Devildog

Pete,

I don't disagree with that.

It's shambollic that Cameron allows those around him to act in such an incompetent manner when dealling with the media.

That doesn't alter the fact that your original post was poorly thought out, badly written and, well, just more of your bull**** diatribe

Perhaps if you were to launch scathing attacks on all sides of the political arena?

Because lets be honest here, 5 more years under Brown may just see the UK in the same position as Greece, and its not as if the Lib Dems have any clue what to do, now, is it?

Or would that be to difficult, to actually have to think for yourself, rather than just continually regurgitating what the media have already spewed out ?

SunnySideUp

DD - I respect what you are saying ... may I pick up on a couple of points:-

1. You ask me to launch attacks on all sides of the political arena - fair enough question. Well, it would be if I witnessed you admitting that Brown has saved the economy of the UK (and, arguably, the world!) ... or if I witnessed you congratulating Labour for reducing crime significantly, for example. So, forgive me if I don't take your request seriously

2. The horror scenario would be, in all honesty, a Tory Government ... quite simply a bunch of rich boys playing at being sensible (and failing). I cannot think of any worse result than a Tory Government with a big majority - thankfully a large proportion of the Electorate think as I do .... SN is just a skewed view - which bears little resemblence to the real world.

Devildog

Pete,

I work in an arena which deals with insolvency and restructuring. I help fix the mess that recession creates. I see the good, the bad and the ugly of what economic policy creates within everything from global financial institutions to the man on the street corner trying to run his one man business.

I absolutely cannot "admit" that Brown has saved the economy of the UK, far less that of the world as I (and everyone I talk to in "my" industry see no evidence of that.

The economy is subject to cyclical change. Do you remember those water toys there used to be, where the object would fill with water drops until it would over balance, spill some out, and then fill up again?

That's what happens. We get upturn, the growth cannot be sustained, and the economy tips over, spills some of the contents, uprights itself and grows again. Its a basic cycle, and often masked by long periods of slow but sustained growth, but more obvious in a boom and bust, boom and bust period,

The real trick is to manage the growth part of the cycle to make sure the curve is as smooth as possible, with a nice gentle gradient. But even that can't last forever.

Credit to Brown for agreeing to bail out the UK banking system. But it was the only thing to do, and the only thing anyone would have done. There was no clever thought involved. It was, in effect, a no brainer.

What Brown has done, however, is allowed uk national debt to spiral out of control, worsened further by the bank bail outs. Yes, global banking has much to answer for, however there is no doubt whatsoever that the uk could itself have been in a much better position.

And Brown wants to keep on increasing public spending because on the face of it that will help to mask the effects of recession, and under normal circumstances would be seen as one way to help get us back on an even keel. But that only works when the cash is there. Its not, and the £ is in a pretty bad way right now.

You and others have criticised the Tory "do nothing" policy, but (and leaving bank bail outs aside) that itself would allow balance to be restored. Yes, the pain is greater, but its also shorter lived. Doing nothing is, in reality, a perfectly viable alternative.

Which is better - chronic pain over a long period or intense pain over a shorter one? Neither are good, that's for sure, but I'm on the let it hurt more, but for a shorter time side, it has to be said. Chronic pain is far more debilitating.

Left to its own devices (ie without government intervention), the economy would find its own balance again. Growth would return, and so the cycle would go on. Where government intervention is arguably more critical, is when we have economic growth, to manage that growth.

And who would be better at that? The jury is still out but Brown's record is clear to see, and its not good. Will Cameron be any better? Who knows. Maybe the lib dems are the answer. It may all be a moot point for me if Scotland, for example, at some point gains independence. But that's another discussion for another day.

As for crime - I'm sure this has been done to death on here. The stats may show improvement - they do in Scotland (albeit we have an SNP first minister who sill take credit for that). But what about the whole culture of punishment? James Bulgers killers being released in 2001. Murderers and rapists being released to murder and rape again.

The stats may say one thing, but the man and women on the streets don't feel any safer.

There is no question that Brown and his cabinet and Blair before have had some successes. To suggets that they haven't is unreasonable. Very few governments have managed not to get something right. But they have also had some monumental failures.

I'm no great Cameron fan. I think Nic Clegg would struggle. But right now, I'd settle for the lesser of the evils, and Brown has to go. He is no saviour Pete, and he never will be.

Leslie

Did you know that there are 4 "Non Doms" listed as supporting NL?

Les

Bram

[quote=Leslie;9261407]Did you know that there are 4 "Non Doms" listed as supporting NL?

Les this correct and if any of them were trying to buy a election by sitting in this country for the last three years sending out mail in marginal seats to sway voters and change how we live, be employed and how our taxs are to be spent in the five years of a tory govt. I would start a thread about it. Who gives him the right to be so condescending.

