EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 56
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On May 06 2015 22:05 marvellosity wrote: well, I outlined one of the hard facts that it "means" (3% of our GDP just on debt interest), and you dismissed it, as it doesn't align with your world view. You originally tried to argue with me that Labour didn't overspend, but there can be no agreement as running the deficit they did on the back of record tax receipts is a pretty good definition for overspending as far as I'm concerned. Yes that's actually what I thought, they overspent because you define overspending as doing what they did. Brilliant circular reasonning. We'll never know why that was bad, what effect it had on the economy, growth, unemployement, the lives of Brittons, or well, anything that matters, just let it be known that it was "significant" and "unnecessary". The only line you gave about the bad effects of it was that bit "And the deficit they were running left us no slack whatsoever when the crash hit. " which you didn't even hanged to. Debt fetishism at its finest. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 06 2015 22:33 corumjhaelen wrote: Yes that's actually what I thought, they overspent because you define overspending as doing what they did. Brilliant circular reasonning. We'll never know why that was bad, what effect it had on the economy, growth, unemployement, the lives of Brittons, or well, anything that matters, just let it be known that it was "significant" and "unnecessary". The only line you gave about the bad effects of it was that bit "And the deficit they were running left us no slack whatsoever when the crash hit. " which you didn't even hanged to. Debt fetishism at its finest. Your counterargument seems to be that words don't actually hold any meaning, so ok. I also don't think you understand what circular reasoning means. What they did aligns with what I consider to be overspending, not because they did it, but because that's one of the ways I would define overspending, and I would define overspending that way regardless of what Labour did while they were in power - i.e. the premises are disconnected and do not rely on each other to prove each other. edit: although it is cute how you assert we can't possibly know how labour's spending affected anything at all, but what the Coalition did is obviously and provably bad. | ||
|
Zealos
United Kingdom3576 Posts
On May 06 2015 22:05 marvellosity wrote: well, I outlined one of the hard facts that it "means" (3% of our GDP just on debt interest), and you dismissed it, as it doesn't align with your world view. You originally tried to argue with me that Labour didn't overspend, but there can be no agreement as running the deficit they did on the back of record tax receipts is a pretty good definition for overspending as far as I'm concerned. Quite sure Conservatives weren't calling for a reduction in spending during the boom years. Honestly the fallacy that Labour somehow caused the crash, and that the Conservative austerity strategy somehow saved the country from a Greek style crash has already been discredited by leading economists. More importantly, I think history will come down well for Gordon Brown, instead of just playing into the Labour overspending trope | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On May 06 2015 22:42 marvellosity wrote: Your counterargument seems to be that words don't actually hold any meaning, so ok. I also don't think you understand what circular reasoning means. What they did aligns with what I consider to be overspending, not because they did it, but because that's one of the ways I would define overspending, and I would define overspending that way regardless of what Labour did while they were in power - i.e. the premises are disconnected and do not rely on each other to prove each other. edit: although it is cute how you assert we can't possibly know how labour's spending affected anything at all, but what the Coalition did is obviously and provably bad. First two paragraphs is you not wanting to read so whatever. Last one I never said "can't" - and I don't believe it for one second - I'm just asking what it did affect. Point it. Please just show me stats, start a reasonning, anything really... Then we might be able to discuss. | ||
|
Zealos
United Kingdom3576 Posts
On May 06 2015 22:42 marvellosity wrote: Your counterargument seems to be that words don't actually hold any meaning, so ok. Can you actually read btw? He's saying you're calling the debt bad, just because it's debt. It's like you're finding a symptom without being able to point to any disease | ||
|
Zealos
United Kingdom3576 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43526 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 06 2015 23:12 Zealos wrote: Quite sure Conservatives weren't calling for a reduction in spending during the boom years. Honestly the fallacy that Labour somehow caused the crash, and that the Conservative austerity strategy somehow saved the country from a Greek style crash has already been discredited by leading economists. More importantly, I think history will come down well for Gordon Brown, instead of just playing into the Labour overspending trope well, apart from the fact that I never argued that Labour caused the crash, nor did I argue that austerity saved the country. But maybe you aren't directly referring to me in this case. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On May 06 2015 23:16 KwarK wrote: I agree that cutting government spending at a time of economic contraction was shortsighted and unhelpful and that it was done mainly for ideological reasons by politicians out of touch with the impact of their decisions. That said Labour's record on the economy was pretty terrible too, they were so afraid of being painted as a tax raising party that they engaged in all sorts of creative accounting which borrowed from the next administration. Renting hospitals at exorbitant rates, letting private investors fund public projects, the huge amount of debt taken on and so forth, all at a time of record prosperity, was shortsighted and certainly contributed to the clusterfuck that followed their defeat. And that's before we address the foreign adventurism. I feel like it never occurred to Labour that the price of foreign adventurism might be not getting everything they wanted to deliver at home with education, the NHS and so forth. This is a much proper argument, thank you. Problem here was imo, not spending itself, but what they spent it on. Anyway I think Labour is pretty terrible, and I've already said it, so welp. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
Conservatives should be heading for a majority government if true. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4379 Posts
Personally i believe in free speech and see this as a worrying trend towards authoritarianism. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On May 07 2015 21:02 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: What are these islamophobia laws milliband want to bring in? Who defines islamophobia? Personally i believe in free speech and see this as a worrying trend towards authoritarianism. Labour candidate Ed Miliband, who would have put Winston Churchill in prison for his views on Islam, has now pledged to make so-called ‘Islamophobia’ a criminal offense if he becomes Prime Minister. Apparently, Miliband is cut from the same cloth as the ISIS-supporting president of Turkey, Recep Erdogan: “We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” he said, adding: “We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country.” Holy shit wtf i just read this after what you typed. Holy good lord above  | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 07 2015 21:40 Pandemona wrote: Holy shit wtf i just read this after what you typed. Holy good lord above It just sounds to me like soundbites/playing to the media/masses. In reality "islamophobia" is just a subset of hate crime/speech. I don't really understand the point of singling it out | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10840 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 07 2015 22:29 Velr wrote: hate crime/obvious public racism is allready a crime in many countries? exactly we already have laws covering hate crime + speech | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On May 07 2015 22:44 Pandemona wrote: Not saying hate crime is right of course it isn't but to single out Islam religion for votes is annoying considering we already as a country are so giving to the Muslim community in terms of what we let them do. Things like that annoy me Gosh :p edit: in this post Pandemona cunningly covered up his horrible faux pas  | ||
| ||
