View Full Version : Quoting posts
Spiderman
10-06-09, 04:48 PM
Is it just me that find it annoying/pointless when someone quotes the ENTIRE post that someone else has made, just to agree/disagree/discuss on or two lines of it?
Example... (dont waste time reading the article, just look for the bold bit)
The Tories have rejected claims that they are planning "massive" cuts after the next election as the party leaders clashed over their spending plans.
Gordon Brown said the Tories had revealed plans to reduce expenditure in many areas by 10% in the three years after 2011, hitting basic services.
David Cameron said Labour's would be forced into big cuts of their own due to their "appalling" economic record.
Independent experts believe cuts will happen whoever wins the next election.
But the BBC's Political Editor Nick Robinson said neither party were comfortable talking about where any spending cuts, which he said were inevitable, would fall.
'Massive cuts'
The party leaders exchanged barbs over their spending plans in the Commons, with Mr Brown seizing on comments made earlier by Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley about the party's spending plans.
In a BBC interview, he appeared to suggest that, in order to protect "priority" spending on the NHS and schools, a future Conservative government would cut expenditure in other areas by a total of 10% between 2011-5.
He was asked how the Tories would fund their pledge to maintain real-term increases in health and international aid spending - given the party's commitment to reduce what it says are Labour's unsustainable debt levels.
This is the day when the Conservatives have revealed their true manifesto for this country
Gordon Brown
The Full Story: PM's questions
Nick Robinson's blog
Brown sets out vote reform plans
"Unfortunately what this means is that there is going to be very powerful spending constraints elsewhere across government," he said.
He continued: "That does mean over three years after 2011 a 10% reduction in departmental expenditure limits for other departments. It is a very tough spending requirement indeed."
In response, at prime minister's questions, Gordon Brown said such a policy would result in "massive" cuts to "vital" services.
In contrast, he said under Labour spending would rise, in real terms, in each of the next five years.
"This is the day when the Conservatives have revealed their true manifesto for this country," he said.
"The choice is between a government prepared to invest in the future and a Tory Party which is going to cut."
'Labour deception'
Mr Cameron said the Treasury's own projections, set out in this year's Budget, would result in a sharp fall in spending after 2011 - amounting to 7% for some departments.
He said the government's economic legacy was catastrophic, with the "biggest budget deficit in the country's history".
The next election would not be about investment versus cuts, he said, but Labour's record over the past 12 years.
"It will be about the mismanagement of the public finances, the appalling deficits he has left and and his plan for cuts," Mr Cameron said.
Mr Lansley later sought to clarify his remarks, saying the two parties were facing the same pressures on spending.
"The issue is how do you deliver more for less in government," he said.
In a statement, the party said Mr Lansley was pointing out that Labour was trying to "deceive" the public by suggesting it could avoid spending cuts after 2011.
Mr Brown was misleading the public when he said spending would continue to rise as he was ignoring the costs of paying interest on the spiralling public debt.
Chancellor Alistair Darling announced plans in the Budget to borrow a further £500bn over the next four years.
Painful debate
The debate over public spending is set to intensify in the run-up to the election with both main parties having to explain how they will reduce the spiralling level of public debt without being forced into both tax rises and deep spending cuts.
If this is a sign of things to come in the debate on public spending then we're in for a pretty miserable year
Stephanie Flanders
BBC economics editor
Read Stephanomics in full
At this stage, neither party have spelled out their detailed spending plans beyond 2011.
In its Budget analysis in April, the respected Institute of Financial Studies said the country faced "two parliaments of pain" as the next government had to reduce debt levels and bring the public finances under control after the damage caused by the banking crisis and recession.
It said there was £90bn "black hole" in the public finances and it would cost £2,480 in higher taxes or spending cuts per family to bring the budget back into balance.
Labour disputed this figure and said the IFS had not understood the full picture. BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders said that "the government's own numbers imply a 10% real cut in spending on other departments between 2011 and 2013 if the NHS and DFID are protected".
Where this would do...
In its Budget analysis in April,
OK 2 things.
1. I've used an article longer than most quoted posts to make my point.
2. I've used this article rather than find an example from a thread cos i dont want anyon to think its aimed at them speciffically.
I just find that i scroll and scroll past something i've already read only to find a very short comment that usually relates to just a very small part of the full post quoted.
is it just me?
is everyone just being lazy?
is it that some peeps dont know its acceptable to quote just a bit, or they just dont know how to edit the quote?
Opinions please :)
Jamiebridges123
10-06-09, 04:49 PM
What gets me is when people quote 540 images and then put "nice". :|
Or I'd just highlight a few specific sentences and put -snip-
Mr Speirs
10-06-09, 04:50 PM
Is it just me that find it annoying/pointless when someone quotes the ENTIRE post that someone else has made, just to agree/disagree/discuss on or two lines of it?
