View Full Version : Slip of the tongue!
ArtyLady
10-12-08, 10:14 PM
.
yeah it was funny thought the opposition went over the top though made them sound like chimp's at a tea party.
Yeah I think that made it funnier :lol:
made them look stupid so i guess it was funny that it made the whole place look rediculous :-D
Oh a reference to 'hardworking families' - again:rolleyes:
northwind
10-12-08, 11:16 PM
chimp's at a tea party.
Well, it WAS the house of commons, that's what they do...
Still, David Cameron showed some true colours afterwards ""He's so busy talking about saving the world, he's forgotten about the businesses in the country that he's supposed to be governing." Utterly pathetic, it's one thing for MPs to act like children on the spur of the moment, but he sat there and planned that line, when he's supposed to be an actual politician. Not his finest hour.
Well, it WAS the house of commons, that's what they do...
Still, David Cameron showed some true colours afterwards ""He's so busy talking about saving the world, he's forgotten about the businesses in the country that he's supposed to be governing." Utterly pathetic, it's one thing for MPs to act like children on the spur of the moment, but he sat there and planned that line, when he's supposed to be an actual politician. Not his finest hour.
Maybe, Northy... but isn't it true? Brown should be concerned about this. Instead he's trying to look good in the world pecking order.
Maybe, Northy... but isn't it true? Brown should be concerned about this. Instead he's trying to look good in the world pecking order.
is brown the prime minister of england or the world lately im confused :confused:
northwind
10-12-08, 11:37 PM
Maybe, Northy... but isn't it true? Brown should be concerned about this. Instead he's trying to look good in the world pecking order.
You don't think Brown's concerned about this?
You don't think Brown's concerned about this?
Nope not really. I think he's obsessed with his own image.
Nope not really. I think he's obsessed with his own image.
definitely looks that way :rolleyes:
northwind
11-12-08, 12:27 AM
Well, considering his image is totally dependant on how well he performs here, I'm not sure you can seperate them... Even if like Blair he's always thinking "What makes me look good", what makes him look good is acting to help the economy so it's still a good result. Motivations bother me less than results tbh, once you start working on the assumption that all politicians lie all the time motivations become pretty sketchy anyway.
But in any case, the fact that Cameron completely ignored what he's done and everything else he said, and chose to treat a momentary slip of the tongue as if it were a serious comment, proves that to him image is more important than action, no?
it'd be refreshing to get someone in parliament who tell's it like it is skip's round all the political bs and lays the facts on the table never happen though.
northwind
11-12-08, 12:32 AM
Nobody would vote for people who can't be counted on to lie all the time I think. I wouldn't, couldn't trust them :mrgreen:
Warthog
11-12-08, 11:49 AM
http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=11765710
This is the major problem worrying me at the moment. Gordon Brown needs to be gotten rid of ASAP before he ruins the entire rest of my life. How can he think borrowing his way out of a hole created by borrowing is a good idea?!
Flamin_Squirrel
11-12-08, 02:15 PM
Well, considering his image is totally dependant on how well he performs here, I'm not sure you can seperate them... Even if like Blair he's always thinking "What makes me look good", what makes him look good is acting to help the economy so it's still a good result. Motivations bother me less than results tbh, once you start working on the assumption that all politicians lie all the time motivations become pretty sketchy anyway.
But in any case, the fact that Cameron completely ignored what he's done and everything else he said, and chose to treat a momentary slip of the tongue as if it were a serious comment, proves that to him image is more important than action, no?
Some problems there.
First, he maybe interested in making himself look good here... but now, not for the long term.
Second, regarding Cameron being more concerned about his image than saying anything meaningful... well, that might be a problem for you, and me, and anyone else with more than 2 brain cells. But for most people who're more concerned about the results of X-Factor than the economy, it isn't. Cameron is just appealing to the idiotic masses - democracy at work!
Ceri JC
11-12-08, 03:17 PM
it'd be refreshing to get someone in parliament who tell's it like it is skip's round all the political bs and lays the facts on the table never happen though.
