"It's like maxing out your credit card" Yeah, David of course! - The complex subject of central banking, fiat currency, derivatives and quantative easing can be likened to my Barclaycard statement! Are people really stupid enough to swallow this tripe?
"If you max out a credit card it's no good maxing out another one" - but it's OK to artificially create money out of thin air to pay off the first one if you control the Bank of England is it?
@zekezero12345 Of course it's simplified, It's an *analogy*. And the core principle IS the same. There's no good putting off the deficit for future generations, it's like handing down your credit card bills to your children once you're gone, there's another *analogy* for you.
@LowleyUK I object to the fact that while we are being fed simplified analogies, there is no discussion of the actions and events that led to the economic collapse, no discussion of whether bailing out the banks was a sound decision and no discussion of the profits made by the financial corporations since the bail outs... I expect politicians to address the core issues.
@zekezero12345 Right well that's fair enough but it's a different point altogether. I expect Cameron didn't think The One Show was the best place to discuss economics that intensely, you know lol.
BBC is supposed to be neutral and unbiased. this interview wasnt. what was that annoying Matt Baker thinking getting his own snyde remark at the end there?! So unprofessional.
@LowleyUK I can see your argument. But there are alot more things to take into account. Middle and lower income families simply cannot deal with the pace and depth of the cuts. Also, did you know that growth is down to 0%, and borrowing is up by something ridiculous like 44.6Billion? Cameron is also now desperately clutching at straws, saying that it would cost 1p less to refill your car. But it is a well known fact that the gas stations increased the amount it costs before the 1p reduction.
@TheBritishFPS I don't accept middle and lower income families cannot cope, that statement is far too generalised. And none of the other points you mention change the fact the cuts are needed.
Visit the website debtbombshell com - there's no other option because it will continue to grow at a faster and faster rate.
@LowleyUK it is not too generalised at all. I accept cuts are needed. But NOT. LIKE. THIS. It's too much. They are power hungry, and hope to win the election in 2015 by saying they fixed the deficit. You just see how the country looks by the end of this parliament. The Conservatives are not a party who believe in progressive politics. They are old and have had their day. The Tories need to fuck off, their policies don't apply to modern times.
@LowleyUK you gave really good arguments against thebritishfps, and i agree debt is scary, but i think the Tory led government is being quite discerning on who they tax and where they reduce budgets. A government really shouldn't be biased, sure they can occasionally suggest bills that appeal to their major voters and benefactors, but retrenching an innocent generation instead of us is simply barbaric.
@witchdoctorification I don't agree with all of the individual cuts, just that something needs to be done right away. If we leave the debt to grow then that will effect the innocent generations of the future.
But I must say the tories haven't actually been that biased, they removed child benefits of the well off, they increased the bankers levy to £2 billion and then went went after every group in society. If they are biased at all then it's with the private sector, for getting business going.
I have to say that David Cameron is a very attractive and sexy prime minister plus he has charisma. He still looks so young aswell. He sooooo reminds me of my doctor too.
The attempted privatization of the nhs, charities, forests, the royal mail to name a few are more than enough evidence to suggest ideological cuts. especially when there are less socially brutal ways to cut the deficit and grow the economy. Yes they are doing some things to tax the rich. But when yu look at ration impact on there tax of rich and the banks there extremely passive. and on trident, there is no way nuclear war would break out, every economy now is built on world relations,
@MeekErinovski and if countries kill other, china for example would suffer greatly and they cannot afford to do it. the enemies we now fight are like the 'taleyban' and other jungle warfare like opponents. the things that protect our country are taking those places out of poverty, foreign policy, and having an army to combat those threats, trident is useless against. i believe the cut of trident, even if temporarily is crucial if people like having jobs..
@MeekErinovski In reverse, people like Kim jong il, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, Saddam Hussein and many other crackpot dictators do not give a damn about world relations, Do you think Gadaffi cares what the world think? They don't care about being heavily sanctioned, they don't care about the consequences or their people. Chamberlain didn't think Hitler would start another world war after signing the Munich agreement, nobody did, but history tells us we can never be so sure. I could go on.
@LowleyUK im talking of an economic meltdown which would stop Major countries with the capabilities and block them from having this as an option. When i say relations i dont mean relationships i mean trade relations. The chinese etc, need us alive we are at the centre of their economies. We cant drop nuclear war heads on the middle east because their resources would be destroyed which we need, and i dont know maybe because genocide is deservedly illegal, but obviously you must support...