Example... (dont waste time reading the article, just look for the bold bit)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
The Tories have rejected claims that they are planning "massive" cuts after the next election as the party leaders clashed over their spending plans.
Gordon Brown said the Tories had revealed plans to reduce expenditure in many areas by 10% in the three years after 2011, hitting basic services.
David Cameron said Labour's would be forced into big cuts of their own due to their "appalling" economic record.
Independent experts believe cuts will happen whoever wins the next election.
But the BBC's Political Editor Nick Robinson said neither party were comfortable talking about where any spending cuts, which he said were inevitable, would fall.
'Massive cuts'
The party leaders exchanged barbs over their spending plans in the Commons, with Mr Brown seizing on comments made earlier by Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley about the party's spending plans.
In a BBC interview, he appeared to suggest that, in order to protect "priority" spending on the NHS and schools, a future Conservative government would cut expenditure in other areas by a total of 10% between 2011-5.
He was asked how the Tories would fund their pledge to maintain real-term increases in health and international aid spending - given the party's commitment to reduce what it says are Labour's unsustainable debt levels.
This is the day when the Conservatives have revealed their true manifesto for this country
Gordon Brown
The Full Story: PM's questions
Nick Robinson's blog
Brown sets out vote reform plans
"Unfortunately what this means is that there is going to be very powerful spending constraints elsewhere across government," he said.
He continued: "That does mean over three years after 2011 a 10% reduction in departmental expenditure limits for other departments. It is a very tough spending requirement indeed."
In response, at prime minister's questions, Gordon Brown said such a policy would result in "massive" cuts to "vital" services.
In contrast, he said under Labour spending would rise, in real terms, in each of the next five years.
"This is the day when the Conservatives have revealed their true manifesto for this country," he said.
"The choice is between a government prepared to invest in the future and a Tory Party which is going to cut."
'Labour deception'
Mr Cameron said the Treasury's own projections, set out in this year's Budget, would result in a sharp fall in spending after 2011 - amounting to 7% for some departments.
He said the government's economic legacy was catastrophic, with the "biggest budget deficit in the country's history".
The next election would not be about investment versus cuts, he said, but Labour's record over the past 12 years.
"It will be about the mismanagement of the public finances, the appalling deficits he has left and and his plan for cuts," Mr Cameron said.
Mr Lansley later sought to clarify his remarks, saying the two parties were facing the same pressures on spending.
"The issue is how do you deliver more for less in government," he said.
In a statement, the party said Mr Lansley was pointing out that Labour was trying to "deceive" the public by suggesting it could avoid spending cuts after 2011.
Mr Brown was misleading the public when he said spending would continue to rise as he was ignoring the costs of paying interest on the spiralling public debt.
Chancellor Alistair Darling announced plans in the Budget to borrow a further £500bn over the next four years.
Painful debate
The debate over public spending is set to intensify in the run-up to the election with both main parties having to explain how they will reduce the spiralling level of public debt without being forced into both tax rises and deep spending cuts.
If this is a sign of things to come in the debate on public spending then we're in for a pretty miserable year
Stephanie Flanders
BBC economics editor
Read Stephanomics in full
At this stage, neither party have spelled out their detailed spending plans beyond 2011.
In its Budget analysis in April, the respected Institute of Financial Studies said the country faced "two parliaments of pain" as the next government had to reduce debt levels and bring the public finances under control after the damage caused by the banking crisis and recession.
It said there was £90bn "black hole" in the public finances and it would cost £2,480 in higher taxes or spending cuts per family to bring the budget back into balance.
Labour disputed this figure and said the IFS had not understood the full picture. BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders said that "the government's own numbers imply a 10% real cut in spending on other departments between 2011 and 2013 if the NHS and DFID are protected".
Where this would do...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
In its Budget analysis in April,
OK 2 things.
1. I've used an article longer than most quoted posts to make my point.
2. I've used this article rather than find an example from a thread cos i dont want anyon to think its aimed at them speciffically.
I just find that i scroll and scroll past something i've already read only to find a very short comment that usually relates to just a very small part of the full post quoted.
is it just me?
is everyone just being lazy?
is it that some peeps dont know its acceptable to quote just a bit, or they just dont know how to edit the quote?
Opinions please :smile:
I think it should be Italics not bold. :)
yeah i mean where you could be saying **** all and talking to no one that'd be great damn interaction.
Spiderman
10-06-09, 04:58 PM
I think it should be Italics not bold. :)
I just knew someone would do what you did, just didn't expect it so soon, lol.
Mr Speirs
10-06-09, 05:01 PM
I just knew someone would do what you did, just didn't expect it so soon, lol.