Sorry, BJ is the nearest you get to this and even he's an evasive weasel at times (see him talking about banning bendy buses on Top Gear).
FS is right, sadly "democracy" works on the principle of the combination of three groups.
1. A large bunch of simpletons, voting on a popularity contest between individuals (which is why unelected Mr. Brown governing is so wrong- yes technically they voted Labour, but really a lot of the children voted Blair).
2. A slightly smaller bunch of simpletons who will always vote for the same party year after year, irrespective of who they put forwards, their policies or how much they have deviated from the party's roots which attracted them in the first place.
3. Those members of the population with an intellect comparing favourably to that of a chipmunk, who keep abreast of the state of the country to some extent and are able to describe the basic tennets of the policies of the party they choose to vote for.
Groups 1 & 2 are a lot bigger than 3. Unfortunately democracy means we all get ruled by the ones 1 & 2 pick.
Biker Biggles
11-12-08, 04:15 PM
I think we have the potential to live in interesting times.For the first time in very many years there appears to be a real difference opening up between the two parties who rule Britain.We have Brown and most of the rest of the western world wanting to spend and borrow our way out of this mess,and Cameron (and the Germans)who are baulking at that and looking to do something else.I dont think either side has thought it all through yet,and I have no confidence in any of them to get it right.What they all have in common is an inability to grasp fundamental principles,rather than short term politics,and are hence destined to fail catastophically.
northwind
11-12-08, 08:36 PM
How can he think borrowing his way out of a hole created by borrowing is a good idea?!
The current UK crisis wasn't caused by UK borrowing. And the biggest issue right now for most businesses is a lack of lending. Loans aren't being reissued, debts are being called in, short term shortfalls are putting profitable companies out of business (of the 5 decent size companies I'm dealing with just now which have gone into receivership, guess how many make a profit annually? Clue- it's all of them. All 5 have been broken by short term liabilities which usually they could borrow) The depth of consumer debt is going to make it hard to get out of the hole but it didn't put us in it. I think a lot of people are still working on the belief that it's credit card debts or consumer borrowing that's caused the recession, but it isn't.
Take Woolworths. Doesn't look like anyone will buy the chain out. Now, I know that at least 2 companies have asked for short term borrowing to fund a buy-out, but neither has got the cash they need for it, because the amount needed to cover the current debt is so substantial. So, instead of being bought out, they go out of business completely. (Woolworths were in a mess before the recession of course so it's maybe not the best example)
Simple question- what is the alternative? What is your scheme that avoids increasing borrowing?
northwind
11-12-08, 08:57 PM
I gather there's a big red reset switch somewhere in a bunker near coventry, we should just press that.
Biker Biggles
11-12-08, 09:00 PM
Simple question- what is the alternative? What is your scheme that avoids increasing borrowing?[/quote]
I dont think there is one that avoids further borrowing.Which is what I find worrying about the Cameron/Tory policy.They are clear they dont like Browns policy but dont seem to have a thought through alternative.
However,I dont have much confidence in the Brown policy either.It smacks too much of old fashioned"lets just throw more money at it"economics,and I dont think it works for us any more.
What is required is policy that is soundly thought out and targets money at specific areas that will generate results.Hence my idea that we should be reducing or abolishing employer national insurance contributions to make employing staff cheaper,rather than an expensive but ineffective cut in VAT.This would hopefully save jobs which would be the most important thing in a slump.
northwind
11-12-08, 09:06 PM
I think the problem is that right now everyone's trying to return to how things were before, without thinking "Wait! The whole game was screwed before! Why go back?" Trouble is America's going to take that route no matter what, since it's the system that made them the only superpower, and so for us to take any other route would be incredibly difficult. After all, it's events there that dragged us over the edge.
Biker Biggles
11-12-08, 09:12 PM
Yes.There has been a siesmic shift in economic power to the East,and to try to force things back against the tide would be suicidal.National bankrupty would be inevitable.
It might be inevitable anyway.
northwind
11-12-08, 09:16 PM
At the end of the day I reckon it's all going to fall apart sooner or later, but I don't think this is the time to let it happen... Not enough of a pivot point. We'd end up being bought up by Walmart or something if we try and go it alone.
