain, and so are not driven to the hard left like they have been in Greece and to a lesser extent Spain.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49180670]And? This is a minority of vocal people, and polls and elections prove it. [/QUOTE] The tories still (somehow) manage to blame labour for the national debt. The tories present themselves as "the economic fixers" despite the economy still being a shambles. Last election they went full out on smearing Milliband, getting their media cronies to print smear stories like "Ed's dad hates britain" "Ed is a marxist". The majority of people are too stupid to understand they are being lied to by the papers they read and the words they hear on tv and the tories (and the sun, daily mail, telegraph, express etc) know how to exploit that. [editline]24th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Matriax;49180602]Well increasing taxes goes against a conservative ideology, the one that the electorate voted for, but that's not really that important I suppose.... The torygraph reference you linked is from 2009 - so is 6 years out of date, but good try. Yes, they do want to sort out the deficit, but hey you can't solve that sort of massive economic problem 10+ years in the making over 5 years. They also massively are investing in getting people into work, hence the unprecedented growth in employment rate. You're talking out of anger, and out of your arse.[/QUOTE] People voted to reduce the deficit not to embrace the tories toxic right wing ideology. (toxic because it leads to further social stratification, less equality and less social mobility) Lowering taxes and claiming you're lowering the deficit... not really right. They're not closing loopholes either. You mention employment. Them creating a bunch of part time or "self employed" (read no job stability and possibility of less than minimum wage) isn't something to be proud of.
People buy papers that align with their own views. Because Britain is a fairly small 'c' conservative country, most of the papers are right-leaning. Nobody is being lied to or deceived. The papers just tell people what they want to hear. And, as it turns out, what they want to hear is largely right-wing. Also, get off your high horse. People aren't that stupid and if you think that you lose because people are stupid, you deserve to lose. What do you define the economy as 'being a shambles' as? Britain is doing exceptionally well for a wealthy country. Compare our growth and unemployment rate to continental Europe. The outlook for Britain is positive (though not entirely because of the Tories) and growth is stable. You're having unreasonably high expectations for the economy in a difficult time globally and failing to see the realities of the 'new normal' in economic growth, and that pre-recession growth was completely unsustainable in the long run (not because of government debt directly, but rather because of excessive private sector debt, which throughout history and financial crises, ends up becoming government debt when the crash happens). The Tories in my view do a better job at getting spending under control, which needs to be done in the long run in my view for economic growth, but firstly choose the wrong targets (they lock the elephant in the room - middle class entitlements and avoid cutting it to prevent themselves from angering their base - they have 'triple locked' pensions and one of the most politically difficult cuts was a middle-class cut to child benefit in their first term), and secondly focus on it excessively for political reasons to use it as a stick to beat Labour with, leading to stupid and unnecessary cuts like tax credits. However, I still see this as better in the long run than the Labour view of simply not doing anything much at all in regards to government spending and acting like the crisis never happened. [editline]24th November 2015[/editline] [url]http://blogs.deloitte.co.uk/mondaybriefing/2015/11/britains-job-rich-recovery.html[/url] [QUOTE]The flexibility of the UK labour market has helped keep more people in work during the downturn and in its aftermath. In the early years of the recovery, part-time work was a major driver of job growth. More recently there has been a trend towards self-employment. [B]Just under half of all jobs created since 2010 are either part-time or in self-employment[/B]. The rise in these forms of employment partly reflects the difficulty of finding a full-time job in the aftermath of the financial crisis. [B]Yet the trend towards greater part-time work and self-employment predate the financial crisis, suggesting a shift in people's preferences, especially as more women and older people enter the workforce. Almost 70% of part timers say they do not want a full-time job.[/B] Meanwhile, self-employment has risen steadily over the last 11 years and is increasingly popular among older workers. [/QUOTE] I don't view more self-employed work as a problem at all. Being paid less is sad, but its better than people simply not having a job at all, and ultimately, in the future, when jobs become more readily available following the full recovery, these people will either choose to stay self-employed because they like it (which is fairly common) or will move into more lucrative employment elsewhere.