Thought id get in there before anyone else :)
Spiderman
10-06-09, 06:51 PM
Yeh, if your not fast you're last n all that jazz.... but i wanna know if its just me that gets annoyed by this or not.
Do find it a bit =\ having to read through the op all again to find the point the quoter is getting at/pointing out/trying to make
madness
10-06-09, 07:55 PM
I tend to agree, but by using a quote and then removing some of the text you can change essence of the original, if you understand what I mean.
Is it just me that find it annoying/pointless when someone quotes the ENTIRE post that someone else has made, just to agree/disagree/discuss on or two lines of it?
Example... (dont waste time reading the article, just look for the bold bit)
The Tories have rejected claims that they are planning "massive" cuts after the next election as the party leaders clashed over their spending plans.
Gordon Brown said the Tories had revealed plans to reduce expenditure in many areas by 10% in the three years after 2011, hitting basic services.
David Cameron said Labour's would be forced into big cuts of their own due to their "appalling" economic record.
Independent experts believe cuts will happen whoever wins the next election.
But the BBC's Political Editor Nick Robinson said neither party were comfortable talking about where any spending cuts, which he said were inevitable, would fall.
'Massive cuts'
The party leaders exchanged barbs over their spending plans in the Commons, with Mr Brown seizing on comments made earlier by Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley about the party's spending plans.
In a BBC interview, he appeared to suggest that, in order to protect "priority" spending on the NHS and schools, a future Conservative government would cut expenditure in other areas by a total of 10% between 2011-5.
He was asked how the Tories would fund their pledge to maintain real-term increases in health and international aid spending - given the party's commitment to reduce what it says are Labour's unsustainable debt levels.
This is the day when the Conservatives have revealed their true manifesto for this country
Gordon Brown
The Full Story: PM's questions
Nick Robinson's blog
Brown sets out vote reform plans
"Unfortunately what this means is that there is going to be very powerful spending constraints elsewhere across government," he said.
He continued: "That does mean over three years after 2011 a 10% reduction in departmental expenditure limits for other departments. It is a very tough spending requirement indeed."
In response, at prime minister's questions, Gordon Brown said such a policy would result in "massive" cuts to "vital" services.
In contrast, he said under Labour spending would rise, in real terms, in each of the next five years.
"This is the day when the Conservatives have revealed their true manifesto for this country," he said.
"The choice is between a government prepared to invest in the future and a Tory Party which is going to cut."
'Labour deception'
Mr Cameron said the Treasury's own projections, set out in this year's Budget, would result in a sharp fall in spending after 2011 - amounting to 7% for some departments.
He said the government's economic legacy was catastrophic, with the "biggest budget deficit in the country's history".
The next election would not be about investment versus cuts, he said, but Labour's record over the past 12 years.
"It will be about the mismanagement of the public finances, the appalling deficits he has left and and his plan for cuts," Mr Cameron said.
Mr Lansley later sought to clarify his remarks, saying the two parties were facing the same pressures on spending.
"The issue is how do you deliver more for less in government," he said.
In a statement, the party said Mr Lansley was pointing out that Labour was trying to "deceive" the public by suggesting it could avoid spending cuts after 2011.
Mr Brown was misleading the public when he said spending would continue to rise as he was ignoring the costs of paying interest on the spiralling public debt.
Chancellor Alistair Darling announced plans in the Budget to borrow a further £500bn over the next four years.
Painful debate
The debate over public spending is set to intensify in the run-up to the election with both main parties having to explain how they will reduce the spiralling level of public debt without being forced into both tax rises and deep spending cuts.
If this is a sign of things to come in the debate on public spending then we're in for a pretty miserable year
Stephanie Flanders
BBC economics editor
Read Stephanomics in full
At this stage, neither party have spelled out their detailed spending plans beyond 2011.
In its Budget analysis in April, the respected Institute of Financial Studies said the country faced "two parliaments of pain" as the next government had to reduce debt levels and bring the public finances under control after the damage caused by the banking crisis and recession.
It said there was £90bn "black hole" in the public finances and it would cost £2,480 in higher taxes or spending cuts per family to bring the budget back into balance.
Labour disputed this figure and said the IFS had not understood the full picture. BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders said that "the government's own numbers imply a 10% real cut in spending on other departments between 2011 and 2013 if the NHS and DFID are protected"
Where this would do...
In its Budget analysis in April,
OK 2 things.
1. I've used an article longer than most quoted posts to make my point.
2. I've used this article rather than find an example from a thread cos i dont want anyon to think its aimed at them speciffically.
I just find that i scroll and scroll past something i've already read only to find a very short comment that usually relates to just a very small part of the full post quoted.
is it just me?
is everyone just being lazy?
is it that some peeps dont know its acceptable to quote just a bit, or they just dont know how to edit the quote?