Flamin_Squirrel
11-12-08, 09:20 PM
I dont think there is one that avoids further borrowing.Which is what I find worrying about the Cameron/Tory policy.They are clear they dont like Browns policy but dont seem to have a thought through alternative.
There probably isn't an alternative. That doesn't mean Cameron is an idiot, he's just fulfilling the role of the opposition - disagreeing with everything the government says, and trying to emphasis that it's Browns fault we're in this mess.
Biker Biggles
11-12-08, 09:24 PM
Not Walmart.The Chinese already own half the Yank national debt.Ours is headed the same way,but we have already sold vast national assets abroad,so there is less left to squabble over.And as the Pound sinks ever lower it all must look cheap for the predators.
northwind
11-12-08, 09:25 PM
trying to emphasis that it's Browns fault we're in this mess.
Because Brown caused the US sub-prime crisis, which caused the collapse of inter-bank lending and particularily mortgage-linked investment, which caused the partial failure of the UK banking model, which is the biggest single issue in the UK credit crunch. Oh no, wait, no he didn't.
Biker Biggles
11-12-08, 09:31 PM
There probably isn't an alternative. That doesn't mean Cameron is an idiot, he's just fulfilling the role of the opposition - disagreeing with everything the government says, and trying to emphasis that it's Browns fault we're in this mess.
If Camerons policy is disagree with everything the government says whether its right or wrong then Id say that does make him an idiot.
What this country really needs is a proper leader with a vision for the future and how to get out of this pre-terminal mess.Unfortuneately we dont seem to have one,or one in waiting,or any prospect of one.Hard times await.
Flamin_Squirrel
11-12-08, 09:33 PM
Because Brown caused the US sub-prime crisis, which caused the collapse of inter-bank lending and particularily mortgage-linked investment, which caused the partial failure of the UK banking model, which is the biggest single issue in the UK credit crunch. Oh no, wait, no he didn't.
I didn't say he caused it. I said it's his fault we're in this mess, meaning colossal national debt, high public spending, tax etc...
Flamin_Squirrel
11-12-08, 09:37 PM
If Camerons policy is disagree with everything the government says whether its right or wrong then Id say that does make him an idiot.
What do you expect him to say, good job Mr Brown? Don't read into it, it's just posturing.
northwind
11-12-08, 09:44 PM
I didn't say he caused it. I said it's his fault we're in this mess, meaning colossal national debt, high public spending, tax etc...
You know, that's interesting, because national debt today is 43% of GDP, whereas it was 44% and rising in 1996 :smt019 That's even including the bank bailouts (apparently... Though I'm not quite convinced, it certainly includes Northern Rock and the timing says it includes the others, but the numbers don't feel right) Though to be fair the bank bailouts don't really fit into the normal national debt model, as they're secured on assets.
As for tax, it's far from a statement of fact that high tax and high spending are a problem. I know you believe it is, of course.
Biker Biggles
11-12-08, 09:46 PM
What do you expect him to say, good job Mr Brown? Don't read into it, it's just posturing.
If he wants to be taken seriously as a potential national leader then its his duty to do what is right by the country in a desperate crisis.Regretably he is such a shallow tw&t he wouldnt have any concept of what that is.
They should all read a few history books.Start with 1939--1945.That might teach them about how to and not to behave when the chips are down.
Flamin_Squirrel
11-12-08, 09:49 PM
You know, that's interesting, because national debt today is 43% of GDP, whereas it was 44% and rising in 1996 :smt019 That's even including the bank bailouts (apparently... Though I'm not quite convinced, it certainly includes Northern Rock and the timing says it includes the others, but the numbers don't feel right) Though to be fair the bank bailouts don't really fit into the normal national debt model, as they're secured on assets.
As for tax, it's far from a statement of fact that high tax and high spending are a problem. I know you believe it is, of course.
I doubt those figures include the PFI debts racked up by hospitals etc.
I'm open to persuasion on taxation but I've see lots going up, not many going down.
