colhint

that's awful Do you really believe greed is essential? Greed? I have a desire to improve the lot of my family, of those around me and the whole planet. I want to improve the conditions for my kids and people I won't ever meet that won't be born until after I'm gone. I can improve the lot of my family by working hard, being innovative, helping the economy, helping the community, pushing good causes, donating time and money where good can be done. I'm no saint, I just believe in basic common good. Enjoy the greed. So basically you just want more.

he does have a bit of a point though. If you pay a million to a political party you are enobled or knighted at least. If you pay a million to the exchequer you are a exploiting b.....rd ripping off employees and customers and only got where you are because of family connections.

Apparantley this was number 1 the last time arsenal won a trophy

It wasn't the cold it was the wet. Roaming in the gloaming, well farming beasts meant covering miles in the long wet grass. Rather than walking around with wet trouser legs, it was easier and warmer to wear a kilt

Yes leaks are a major problem, but against that several water companies are applying to build reservoirs. There is a small one being built in London and planning applications for a huge one in Oxfordshire. Doubt it will go through though. Most of the other water companies are doing the same, Without massive resource going into these we haven't got much of a chance.

Just wondering where you got your information from?

he was the first to tell it

My belief is it not just about the economy though, its about the resource. We are dependent on imports for our energy, we are not building hospitals to reflect the population growth, and most importantly we have had a water shortage in 9 of the last 10 years. So as much as I welcome people into the country, unless these issues are resolved we are heading for a problem.

i think you are right but only to a point, that point being about 95% right by the way. The problem now it seems is they just want to be in power regardless of their principle. So what they actually believe in goes out of the window.

well what bloody shape do you think the earth is then? can't be round or all the Australians would fall off.

Yes, % of gdp (since the point is not the cash total, but the ease or otherwise with which it can be repaid - therefore also see the other graph on the page you link, showing interest payments as % of gdp). Looking at the line for 50% of gdp as an easy reference mark, for 170 straight years it was above that. Last century it was above that line for 60 straight years. Immediately before the bankers' financial crisis, it was at one of the lowest points ever, probably only four short periods of a few years when it had ever been lower. Yet when you read the paper or turn on the tv, you'd think it's at a historic high and spiralling out of control. So the hysteria about the level of national debt is quite misinformed, even at the level of basic fact. The next question is "Does it matter?". We have to realise that the national debt is in another sense the national savings - all those pension funds that are owed money for their ultra-safe investments, paying our pensions from investments with zero risk of default. Would it be better, or worse, if we repaid all the debt and let them turn to complete reliance on the markets to pay our pensions, because there wasn't safe government debt to buy? Then there's the point that at the national level, if you try to achieve a government surplus, you are in effect trying to create a private sector deficit (unless the balance of foreign trade is so great it outweighs both, which is extremely unlikely if you're not Norway). Why would that be good? The view that we should have government surpluses and a massively reduced government debt works if and only if you mistakenly believe a government to be just a big household, and if you also don't understand about sectoral balances. Or of course if you want to use a superficially plausible story to create a smokescreen for ideologically driven and wholly unnecessary cuts, to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Just a couple of points here, that 170 years period covered the war of spanish succesion, seven years war, American independance , Napoeonic wars (which cost far more then either of the 20th century wars) the Crimea. and the boer wars. I think the longest period between conflict was about 30 years. The 60 years in the last century began in 1910 and ended in 1970, obviously covering the 2 world wars. If you look at the graph, the debt rises significantly just prior to major conflict and reduces after a period. So I would suggest our debt is by far the largest it has been given it is 74 years since our last major conflict

Ok on the facts, lets look at them. That looks about a 1.5 %. Wouldn't you expect about 2.5% to retire each year at least and about another .5% to just leave the profession. So if thats the case, Haven't about 22,000 left the NHS naturally. It very much looks as though no one was sacked as he claims but about 15,000 have been recruited. Now he might not think that is enough but isn't it just sensationalism reporting He doesn't claim any sackings in that list. He claims there are 5601 less nurses in the NHS, natural wastage has nothing to do with that. So using your figures 22,000 left only 16399 were brought in to replace them.therefore there are 5601 axed nursing positions. Now this of course might just be down to the incredibly efficient Capita who now recruit for the NHS, proof that privatisation works. I spoke with an ICU nurse the other day who was just starting a new post in our local ICU that day. It took Capita 6 months to get her on the ward from her getting the job. This despite the fact that she only left the same ward and the same job only 18 months before being offered the job back. She also said the unit was still understaffed by 2 positions, that have been filled months previously but they are waiting on Capita to go through the motions. My partner applied for an admin job in the NHS last November, she finished the interview process and got the job back in April. Only this week she was given her induction date... next January. That's utterly ludicrous but it is a fairly common story. 14 months from applying for the job, she will actually start. She phoned up the trust she'll be working for who basically said they were tearing their hair out, as they needed these staff months and months ago, they even tried to see if they could hurry things up for her... not a hope in hell was the final answer. Privatisation clearly works... very slowly. I'm also fairly sure its deliberate too, the positions count as filled but no-ones actually doing the work yet. oh yes he does claim they were sacked, this is his link User Actions Follow Éoin Clarke‏@DrEoinCl #NHS staff sacked by the Tories climbs to 35,811. This includes 5,601 Nursing Staff. No wonder we have an A&E Crisis pic.twitter.com/u5B2KSxqWk