Opinions please :)
To answer your last 3 questions
No
Yes
Yes
;)
Spiderman
10-06-09, 08:10 PM
To answer your last 3 questions
No
Yes
Yes
;)
I officially hate you now ;) But at least you answered the questions so ...
Madness, i agree but its down to the person who edits the quote to choose the relevant bit(s).
As Venom has just shown above, the git, or you see others in other threads break up the original quote and answer it in parts as they go.
I'm guessing its what Venom answered too, some of you lot are just plain lazy :lol: and others just dont know how.
Its not hard people, honest. :)
RatchetJob
10-06-09, 08:13 PM
is it just me? I'm sure everyone finds it annoying at times.
is everyone just being lazy? By the same token the reader could be branded as lazy for not reading through / ignoring the quoted post.
- The poster wants the posting process to be as convenient as possible hence not reducing quotes.
- The reader want the reading process to be as convenient as possible hence not liking bulky quotes....so yes everyone is just being lazy. ;)
is it that some peeps dont know its acceptable to quote just a bit, or they just dont know how to edit the quote? Probably a bit of both, though some people may think they might offend the OP if they quote out of context.
If I want to quote a post sometimes I find myself selecting the portion of text in the post and clicking the "Quote" button expecting it to carry only the selected portion into the reply screen. Of course the system doesn't work like this but it seems intuitive to me.
Admins: is a feature like this available?
I officially hate you now ;) But at least you answered the questions so ...
I'm guessing its what Venom answered too, some of you lot are just plain lazy :lol: and others just dont know how.
You're welcome :)
I normally just ignore quoted stuff anyway unless it's real short. Life is too short to read stuff I might have read before.
Its not hard people, honest. :)
True
Its not hard people, honest. :)
And there goes all your girl-pulling chances! :p
And there goes all your girl-pulling chances! :p
lol I'm worried how I know it's true.
lol I'm worried how I know it's true.
I'm worried how you know it's true! :p
Oh, and Spidey..................I'm with you about the quotes thing. I do it sometimes, usually when I'm half asleep, but I do prefer to prune any quoted posts.
Spiderman
10-06-09, 08:35 PM
Thanks for all your answers so far peeps :)
And there goes all your girl-pulling chances! :p
Well most of em anyway :lol:
If I want to quote a post sometimes I find myself selecting the portion of text in the post and clicking the "Quote" button expecting it to carry only the selected portion into the reply screen. Of course the system doesn't work like this but it seems intuitive to me.
Admins: is a feature like this available?
Now that sir is a good idea. Would you mind posting that into the Forum Problems & Information / Site Suggestions section for those who know to look at too. Sounds like a usefull function to me.
-Ralph-
10-06-09, 11:04 PM
Generally I find it annoying, but it depends how long the thread is. Quoting the whole thing can be useful if either:
A. the OP is so many pages ago that you need to go scrolling back to 'cos you can't put a single quoted sentence into context,
or B folk have wondered off so far on assumption or supposition that they need reminding what was actually written in the OP
Originally Posted by BBC News
The Tories have rejected claims that they are planning "massive" cuts after the next election as the party leaders clashed over their spending plans.
Gordon Brown said the Tories had revealed plans to reduce expenditure in many areas by 10% in the three years after 2011, hitting basic services.
David Cameron said Labour's would be forced into big cuts of their own due to their "appalling" economic record.
Independent experts believe cuts will happen whoever wins the next election.
But the BBC's Political Editor Nick Robinson said neither party were comfortable talking about where any spending cuts, which he said were inevitable, would fall.
'Massive cuts'
The party leaders exchanged barbs over their spending plans in the Commons, with Mr Brown seizing on comments made earlier by Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley about the party's spending plans.
In a BBC interview, he appeared to suggest that, in order to protect "priority" spending on the NHS and schools, a future Conservative government would cut expenditure in other areas by a total of 10% between 2011-5.
He was asked how the Tories would fund their pledge to maintain real-term increases in health and international aid spending - given the party's commitment to reduce what it says are Labour's unsustainable debt levels.
This is the day when the Conservatives have revealed their true manifesto for this country
Gordon Brown
The Full Story: PM's questions
Nick Robinson's blog
Brown sets out vote reform plans
"Unfortunately what this means is that there is going to be very powerful spending constraints elsewhere across government," he said.
He continued: "That does mean over three years after 2011 a 10% reduction in departmental expenditure limits for other departments. It is a very tough spending requirement indeed."
In response, at prime minister's questions, Gordon Brown said such a policy would result in "massive" cuts to "vital" services.
In contrast, he said under Labour spending would rise, in real terms, in each of the next five years.
"This is the day when the Conservatives have revealed their true manifesto for this country," he said.