Flamin_Squirrel
11-12-08, 09:53 PM
If he wants to be taken seriously as a potential national leader then its his duty to do what is right by the country in a desperate crisis.Regretably he is such a shallow tw&t he wouldnt have any concept of what that is.
They should all read a few history books.Start with 1939--1945.That might teach them about how to and not to behave when the chips are down.
I suspect he's just playing the game. He won't get to be leader without doing so. That said, he does come across as a bit of a drip.
slark01
11-12-08, 10:10 PM
I wonder what Brown was actually thinking when he said it?
Is he an egomaniac I wonder?
northwind
11-12-08, 10:19 PM
I wonder what Brown was actually thinking when he said it?
Is he an egomaniac I wonder?
No, he just got the sentence out of order, "saved the banks and led the world". Oh, OK, he IS an egomaniac but this is just a slip of the tongue.
northwind
11-12-08, 10:21 PM
I doubt those figures include the PFI debts racked up by hospitals etc.
I'm open to persuasion on taxation but I've see lots going up, not many going down.
It actually does include PFI.
Not denying that tax has gone up. So has spending. Just that I don't think that's intrinsically bad, while you do.
Flamin_Squirrel
11-12-08, 10:38 PM
It actually does include PFI.
Not denying that tax has gone up. So has spending. Just that I don't think that's intrinsically bad, while you do.
No such thing as a universally bad policy - and when it comes to politics as far as I'm concerned the ends justify the means. I am prejudice towards a more right wing economic arrangement, but if alternatives work better so be it. It's not that I necessary think that extra tax without exception is bad, but I just see lots revenue being wasted (on armies of useless civil servants especially), and I just can't see that as a tax payer we're getting value for money. Therefore I tend to revert towards the more right ring economic way of thinking.
northwind
11-12-08, 10:55 PM
I think the benefits are there to see, though. But we've had the conversation about the NHS etc before, can't be bothered to do it again ;) But I walk without a limp most of the time because of NHS investment, offering modern procedures that wouldn't have been available under the thatcherite model. So I'm in favour ;)
I'd love to know what the real cost of NHS bureacracy actually is, everyone throws it around and says it's too high or promises cuts but I wonder what the numbers are, and what they've been, and how much of it actually does help... Speaking to my osteo consultant, he says he does more surgery and more patient work now because he no longer has to run his deparment, they have a professional beancounter for that, and doctors for doctoring. Sounds like a plan. But I bet it doesn't often work out so neat
yorkie_chris
11-12-08, 11:43 PM
NHS investment is one thing, but there's so much blatant pi$$ing money away that it's no suprise. It's every branch of government that has got that attitude of "oh money... yes we'll just print more of it"
on a lighter note, the last time I'd had a slip of the Tongue, I ended up in deep ****.
quite embarrasing... but she love it. ;-)
da dum dum, bum tish...
sorry coat.... Taxi.
U rated and all.
northwind
12-12-08, 12:17 AM
NHS investment is one thing, but there's so much blatant pi$$ing money away that it's no suprise.
Aye, but that's what I'm saying, nobody ever puts a quantity on it. Is it shockingly big? Surprisingly small? Is it like gun crime, where every governmetn promises to take a hard line on it but actually, it's falling? (governments seem to like to keep stories like this around, easy targets that attract a lot of attention) Is all NHS management being tarred with the same brush? (like my consultant being a doctor again instead of a manager) We don't really know. It interests me, it's not somethign that'd be hard to account for, a simple clinical/nonclinical budget would show it.
See, I TOLD you I was cynical :)
Warthog
12-12-08, 12:46 PM
Simple question- what is the alternative? What is your scheme that avoids increasing borrowing?
I'm afraid to say I am somewhat fatalistic in this approach. For too long the whole economy was artificially inflated because of the movement of money, debt and highly dodgy ways of borrowing against future predictions. This is capitalism now evening itself out and it is going to hurt. Extra spending is just going to make it hurt for longer. We have to bend over and take it like men.
Warthog
12-12-08, 12:46 PM
on a lighter note, the last time I'd had a slip of the Tongue, I ended up in deep ****.
quite embarrasing... but she love it. ;-)
da dum dum, bum tish...
sorry coat.... Taxi.