What I want answered is the following, why the Tory party ten years ago got an agreement for Ashcroft not to pay taxes on his billions, only on income in the UK. Elect him to the Lords. Then elect him to become a deputy chairman. This is also from a person (Ashcroft) who lists the country of his home is "Belize" but stays here in the UK and feels free to tell the public of the UK how to vote, how to spend the budget and how to pay for government reforms when the Tory take power. But is not paying full tax in this country, this is deeply offensive. If this country is that good under the Tory plans why is he not staying here fully paid up member of society or can he not trust Osbourne either.

Also when I am on about this, when did the Tory party, DC or Hague know when he was a non dom. Hague states two months ago, fair enough but he felt it prudent to stay stume about it. So much for his integraty and when he is at it he can answer why he let his chief whip Aburthnot and a civil servent make a agreement 10 years ago with Ashcroft to get a seat in house of Lords and have benficial tax status on his income made. Him stating he knows nothing about it shows weak leadership and lack of stewardship of the Tory party he led at the time or do chief whips (Torys) do what they want and answer to no one. How can anyone trust such a poor excuse for a politician.

The Torys have not changed, DC is weakwilled and his selection of shadow secretarys is poor going with Hague and the Education guy seen lately.

A wee thought totally of subject on that guy Shadow Education Secretary and showed to be a total fud. He looks like the guy on the adverts, I will show my age here, the advert Roses grow on you for Cadbury sweets in the 70's. I think "Norman" was his surname. Roses did grow on him popping all out over his suit. I think it quite apt Red Roses at that.

stuart n

He does pay his UK taxes, he doesn't pay tax in the UK that he earns on his overseas interests. The amount he's paid in tax is probably a lot more than most of us earn in a year.
A real non story just Labour desperate to divert attention from the fact 1 million more are unemployed since they came to power, they've shafted pensioners, plan to bring in the death tax, violent crime has risen, record numbers of kids are leaving school unable to read or write, kids are getting fatter than ever despite £3 billion being spent trying to tackle the problem, the national debt is rising at almost £5000 a second, the early release of prisoners giving them the chance to reoffend as many of them do and we're stuck in a war we have no chance of winning thanks to B Liar.
Not bad for 13 years in power and almost £1 trillion a year in extra taxes......

SunnySideUp

It is said that he has paid £30,000 in tax in the last year ...

And we all know he has wriggled to pay the smallest amount possible!

It's a disgrace!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Give it a rest Pete.
It's been explained to you, and others, that he has paid as much in UK taxes as he needs to, thanks to legislation OK'd by your mob.

Taxes on money earned abroad have been paid abroad. End of.

SunnySideUp

They are not my lot .....

AND, we all know his accountants would have enabled him to pay as little UK tax as possible - and he is trying to influence where that taxpayers money goes??

Nah, bang out of order ... and an embarrassment and a disgrace to the Tory party!.

tathan

Why? Because he does what loads of other people do (including contributors to the other two parties) which is LEGALLY avoid paying taxes when they don't have to.

Anyway, what are you still doing up? I thought the nurses turned the lights off 10min after Horlicks time.

Splitpin

Scheize, saved the world? He might have tried to claim as much but it's an example of the man's own self-importance, and how typical of you to swallow it.

As has been said, the decision to bail out the banks with our money was an effective no-brainer. Once the sh*t hit the fan Brown has been a victim of events, not a master of them. He might like to go on about how "it started in America" (at least of course until President Omaha Beach is in earshot), but in truth much of it is his own fault.

Brown, for a decade, presided over a rapidly growing debt bubble while confidently and repeatedly claiming to have "abolished boom and bust".

Unfortunately he believed his own sales pitch so completely that he threw money at the public services without even caring about the return on investment. Even forgetting masterstrokes like selling our gold reserves at the bottom of the market, we entered the recession with an enormous structural defecit which has now ballooned totally out of control.

When the recession was starting we heard Brown saying that the UK would escape it. Then we had him saying that the UK was better placed than anywhere else in the world to withstand it. Then when Darling decided to ignore party policy and tell the truth, Brown's own spinning operation, as we heard the other day, went into action against him.

Far from being best placed to withstand the recession that Brown didn't think was going to happen, we've come out of it later than all our economic competitors and are spending something like one pound in every four merely paying the interest on our national debt. We have a sliding pound, accelerating inflation and a debt so bad that it threatens the UK's prosperity and international competitiveness for two or three generations.

And yet you think Brown has saved our economy. Can you let us all know what you've been drinking?

Splitpin

Did you see Lord Paul on Channel 4 News earlier? Not only did he confidently claim that, despite the new legislation Labour have introduced, he would be able to remain non-dom for tax purposes. Embarrassment and a disgrace?

He also claimed that there were around 100 other Lords with similar arrangements.