"The choice is between a government prepared to invest in the future and a Tory Party which is going to cut."
'Labour deception'
Mr Cameron said the Treasury's own projections, set out in this year's Budget, would result in a sharp fall in spending after 2011 - amounting to 7% for some departments.
He said the government's economic legacy was catastrophic, with the "biggest budget deficit in the country's history".
The next election would not be about investment versus cuts, he said, but Labour's record over the past 12 years.
"It will be about the mismanagement of the public finances, the appalling deficits he has left and and his plan for cuts," Mr Cameron said.
Mr Lansley later sought to clarify his remarks, saying the two parties were facing the same pressures on spending.
"The issue is how do you deliver more for less in government," he said.
In a statement, the party said Mr Lansley was pointing out that Labour was trying to "deceive" the public by suggesting it could avoid spending cuts after 2011.
Mr Brown was misleading the public when he said spending would continue to rise as he was ignoring the costs of paying interest on the spiralling public debt.
Chancellor Alistair Darling announced plans in the Budget to borrow a further £500bn over the next four years.
Painful debate
The debate over public spending is set to intensify in the run-up to the election with both main parties having to explain how they will reduce the spiralling level of public debt without being forced into both tax rises and deep spending cuts.
If this is a sign of things to come in the debate on public spending then we're in for a pretty miserable year
Stephanie Flanders
BBC economics editor
Read Stephanomics in full
At this stage, neither party have spelled out their detailed spending plans beyond 2011.
In its Budget analysis in April, the respected Institute of Financial Studies said the country faced "two parliaments of pain" as the next government had to reduce debt levels and bring the public finances under control after the damage caused by the banking crisis and recession.
It said there was £90bn "black hole" in the public finances and it would cost £2,480 in higher taxes or spending cuts per family to bring the budget back into balance.
Labour disputed this figure and said the IFS had not understood the full picture. BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders said that "the government's own numbers imply a 10% real cut in spending on other departments between 2011 and 2013 if the NHS and DFID are protected".
[/quote=Spiderman;1936761]Is it just me that find it annoying/pointless when someone quotes the ENTIRE post that someone else has made, just to agree/disagree/discuss on or two lines of it?
Example... (dont waste time reading the article, just look for the bold bit)
Where this would do...
OK 2 things.
1. I've used an article longer than most quoted posts to make my point.
2. I've used this article rather than find an example from a thread cos i dont want anyon to think its aimed at them speciffically.
I just find that i scroll and scroll past something i've already read only to find a very short comment that usually relates to just a very small part of the full post quoted.
is it just me?
is everyone just being lazy?
is it that some peeps dont know its acceptable to quote just a bit, or they just dont know how to edit the quote?
Opinions please :)[/quote]
But it's even worse when people try to selectively edit & then they get the quote tags wrong and it doesn't look like a quote
(like wot I've just intentionally done :lol:)
joshmac
11-06-09, 12:41 AM
I tend to agree, but by using a quote and then removing some of the text you can change essence of the original, if you understand what I mean.
Much like Ralph did here (http://forums.sv650.org/showpost.php?p=1937211&postcount=32) in Quiff's thread (http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=133520)
Bloody funny though! :lol:
joshmac
11-06-09, 12:43 AM
But it's even worse when people try to selectively edit & then they get the quote tags wrong and it doesn't look like a quote
(like wot I've just intentionally done :lol:)
Yeah that's annoying. Only 'cause it makes it a pain to decipher.
lukemillar
11-06-09, 01:36 AM
Is it just me that find it annoying/pointless when someone quotes the ENTIRE post that someone else has made, just to agree/disagree/discuss on or two lines of it?
Example... (dont waste time reading the article, just look for the bold bit)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
The Tories have rejected claims that they are planning "massive" cuts after the next election as the party leaders clashed over their spending plans.
Gordon Brown said the Tories had revealed plans to reduce expenditure in many areas by 10% in the three years after 2011, hitting basic services.
David Cameron said Labour's would be forced into big cuts of their own due to their "appalling" economic record.
Independent experts believe cuts will happen whoever wins the next election.
But the BBC's Political Editor Nick Robinson said neither party were comfortable talking about where any spending cuts, which he said were inevitable, would fall.
'Massive cuts'
The party leaders exchanged barbs over their spending plans in the Commons, with Mr Brown seizing on comments made earlier by Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley about the party's spending plans.
In a BBC interview, he appeared to suggest that, in order to protect "priority" spending on the NHS and schools, a future Conservative government would cut expenditure in other areas by a total of 10% between 2011-5.
He was asked how the Tories would fund their pledge to maintain real-term increases in health and international aid spending - given the party's commitment to reduce what it says are Labour's unsustainable debt levels.