U rated and all.
No hilarity in this thread, please.
*snigger*
ArtyLady
12-12-08, 01:22 PM
on a lighter note, the last time I'd had a slip of the Tongue, I ended up in deep ****.
quite embarrasing... but she love it. ;-)
da dum dum, bum tish...
sorry coat.... Taxi.
U rated and all.
Just spat coffee on my keyboard!!!! :lol:
yorkie_chris
12-12-08, 03:07 PM
This is capitalism now evening itself out and it is going to hurt. Extra spending is just going to make it hurt for longer.
Yeap. Though actually if darling leaves the next government with a big pile of steaming $hit to sift through, then it makes them look bad, and increases labours chance of reelection next time. Makes sense from a strategic point of veiw if you're an egocentric political type who doesn't give 2 f##ks about the people you're supposed to represent.
Flamin_Squirrel
12-12-08, 03:10 PM
Yeap. Though actually if darling leaves the next government with a big pile of steaming $hit to sift through, then it makes them look bad, and increases labours chance of reelection next time. Makes sense from a strategic point of veiw if you're an egocentric political type who doesn't give 2 f##ks about the people you're supposed to represent.
Wouldn't worry too much, as the economy will have collapsed by the time the general election rolls around. As thick as most voters are, they'll remember who was in power when it happened.
jimmy__riddle
12-12-08, 03:13 PM
Aye, but that's what I'm saying, nobody ever puts a quantity on it. Is it shockingly big? Surprisingly small? Is it like gun crime, where every governmetn promises to take a hard line on it but actually, it's falling? (governments seem to like to keep stories like this around, easy targets that attract a lot of attention) Is all NHS management being tarred with the same brush? (like my consultant being a doctor again instead of a manager) We don't really know. It interests me, it's not somethign that'd be hard to account for, a simple clinical/nonclinical budget would show it.
See, I TOLD you I was cynical :)
there are huge cash holes in hospitals, usually with excuses coming 'from different budgets', like the 'artwork' outide my local hospital cost 10's of thousands and in nothing more than a few stainless steel shapes.
northwind
12-12-08, 07:04 PM
Course there are, but tbh £10000 in the scale of the NHS budget is next to nothing... And it's this penny ante stuff that gets the attention usually. Maybe just because nobody believes big numbers (tell people we've wasted a billion pounds and it just makes no sense, it's hard to grasp... But tell people we've wasted a million and they'll be shocked)
Biker Biggles
12-12-08, 07:17 PM
The biggest cash pit in the NHS has been(and still is)the new computer system which has cost the earth and failed to deliver.
Hot on its heels is probably the debacle of the revised GP contracts which also cost a lot and resulted in risible out of hours services in many areas.
Both these are examples of very poor management,and while we could argue about the growth of management over the years,I would suggest the quality of management in the NHS is poor to put it politely.
Flamin_Squirrel
12-12-08, 07:23 PM
We've discussed this before, but trebling of the NHS budget in less than a decade, how?! Where's all that money going.
I know you'll talk about advancing medical care, but consider your hip - you had an expensive procedure carried out, granted. But, the spin off is faster recovery and less time in hospital, which over all could have ended up saving the NHS money compared with older treatments.
northwind
12-12-08, 11:15 PM
Nah, my hospital time was longer than a half-hip replacement, and the physio and OT time was something like 50 times as much, and I've got ongoing consults etc so they can intervene early it the mend fails... So it's very expensive by comparison. Hip replacement is much more invasive and less good, but quicker, and because you can't recover as fully you can recover as much as you ever will very fast (my grandad walked out of hospital 2 days after his first hip replacement, at 92! But he didn't do a lot of mountain biking afterwards ;))
But that's just one example, it's stuff like old age treatment, cancer treatments, longer paliative care... Keeping people alive is expensive.
Not that I think this accounts for all the money, don't worry, I'm not daft :mrgreen: But when you consider how underfunded the NHS was in 1996, and how much more it now does (and is expected to do) it's not as drastic as it looks I think
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.