@MeekErinovski Those countries you speak of do not hold that threat, so temporarily your point is void and your fear mongering or just buying into it ? Dont compare the middle east to germany, they are entirely different situations playing in a very different world. We are now and will be focusing very carefully on their nuclear progression, and stopping them, even by force to develop that level of power. Everyone you mentioned does not have nuclear weapons.
@MeekErinovski We will not being dropping nuclear war heads, our governments will not be doing so because they cannot afford to, their existence is out dated and not an effective deterrent anymore. I would have agreed with you 50 years ago ... They are more used as a means to make us feel safer. there are much cheaper alternatives and temporarily this is a very low risk. And as you said before i can put a price on hypothetical safety, its about 20 000 000 jobs each paid at 50 000
@MeekErinovski I didn't say all those countries were a threat, I was simply listing examples of regimes and dictators that do not care about world relations. And two are potential threats. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the world is a safer place today than 50 years ago. Far from it and to state otherwise is in my humble opinion naive. All you have to do is look at Hezbollah that have been witnessed to have a mushroom cloud as their emblem, who are commited to anhilating israel
@MeekErinovski Economic meltdown? Lets take North Korea *for example*, They are so heavily sanctioned that without China they would have virutally no outside trade, but if they wanted to use WMD then they could. Ultimately we need a deterrent. If Britain, France and the US disarmed do you really think Iran, North Korea, China and other emerging rogue states would? The result would be a vast world shift in power and influence.
@LowleyUK i'm not gonna keep re-typing out the same points, i feel you have ignored vital parts of what im trying to get through to you and mis-understanding what im trying to say. i didnt say the world was safer 50 years ago.. i said nuclear weapons were more important 50 years ago. And your essentially implying if we dont have nuclear weapons we have absolutely no deterrent...that is ridiculous. if yu want to know why
@MeekErinovski they will not be used please refer back to my other answers. Iran, north korea dont have nuclear weapons, and we can bombt them without the genocide brought by use of nuclear warfare. And your taking the idea if we dont have nuclear weapons, which we cannot use anyway that suddenly we are defenseless, and peoples lives are suddenly going to perish. its just fear mongering. i agree you cannot put a Price on peoples lives, but that price tag is not embedded in nuclear weapons.
@MeekErinovski North Korea do but Iran do not currently, but they have refused to stop enriching uranium which resulted in sanctions being placed on Tehran. I wouldn't be so sure about not using them in return, though it is a horrible thought, laws like that go out of the window when you have been attacked with nuclear weapons, other countries may even return fire for us. I am all in favour for worldwide disarmament but currently, with countries sectretly try to aquire them, I am not.
@MeekErinovski If anything its very hypocritical because the money being thrown away is being wasted and not helping peoples lives. i assume you can see the contradiction. Oh and yes economic meltdown. China etc. are manufacturing countries not self sufficient industries. The death of the west means good-bye economy to them. They will not be starting any wars with us anytime soon. The wars fought now are becoming more and more classed as the cold war. And guirella based. We need to adapt
@MeekErinovski As I said before, If you could live with europe and the west disarming whilst people in uncertain places are arming then sure I can see a condradiction. I don't believe China are a threat so I agree with that to an extent. And I agreed with your point on guerilla warfare from when it was first made, but I'm sorry, that doesn't change the uncertainty of the future, unless you can predict it?
@MeekErinovski Well I'm sorry you feel that way, It was 3am so I was very tired when replying but I have listened to every point you raised and critically examined them, I apologise if you feel I have overlooked them as that wasn't my intention. I realise you were talking of the threat 50 years ago, and that is precisely what I was referring to too. I think the threat from the two "axis of evil" countries is potential, you do not, that is our fundamental disagreement and I fully understand why.
@LowleyUK Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree then i suppose. i understand why you believe in the nuclear deterrent but at the moment i believe the proportionate weight behind justifying them versus their cost and effectiveness doesn't stand up enough to validate keeping them, whilst pushing people out of work. the bottom line here i suppose is im a Liberal (before the Clegg saga) and your a Torie. so we probably cant ever agree,All i can say is i hope your right, purely for our countries sake
@MeekErinovski Obviously i cannot predict the future. but just because you use vague and subjective points like that doesnt add any credibility to the use of nuclear weapons.. i and temporary disarmament is very low risk whilst they 'may' aquire them. dont worry im sure america has all the bombs we need.but the fact we cannot use them, contradicts the purpose of the deterrant. The main tragedies of receant, 9/11, 7/7, bombing in russia how excatly did the deterrant work for us there ?