[QUOTE=Every major power pre-WW1;49178754]If Europe was still highly conflicted and tensions were high you may have a point, but the truth is there is no more boogeymen countries/alliances who can challenge us anymore or want to. Russia may like to talk shit and act odd at times but they'll never start anything serious.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Matriax;49180602]Well increasing taxes goes against a conservative ideology, the one that the electorate voted for, but that's not really that important I suppose....[/quote] Yeah, I don't think you can talk about a democratic mandate with first past the post, it's kind of a moot point, fptp is the laughing stock of the vast majority of countries that don't use it, and even if they did have a mandate, it doesn't make them any more right, that's a totally ridiculous argument. Hate to do a Godwin, but Hitler had a pretty significant democratic mandate. Part of democracy is criticism. And you can't defend something by saying it's 'against someones ideology,' that's not good enough sorry, if their sole goal is deficit reduction, it's fucked up to me that they should ideologically reduce taxes while screwing over public services and working people. The deficit narrative is a lie. It's all ideological, it's not economics. [quote]The torygraph reference you linked is from 2009 - so is 6 years out of date, but good try.[/quote] And it's no longer relevant? They're talking about Tory brand austerity which still exists. Are you not even going to mention the other articles? You skirted over everything until you found one vague, moot way of arguing back. [quote]Yes, they do want to sort out the deficit, but hey you can't solve that sort of massive economic problem 10+ years in the making over 5 years.[/quote] What's the massive economic problem 10 years in the making sorry? The deficit? The deficit went nuts because of the global financial crisis, not the other way around. Until then, it was kept lower than it was under the tory government of the early 90s. The actual financial crisis' impact on the UK was made worse by certain actions of the Labour government, but fiscal deregulation was fully supported by the Conservatives at the time, I believe Cameron himself wanted further deregulation (oh and it was what the electorate voted for, yeah see how that doesn't work as an argument) Besides, many economists say that running a surplus is dangerous, and is just the process of [url=http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/12/academics-attack-george-osborne-budget-surplus-proposal]displacing the government's debt[/url] Economics is far from an exact science. The main point is, austerity in the way the Tories are doing is, as I said before and you ignored, far from the only way of reducing the deficit, and is a way which fucks over the poor. [quote] They also massively are investing in getting people into work, hence the unprecedented growth in employment rate.[/quote] Look at the actual income figures. More people are self employed, part time, or working in lower income jobs than before, none of their policies are working to help those people, they're trying desperately to cut tax credits for those low earners. Also employment figures are massively inflated because IIRC they're counting unemployed people who are forced to work for next to nothing for their benefits among the employed. Frankly, given how much employment fell during the recession, you'd have to be totally incompetent for there not to have been a significant regrowth in employment almost a decade later. It is hardly unprecedented. [quote]You're talking out of anger, and out of your arse.[/QUOTE] Yeah, telling someone that they're talking out of their ass whilst skirting over most of what I say is not a good way to argue, just makes you look desperate. I'm certainly not an economist and I feel like you aren't either, but I suppose I may be wrong, but I'm going by what I've read, regurgitating my understanding of actual economics. See what I just did? I went through your post bit by bit, responded to everything, and I didn't insult you. [editline]25th November 2015[/editline] It'll be interesting to see in five years if Conservatives are still talking about this full recovery being just another five years away, just like they were five years ago. If we do recover and the UK we recover to is one without a social safety net and without solid public services, I don't want to be in it.
[QUOTE=Tacooo;49177885]While cutting public spending, benefits and the NHS while refusing to pay our doctors a decent salary? It's really not worth it, I'd rather have a functioning country than one filled with jets and Tridents that we will never fucking use[/QUOTE] Guess what? You'll never have to use those weapons because they, along with the rest of your military, act as a deterrent to war that keeps you and your allies at peace. Their simple existence is what keeps peace, not their use. People don't seem to get this. This is also going to ensure the UK is meeting its NATO pledge, which could help the US scale back its own military since we have to make up for everyone else. And again, it's the US and its allies' military power that acts as a deterrent against the opposition and vice versa. The world would be a very different place if one side or the other was at a significant disadvantage in tech/numbers/destructive capability. War would be almost assured.
Saying you'll never fire Trident is the most ridiculous argument against it.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49181050]...Words... [/QUOTE] Bleeeeergh yeah alright fine. I mean there's just so much rubbish in that I don't even know where to start given comments you've already made. But fine, yes, good, you win. I can tell you're not an economist, no need to point that out old chap. I also did not insult you, simply said you were talking out of your arse. Which you were, and are. [QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49181050]It'll be interesting to see in five years if Conservatives are still talking about this full recovery being just another five years away, just like they were five years ago. If we do recover and the UK we recover to is one without a social safety net and without solid public services, I don't want to be in it.[/QUOTE] It'll be interesting to see if the reverse happens, and we do make a full recovery - if people such as you will accept that spending your way out of a recession isn't the only solution available.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.