Tony Blair, btw, also now appears to be non-Dom. How patriotic. We are left to pay for the consequences of decisions he and his mates took. Presumably Brown will do the same and p*ss off to some job at a US bank when his time's up.

Leslie

Come on Pete. You start up this thread by accusations about Ashcroft as a Non Dom. Whether what you say is justifiable or not, why wont you give us an answer about the Non Doms who are supporting NL financially.

Is it fair to make the accusation purely for political capital without acknowledging the same behaviour on the side you are arguing for? is there something special that excuses them?

Les

Devildog

Les,

I gave him the benefit of the doubt with a sensible, serious response to address his comments of "not taking me seriously"

Others have addressed the point in a similar manner.

Pete, true to form, posts something sensationalist and then runs and hides when others show him to be doing just that, despite denials on other threads.

I've asked him to be balanced with his criticism, and his response was to ask me to accept not just the unnacceptable, but something without any foundation whatsoever.

Its obvious that he just posts to get a rise out of members - that's been clear for a while. Is it still funny? I doubt it. If he could rise to the challenge of debate, that would be interesting, but he can't even do that.

I feel it is now abundantly clear that he is, simply, acting like an ****

Splitpin

Once a troll, always a troll, so it seems. Anyone know what it was that resulted in him dropping the PSLewis persona?

Devildog

The PSLewis login was banned for life by the previous operator of this site (for trolling and being an unbearable pain in the ****, IIRC)

Leslie

I don't consider it to be trolling to state one's beliefs, even if not many agree with them, but that does not excuse anyone from answering criticisms.

Les

Splitpin

I see. Just as well he's a reformed character now then.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Whilst I don't disagree with you on that, it's just the TONE of Pete's posts about how wonderful Labour, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson are, you just KNOW it's tongue in cheek.

Devildog

Absolutely.

However to start a second thread questioning whether Ashcroft will be exposed for the crime of tax evasion when it has been made abundantly clear that is not he case (and unless the thread starter really is that stupid, it should be abundantly clear to him too) cannot be anything other than trolling.

Or Pete really is that stupid

Add that, the tone of the posts, and the fact that Pete generally just regurgitates sensasionalist news reporting and becomes a little bit harder to accept that he is just "stating hs beliefs"

SunnySideUp

Errrrm, I have something to say .... I was really pi55ed last night - the wife says I cooked myself a full meal, ate a whole cake and fell asleep at the PC!!

If I started the same thread - twice - I apologise!!

I must feel really passionate about it is all I can say! Could you point to the duplicate thread DD so I can ask the mods. to delete it!

Les, in answer to your question ... the Labour Non-Doms are well known and haven't been denied ... that's the difference, the Tories have been asked for 10 years if Ashcroft is a Non-Dom ... they have refused to answer - for 10 Years!!!!

That's what is a disgrace - same old Tories!

SunnySideUp

I've found it now ..... that's funny - I have no recollection of posting that at all

Anyway, both are superbly written and executed

Xx-IAN-xX

Executed you should be

SunnySideUp

I just bet YOU would weild the axe too - wouldn't you!?

SunnySideUp

Xx-IAN-xX

I was thinking blunt stanley knife

SunnySideUp

You b4steward!!!

Have you any idea how long it would take to hack through a 24" neck?

Dingdongler

I think that is Sunny Side Up! He is gay enough, he drives a Mazda MX5 after all!

Xx-IAN-xX

Fair point

Splitpin

I think you might find that's not entirely correct. Sir Ron Thingy isn't exactly forthcoming about his status either.

That's not denying Ashcroft is a non-dom. That's declining to answer.

By way of example, Pete, would you mind scanning a copy of your last five years' worth of tax returns and posting us a link to the PDFs so we can all see how much tax you pay and determine whether you have any vested interest in this?

Making a big hoo-ha about this issue is, by and large, a straw man, and Labour bitching and moaning madly about something they merrily do themselves. We'll also not comment at this point on the power, both financial and otherwise, that a handful of trade union leaders have over Labour.

The only thing that ultimately matters is whether Ashcroft, Paul or any other political donor, pays the amount of tax HMRC expects them to, and whether the Electoral Commission are happy with the probity of any donations. In Ashcroft's case, both of the above are true. Lord Paul, meanwhile, appears absolutely confident that the new legislation Labour have drafted contains a loophole which will allow him to remain a non-dom while continuing to sit in the Lords (and on the Privy Council).

The fact that a non-dom appears to have inside knowledge on forthcoming legislation is somewhat dodgy-sounding, don't you think?

Whatever you may say about Ashcroft, the only party that's been caught taking dodgy donations over the past few years is Labour, who accepted nearly 2/3rds of a million quid from north-eastern weirdo David Abrahams, via a number of proxy donors. Old news it now may be, out of order it most definitely was.