This is the day when the Conservatives have revealed their true manifesto for this country
Gordon Brown
The Full Story: PM's questions
Nick Robinson's blog
Brown sets out vote reform plans
"Unfortunately what this means is that there is going to be very powerful spending constraints elsewhere across government," he said.
He continued: "That does mean over three years after 2011 a 10% reduction in departmental expenditure limits for other departments. It is a very tough spending requirement indeed."
In response, at prime minister's questions, Gordon Brown said such a policy would result in "massive" cuts to "vital" services.
In contrast, he said under Labour spending would rise, in real terms, in each of the next five years.
"This is the day when the Conservatives have revealed their true manifesto for this country," he said.
"The choice is between a government prepared to invest in the future and a Tory Party which is going to cut."
'Labour deception'
Mr Cameron said the Treasury's own projections, set out in this year's Budget, would result in a sharp fall in spending after 2011 - amounting to 7% for some departments.
He said the government's economic legacy was catastrophic, with the "biggest budget deficit in the country's history".
The next election would not be about investment versus cuts, he said, but Labour's record over the past 12 years.
"It will be about the mismanagement of the public finances, the appalling deficits he has left and and his plan for cuts," Mr Cameron said.
Mr Lansley later sought to clarify his remarks, saying the two parties were facing the same pressures on spending.
"The issue is how do you deliver more for less in government," he said.
In a statement, the party said Mr Lansley was pointing out that Labour was trying to "deceive" the public by suggesting it could avoid spending cuts after 2011.
Mr Brown was misleading the public when he said spending would continue to rise as he was ignoring the costs of paying interest on the spiralling public debt.
Chancellor Alistair Darling announced plans in the Budget to borrow a further £500bn over the next four years.
Painful debate
The debate over public spending is set to intensify in the run-up to the election with both main parties having to explain how they will reduce the spiralling level of public debt without being forced into both tax rises and deep spending cuts.
If this is a sign of things to come in the debate on public spending then we're in for a pretty miserable year
Stephanie Flanders
BBC economics editor
Read Stephanomics in full
At this stage, neither party have spelled out their detailed spending plans beyond 2011.
In its Budget analysis in April, the respected Institute of Financial Studies said the country faced "two parliaments of pain" as the next government had to reduce debt levels and bring the public finances under control after the damage caused by the banking crisis and recession.
It said there was £90bn "black hole" in the public finances and it would cost £2,480 in higher taxes or spending cuts per family to bring the budget back into balance.
Labour disputed this figure and said the IFS had not understood the full picture. BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders said that "the government's own numbers imply a 10% real cut in spending on other departments between 2011 and 2013 if the NHS and DFID are protected".
Where this would do...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
In its Budget analysis in April,
OK 2 things.
1. I've used an article longer than most quoted posts to make my point.
2. I've used this article rather than find an example from a thread cos i dont want anyon to think its aimed at them speciffically.
I just find that i scroll and scroll past something i've already read only to find a very short comment that usually relates to just a very small part of the full post quoted.
is it just me?
is everyone just being lazy?
is it that some peeps dont know its acceptable to quote just a bit, or they just dont know how to edit the quote?
Opinions please :smile:
+1
Quote:
Is it just me that find it annoying/pointless when someone quotes the ENTIRE post that someone else has made, just to agree/disagree/discuss on or two lines of it?
Example... (dont waste time reading the article, just look for the bold bit)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
The Tories have rejected claims that they are planning "massive" cuts after the next election as the party leaders clashed over their spending plans.
Gordon Brown said the Tories had revealed plans to reduce expenditure in many areas by 10% in the three years after 2011, hitting basic services.
David Cameron said Labour's would be forced into big cuts of their own due to their "appalling" economic record.
Independent experts believe cuts will happen whoever wins the next election.
But the BBC's Political Editor Nick Robinson said neither party were comfortable talking about where any spending cuts, which he said were inevitable, would fall.
'Massive cuts'
The party leaders exchanged barbs over their spending plans in the Commons, with Mr Brown seizing on comments made earlier by Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley about the party's spending plans.
In a BBC interview, he appeared to suggest that, in order to protect "priority" spending on the NHS and schools, a future Conservative government would cut expenditure in other areas by a total of 10% between 2011-5.
He was asked how the Tories would fund their pledge to maintain real-term increases in health and international aid spending - given the party's commitment to reduce what it says are Labour's unsustainable debt levels.
This is the day when the Conservatives have revealed their true manifesto for this country
Gordon Brown
The Full Story: PM's questions
Nick Robinson's blog
Brown sets out vote reform plans
"Unfortunately what this means is that there is going to be very powerful spending constraints elsewhere across government," he said.
He continued: "That does mean over three years after 2011 a 10% reduction in departmental expenditure limits for other departments. It is a very tough spending requirement indeed."
