whether he ignores you or not, you can still read his post. as for links to his figures, you never put links in when you say things. things such as "IDS treating people like lepers" - didn't see a link for that one.;-)
I can but I choose not to ;-)
I will point out that I do include links when I repeat something that comes from a news report .
What I said about IDS/this Government was my opinion not a fact and I can't really give a link to my opinions, so what am I supposed to do?
Are you saying my opinions are not acceptable on this forum ?
whether he ignores you or not, you can still read his post. as for links to his figures, you never put links in when you say things. things such as "this government treating people like lepers" - didn't see a link for that one.;-)
edited: put this government instead of IDS.
FWIW, I generally DO post links but GM is in invariably in the habit of deliberately misunderstanding / ignoring / rubbishing them (my opinion, obviously) which is I no longer post them for her. Or anything else, come to that.
In this instance I didn't post them because I would have thought the links fell into the category of the pretty bleeding obvious - but since some people insist on being spoon-fed, I can confirm that all the relevant data can be found on:
What needs to be reported is not just the unemployed figure as a percentage, but the actual numbers. Also, the salary brackets of the number of employed people. Being paid by the hour is not a guaranteed income and the stats should reflect this.
The debt will always rise until the deficit has been eliminated and that is not going to happen until 2017/18. The government have a rolling 5 year plan for eliminating the deficit, and before anyone says that the government has borrowed the same as Labour planned - all things being equal they would have borrowed even more as their plan was to eliminate only half the deficit in the same period.
The debt will always rise until the deficit has been eliminated and that is not going to happen until 2017/18. The government have a rolling 5 year plan for eliminating the deficit, and before anyone says that the government has borrowed the same as Labour planned - all things being equal they would have borrowed even more as their plan was to eliminate only half the deficit in the same period.
do you know of any forecasts as to what would have happened to the defecit / debt when the eurozone crisis happened a year or two back, if labour were in office now?
not even the great all seeing vince cable saw that one coming.
It's fantastic news for everyone. Though the BBC article does point out that the rate of growth in average earnings includes bonuses, and if you removed them from the numbers then earnings growth was only 1.4% - i.e. still below inflation. So you can imply from that that (on average) those on non bonus salaries have seen their living standards fall again.
I disagree that today's decent economic performance makes up for 3.5 years of non performance, but we've had the same debate too many times now . . . .
No.
No you can't. at all. you are making a mistake of translating excluding bonuses with excluding people on bonuses.
if your salary went up 2% and mine stayed the same, but my 10% bonus went up to 12% then my take home went up by about 2% too.
so on average our wages including bonuses went up by 2%. but excluding bonuses our salaries only went up by 1%.
do you know of any forecasts as to what would have happened to the defecit / debt when the eurozone crisis happened a year or two back, if labour were in office now?
not even the great all seeing vince cable saw that one coming.
Well no of course not - it was just to counter the usual guff that Conservative borrowing is the same as Labour predicted their borrowing would be. It is an absurd comparison to make since one is a prediction and did not take into account the Euro crisis and the other was what actually happened with the Euro crisis.
Well no of course not - it was just to counter the usual guff that Conservative borrowing is the same as Labour predicted their borrowing would be. It is an absurd comparison to make since one is a prediction and did not take into account the Euro crisis and the other was what actually happened with the Euro crisis.
I resent being accused of talking guff, especially as I have included a link and haven't just spouted figures off the top of my head like some posters do.
Comments
Cant understand why people keep leaving their savings snooze in banks. I get around 7-8% on my investments. Just needs a bit of effort.
I can but I choose not to ;-)
I will point out that I do include links when I repeat something that comes from a news report .
What I said about IDS/this Government was my opinion not a fact and I can't really give a link to my opinions, so what am I supposed to do?
Are you saying my opinions are not acceptable on this forum ?
your opinions are always welcome on this forum as are everyone else's. but for clarification, if it is your opinion, then say so.
FWIW, I generally DO post links but GM is in invariably in the habit of deliberately misunderstanding / ignoring / rubbishing them (my opinion, obviously) which is I no longer post them for her. Or anything else, come to that.
In this instance I didn't post them because I would have thought the links fell into the category of the pretty bleeding obvious - but since some people insist on being spoon-fed, I can confirm that all the relevant data can be found on:
1) ONS - Jobs in the Public and Private sectors
2) ONS Labour Market Statistics - January 2009
3) ONS Labour Market Statistics - December 2010
4) ONS Labour Market Statistics - April 2014
Can you get your hands on the cash immediately?
TSB are offering 5% on a current account (minimum £1000 a month to be put in account)
That's a current account though, not a savings account.
I'm after an account that pays good interest on a single lump sum, but has instant access.
So they can raise the foreign aid budget to proposterous levels?
Because the level of borrowing they inherited was astronomical. Fortunately, the level of borrowing now is considerably less than it was then.
Well some people do seem to think it's okay for this Government to borrow millions more than Labour borrowed.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt
The debt will always rise until the deficit has been eliminated and that is not going to happen until 2017/18. The government have a rolling 5 year plan for eliminating the deficit, and before anyone says that the government has borrowed the same as Labour planned - all things being equal they would have borrowed even more as their plan was to eliminate only half the deficit in the same period.
do you know of any forecasts as to what would have happened to the defecit / debt when the eurozone crisis happened a year or two back, if labour were in office now?
not even the great all seeing vince cable saw that one coming.
No.
No you can't. at all. you are making a mistake of translating excluding bonuses with excluding people on bonuses.
if your salary went up 2% and mine stayed the same, but my 10% bonus went up to 12% then my take home went up by about 2% too.
so on average our wages including bonuses went up by 2%. but excluding bonuses our salaries only went up by 1%.
it doesn't change what happened to your salary.
Well no of course not - it was just to counter the usual guff that Conservative borrowing is the same as Labour predicted their borrowing would be. It is an absurd comparison to make since one is a prediction and did not take into account the Euro crisis and the other was what actually happened with the Euro crisis.
I resent being accused of talking guff, especially as I have included a link and haven't just spouted figures off the top of my head like some posters do.
is that a question or a statement?
But way out from their own projections at the time.
I think you mean is that a rhetorical question because I definitely see a question mark there.
Sure. There's been a full-blown crisis in the Eurozone since then - something none of the parties forecasted.