@MeekErinovski You make a strong case, and I'm happy to say it forces me to question everything I think I know. Perhaps your best point for me is that we may not use them in return, but you know my thoughts on why I still support a deterrent. Actually I am a Liberal Conservative, (also before the coalition) with many of my beliefs coming from the left and very few from the right. I like to think I am an agreeable person :D but you just caught me on two things I support ardently!!
@LowleyUK Thank you, you make a good argument to. i believe in us having nuclear weapons to but just not as a priority, so i guess im half way in a position to agree with you, but i cant meet you there during a recession, thats my main problem with them. i have to admit ive never met a liberal conservative, ideologically they seem almost unjoinable but you seem to have made it work for you, so in that sense well done i hope it prospers
@MeekErinovski . And yes i would say your an agreeable person, your willing to at least listen to the other side without trying to damine them at the same time. i believe i am too, but like you i feel very strongly about this and our governments direction. I think i believe one thing to be true of us both though. we both wont be voting lib dem at the next election lool ! i think anyway ha
@MeekErinovski Thank you too for an interesting debate. Haha yes it's possible, I am also a vegan, humanist and animal rights supporter, hugely influenced by Peter Singer and I would protest against the tories if there was ever a chance of fox hunting returning. I support them because I am fed up with lenient punishments for murders and other criminals and I was getting frustrated with the decline of Britain. I like David Cameron because he has said he is a Liberal Conservative too.
@LowleyUK yh i studied peter singer to alot while i was in college, hes v. smart. i agree with you as well on not having lenient sentencing for crimes of a high nature such as murder, rape, pedophiles. and all the peak of evil crimes. but am coming round to some alternatives for prison for petty crime, because if people keep re-offending, and prison is ment to reform. Then i believe there is a fundamental flaw in the system. I want the decriminalization of all drugs to, or atleast based on fact
@MeekErinovski I was influenced by the Baby P story, I just couldn't believe the sentencing when I read it. I haven't looked in detail at other alternatives for lesser or petty crimes but I am aware that criminals go on to reoffend and evidence suggests that some go onto to worse crimes as a result of meeting other criminals, I think the phrase was "Crime school", so yeh I would be interested in learning more, I haven't formed an opinion on that yet. Decriminalisation, hmmm, again I'm not sure.
@LowleyUK@LowleyUK alternatives/at least a reformation of the prison system. we dont reform them, we just cage, alienate and force them down a single avenue. i believe its something we need to change, but again am not sure in which direction as of yet. i believe individual decisions and treatment per person are crucial on any new route to success. and forgive the this minor summary of points, but i think you'll find them interesting. firstly illegalising drugs like cannabis
@LowleyUK doesnt stop its availability or use. more people smoke weed over here than in the netherlands. also on this point you have to be 18 to use alcohol here, 21 in the US and and about 14 in france. However france has a huge amount less amount of alcoholics indicating education and a change in culture is more important than keeping it out of reach. In Portugal they decrimanalized all drugs and saw a massive reduction in crime, and use rates especially in crack and heroin.
@LowleyUK and i cannot think of one reason used to justify the use of alcohol that isnt applicable to cannabis and alot of other drugs. just a brief summary, i encourage you to look into this, as i think you may eventually join me.
@MeekErinovski Thats very interesting about portugal. thanks and I will look into it. I think the reason given for why alcohol and cannabis isn't is legal is that cannabis has proven links with psychosis with much less usage than alcohol, so it's much more potent. Personally I don't like the idea of a nanny state and we should be able to do what we want, within reason and as long as it doesn't affect others. Euthanasia for example.
@LowleyUK its not proven* there is some evidence to suggest it. But there has never been a definitive conclusion, aside from stronger links that show if you are going to develop a mental illness, it wont hinder its progression. Theres lots of contradictory studies. However !! CBD an innate chemical within weed stops the progression of mental illness and is used as a treatment as well as for cancer.
@LowleyUK however the strains we smoke are not cultivated to increase the amount of CBD content, this is unfortunately a result of prohibition whereby THC content is increased not CBD, this can be solved via legalization and regulation. And thus although i can see your point here, its only made worse by keeping it illegal, the solution i believe is education and regulation. And i agree 100% with you about the nanny state and euthanasia, Singer to was passionate on this.