In response, at prime minister's questions, Gordon Brown said such a policy would result in "massive" cuts to "vital" services.
In contrast, he said under Labour spending would rise, in real terms, in each of the next five years.
"This is the day when the Conservatives have revealed their true manifesto for this country," he said.
"The choice is between a government prepared to invest in the future and a Tory Party which is going to cut."
'Labour deception'
Mr Cameron said the Treasury's own projections, set out in this year's Budget, would result in a sharp fall in spending after 2011 - amounting to 7% for some departments.
He said the government's economic legacy was catastrophic, with the "biggest budget deficit in the country's history".
The next election would not be about investment versus cuts, he said, but Labour's record over the past 12 years.
"It will be about the mismanagement of the public finances, the appalling deficits he has left and and his plan for cuts," Mr Cameron said.
Mr Lansley later sought to clarify his remarks, saying the two parties were facing the same pressures on spending.
"The issue is how do you deliver more for less in government," he said.
In a statement, the party said Mr Lansley was pointing out that Labour was trying to "deceive" the public by suggesting it could avoid spending cuts after 2011.
Mr Brown was misleading the public when he said spending would continue to rise as he was ignoring the costs of paying interest on the spiralling public debt.
Chancellor Alistair Darling announced plans in the Budget to borrow a further £500bn over the next four years.
Painful debate
The debate over public spending is set to intensify in the run-up to the election with both main parties having to explain how they will reduce the spiralling level of public debt without being forced into both tax rises and deep spending cuts.
If this is a sign of things to come in the debate on public spending then we're in for a pretty miserable year
Stephanie Flanders
BBC economics editor
Read Stephanomics in full
At this stage, neither party have spelled out their detailed spending plans beyond 2011.
In its Budget analysis in April, the respected Institute of Financial Studies said the country faced "two parliaments of pain" as the next government had to reduce debt levels and bring the public finances under control after the damage caused by the banking crisis and recession.
It said there was £90bn "black hole" in the public finances and it would cost £2,480 in higher taxes or spending cuts per family to bring the budget back into balance.
Labour disputed this figure and said the IFS had not understood the full picture. BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders said that "the government's own numbers imply a 10% real cut in spending on other departments between 2011 and 2013 if the NHS and DFID are protected".
Where this would do...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
In its Budget analysis in April,
OK 2 things.
1. I've used an article longer than most quoted posts to make my point.
2. I've used this article rather than find an example from a thread cos i dont want anyon to think its aimed at them speciffically.
I just find that i scroll and scroll past something i've already read only to find a very short comment that usually relates to just a very small part of the full post quoted.
is it just me?
is everyone just being lazy?
is it that some peeps dont know its acceptable to quote just a bit, or they just dont know how to edit the quote?
Opinions please :smile:
I think it should be Italics not bold. :smile:
+1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman http://forums.sv650.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?p=1936761#post1936761)
Is it just me that find it annoying/pointless when someone quotes the ENTIRE post that someone else has made, just to agree/disagree/discuss on or two lines of it?
Example... (dont waste time reading the article, just look for the bold bit)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
The Tories have rejected claims that they are planning "massive" cuts after the next election as the party leaders clashed over their spending plans.
Gordon Brown said the Tories had revealed plans to reduce expenditure in many areas by 10% in the three years after 2011, hitting basic services.
David Cameron said Labour's would be forced into big cuts of their own due to their "appalling" economic record.
Independent experts believe cuts will happen whoever wins the next election.
But the BBC's Political Editor Nick Robinson said neither party were comfortable talking about where any spending cuts, which he said were inevitable, would fall.
'Massive cuts'
The party leaders exchanged barbs over their spending plans in the Commons, with Mr Brown seizing on comments made earlier by Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley about the party's spending plans.
In a BBC interview, he appeared to suggest that, in order to protect "priority" spending on the NHS and schools, a future Conservative government would cut expenditure in other areas by a total of 10% between 2011-5.
He was asked how the Tories would fund their pledge to maintain real-term increases in health and international aid spending - given the party's commitment to reduce what it says are Labour's unsustainable debt levels.
This is the day when the Conservatives have revealed their true manifesto for this country
Gordon Brown
The Full Story: PM's questions
Nick Robinson's blog
Brown sets out vote reform plans
"Unfortunately what this means is that there is going to be very powerful spending constraints elsewhere across government," he said.
He continued: "That does mean over three years after 2011 a 10% reduction in departmental expenditure limits for other departments. It is a very tough spending requirement indeed."
In response, at prime minister's questions, Gordon Brown said such a policy would result in "massive" cuts to "vital" services.
In contrast, he said under Labour spending would rise, in real terms, in each of the next five years.
"This is the day when the Conservatives have revealed their true manifesto for this country," he said.