Ok on the facts, lets look at them. That looks about a 1.5 %. Wouldn't you expect about 2.5% to retire each year at least and about another .5% to just leave the profession. So if thats the case, Haven't about 22,000 left the NHS naturally. It very much looks as though no one was sacked as he claims but about 15,000 have been recruited. Now he might not think that is enough but isn't it just sensationalism reporting Not sure what that graph proves , unless I'm missing the point. Having tried to compare the NHS stats this eoin bloke used then compared them to your graph its more misleading. Your graph goes back to 2008, but the nhs one only goes back to 2009. So I looked at the 2009 figure and worked from there. I looks like there are 2500 fewer nurses, now from then. which represents about a .7% In that period about 30,000 would have left naturally

Ok on the facts, lets look at them. That looks about a 1.5 %. Wouldn't you expect about 2.5% to retire each year at least and about another .5% to just leave the profession. So if thats the case, Haven't about 22,000 left the NHS naturally. It very much looks as though no one was sacked as he claims but about 15,000 have been recruited. Now he might not think that is enough but isn't it just sensationalism reporting

just wondering Pete how you are measuring public debt? Is it as a % of gdp. Looking at the History of that, are the higher peaks all around the times of major wars. I know we are in Afghanistan now, but that is nothing like the scale of wars previously. I mean the national debt was all started for the British Empire, and from then on we were pretty much at war every decade from then on in, whether it be the 7 years war right through to the Napoleonic war. Obviously there was a drawing down of the debt in each case only for it to hike up again at the next outbreak. Obviously it had massive peaks with the 2 world wars in the last century. Now given that we haven't been in major conflict since then (obviously I wouldn't be disrespectful to those who died in the Falklands, the gulf or Afghanistan) but the number who died suggest the were not major wars. So our debt looks about the same now as the 60's when we had been paying for the second world war for getting on for 20 years. It also looks like the highest peace time debt, given the time since conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt

ahh but Tony that's just more right wing deflection hypocracy

I think deflection would have been not to answer Peter's points and talk about something else

we are not concentrating on the messenger. We are responding to a specific point raised by Peter last night

How can that be. I think to a man we have all said that what the mail did was very wrong. It was pointed out a week ago the mail's response to medhi's rant on qt. It was only brought up again by Peter who hadn't seen it, fair enough. Peter was defending, Medhi. Not attacking the government at all. No one is defending the mail just highlighting the hypocrisy of what he said

Well doesn't he admire their news Values. whatever that means. I took it that he understood what sort of stuff the mail wrote and admired it. and doesn't he admire their outspoken defense of our faith and Christian culture, yet he then calls them immigrant bashing. Doesn't he admire their values on the family abortion and teenage pregnancies and yet call them women hating. . To me it does seem he either believed what he wrote on his application or what he said on question time. At one of those instances he was a liar.

One thing is quite clear though he is obviously a liar or an idiot. I doubt if anyone can change their opinion so much on the Mail without being one of those 2 things

Its not just the few though is it. Almost everyone has a bank account, loads have loans and mortgages and loads have pensions

no but they would also not be as efficient, which would mean they would be paying all taxes in the uk and would probably be employing more people

Isn't the whole reason for tax credits that no Government will have to raise tax to the appropriate level. It would be much simpler to manage, but no one would ever do that because they would not get back in power. I have often thought our tax system is like a game of jenga. If they worked out what was needed in income tax and took that off the top, its still a solid foundation. But no they don't do that because it looks like you are taking too much off the top. Instead they keep taking the bricks from all over the tower, so it keeps it's height but is nowhere near as solid

I can understand why he's fighting that. It would affect the uk far more than any EU country, due to the size of our banking sector. Now if the EU were to say there is a green tax to be put on new cars, thats a good tax, but it would be detrimental to France and Germany more than the UK, so it would not be even discussed