"The choice is between a government prepared to invest in the future and a Tory Party which is going to cut."
'Labour deception'
Mr Cameron said the Treasury's own projections, set out in this year's Budget, would result in a sharp fall in spending after 2011 - amounting to 7% for some departments.
He said the government's economic legacy was catastrophic, with the "biggest budget deficit in the country's history".
The next election would not be about investment versus cuts, he said, but Labour's record over the past 12 years.
"It will be about the mismanagement of the public finances, the appalling deficits he has left and and his plan for cuts," Mr Cameron said.
Mr Lansley later sought to clarify his remarks, saying the two parties were facing the same pressures on spending.
"The issue is how do you deliver more for less in government," he said.
In a statement, the party said Mr Lansley was pointing out that Labour was trying to "deceive" the public by suggesting it could avoid spending cuts after 2011.
Mr Brown was misleading the public when he said spending would continue to rise as he was ignoring the costs of paying interest on the spiralling public debt.
Chancellor Alistair Darling announced plans in the Budget to borrow a further £500bn over the next four years.
Painful debate
The debate over public spending is set to intensify in the run-up to the election with both main parties having to explain how they will reduce the spiralling level of public debt without being forced into both tax rises and deep spending cuts.
If this is a sign of things to come in the debate on public spending then we're in for a pretty miserable year
Stephanie Flanders
BBC economics editor
Read Stephanomics in full
At this stage, neither party have spelled out their detailed spending plans beyond 2011.
In its Budget analysis in April, the respected Institute of Financial Studies said the country faced "two parliaments of pain" as the next government had to reduce debt levels and bring the public finances under control after the damage caused by the banking crisis and recession.
It said there was £90bn "black hole" in the public finances and it would cost £2,480 in higher taxes or spending cuts per family to bring the budget back into balance.
Labour disputed this figure and said the IFS had not understood the full picture. BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders said that "the government's own numbers imply a 10% real cut in spending on other departments between 2011 and 2013 if the NHS and DFID are protected"
Where this would do...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
In its Budget analysis in April,
OK 2 things.
1. I've used an article longer than most quoted posts to make my point.
2. I've used this article rather than find an example from a thread cos i dont want anyon to think its aimed at them speciffically.
I just find that i scroll and scroll past something i've already read only to find a very short comment that usually relates to just a very small part of the full post quoted.
is it just me?
is everyone just being lazy?
is it that some peeps dont know its acceptable to quote just a bit, or they just dont know how to edit the quote?
Opinions please :smile:
To answer your last 3 questions
No
Yes
Yes
:wink:
and +1 ;)
http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/archives/Cowbell2.gif
The Guru
11-06-09, 11:09 AM
This is getting silly :rolleyes:
Spiderman
11-06-09, 11:41 AM
Luke thinks he can get away with it cos he's on the other side of the world. Little does he know Org assasins roam the globe just waiting to be put into action at the behest of the Mod Team.
Luke...next time you get a flat tyre just remember its a sign the assasins are close by ;)
But yeh anymore of that sillyness and i'll gets pointless posts deleted, otherwise its been an amusing and edumacational thread, so thanks everybody :)
joshmac
11-06-09, 02:01 PM
This is getting silly :rolleyes:
It's a bit of a laugh in idle banter :smt102
Don't read it if it upsets you...
I bet luke's sitting there right now with a big smug grin on his face :lol:
Spiderman
11-06-09, 06:00 PM
I bet luke's sitting there right now with a big smug grin on his face :lol:
i bet you're right. No wait he's proably off enjoying another trackday in the lovely weather. I used to like him but since he moved to Oz his having far too good a time amd making me far too jealous :lol:
lukemillar
12-06-09, 12:28 AM
i bet you're right. No wait he's proably off enjoying another trackday in the lovely weather. I used to like him but since he moved to Oz his having far too good a time amd making me far too jealous :lol:
Pah, You are not familiar with the famous NZ winter weather then!? I haven't been on track since last October :( The first 5 months were self inflicted...then I didn't have a bike for 6 weeks. Now the nearest track that is is doing winter trackdays has huge mountain with snow on it sitting between me and it. Roll on spring........
So, I did what any normal person would do - booked a plane ticket to Vanuatu, where I will be spending a week living on an island, sunbathing on the beach and diving. :lol: I leave next week \\:D/
Just incase you are having trouble visualising such a place, here is picture:
http://www.theodora.com/wfb/photos/vanuatu/hideawa_island_resort_vanuatu_photo_gov.jpg
joshmac
12-06-09, 12:34 AM
Just incase you are having trouble visualising such a place, here is picture:
http://www.theodora.com/wfb/photos/vanuatu/hideawa_island_resort_vanuatu_photo_gov.jpg
Git! ;)
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.