@LowleyUK like you i am also a big advocate of human and animals rights, but dont think i could manage being a vegan. i respect you for being able to do that though
@cupcakefairy87 The 50,000 jobs losses you speak of do exist but £5 billion will be saved from the administrative cut backs, then that money will be put directly back into the NHS. That's equivilent to 40,000 nurses, 17,000 doctors and 11,000 consultants. Also there will be no privatisation of the NHS, only the patients right to choose where they recieve care. The NHS needs modernisation, we have some of the worst cancer survival rates, we are twice as likely to have a heart attack than french.
@LowleyUK i believe,you are confusing two issues, the modernization of the NHS and firing people who work there are two completely different areas of debate. Your point on heart attacks is in essence irrelevant to the NHS's performance because heart attacks are the the result of poor health, this is a cultural problem not a reflection on the nhs, in terms of after treatment i cannot comment. Also Where did yu find those firgures im confused to how firing 50000 people saves enough to hire 68000
@MeekErinovski All of the figures are direct quotes from the recently published health and social care bill. The £5 billion in savings doesn't just come from job cuts (which will take place gradually over a 2 year period) but it comes from the *administative* changes (patients, doctors and nurses being given more control instead of managers and other staff). As for the heart attack point, you may be right, i'm not an expert but I would say that France has cultural obesity problems too.
@LowleyUK yh most of europe has obesity problems now, mostly the whole of the developed western world does. the reason i disagree with these cuts and this government, is simple. Areas which are irrelevant to peoples quality of life i.e trident which cost billions, are not being cut, at least temporarily. and peoples jobs and our social quality are being sacrificed to do so. If they did the cuts out of a purely deficit easing method instead of a largely ideological hidden guise. i would agree
@MeekErinovski I would be the first to agree if I saw evidence of any ideological cuts, and I'm guilty of thinking it momentarily myself, but when I look into these things I find genuine reasons why they are necessary. Are we forgetting the removal of benefits of the higher earners from late last year etc?
As for Trident, the world is a very uncertain place and nobody can foresee the future, you cannot put a price on the safety of the UK.
The cuts are indeed inevitable, but they way the cuts affect the most vulnerable and the people who simply can't lose a penny is simply bad, it's as if the super-rich will be avoided by the cuts, off course I'm not against the rich, if people would like to earn more money it's up to them, but they get lots of money so they simply can lose something, while the poorer simply can't, this is quite logic.
@NLWK110710 Yes I think more should be done to tax the super rich too, the £2 billion levy on the banks is a good start, but I do think it's a good thing and a relief that the government is dedicated to cutting waste.
such a patronising cunt. and did he not listen to the world's leading economists who say that having a budget defecit in a country that has one of the highest credit ratings in the world is not actually a bad thing and can actually help promote economic growth. say no to the shock doctrine and these purely ideological cuts
@murrayisarobot I completely disagree with this nonsense though, we almost certainly would have ended up like Ireland, the cuts are needed and are not ideological. They are increasing the NHS budget and anyway, the Lib dems would be the first to say so if it were true.
@LowleyUK Are you actually David Cameron disguised as a mere commoner. Go on Big Dave admit it. You're either that or a sheep being led along. If you believe that then you'll believe anything. If Cameron told me that I have knee caps then I'd not believe till I'd checked and had an X ray. Which I probably won't be able to afford fairly soon because I'll have to pay for it. The cuts are happening my mother works as a director at a hospital that I won't be naming. IT'S HAPPENING
Comparing THE BANKS deficit problems with maxing out a credit card? I've never needed a credit card, I've never been in debt. I assume that's why I haven't been awarded a £6.5 million pound bonus! You are an utter cretin sir.
@Melomanic07 A higher bonus would have happened under labour (the banks reduced it from 9 million) and they were the ones that unrestricted the banks.
@LowleyUK it's nothing to do with whether it would have happened under labour or not. the point is it's just not right that the money that gets deducted from our hard earned paycheck goes to prop up banks so that they can still give out extortionate bonuses. the rich are getting richer and everyone else is feeling the consequences
@SouthPads He said our deficit *was* the worst, which is true, (and I looked it up even though it's common knowledge) but not anymore thanks to the swift action thats been taken.
Our deficit was bad, undeniably. However other nations in europe were considerably worse off! infact it was only due to less outrageous spending of Gordon Brown, and his frugal investments that total catastrophe was avoided.
At the end of the day, its not hard to solve a defecit crisis if you just cut everything is it. Education is essential... for instance, I achieved AAC in geog, history, and lit. but he has made uni unaffordable. Labour weren't bad.
hypocrites
jsabbath01 1 month ago
the bbc is so, in the labour partys pocket
thinkasecond 1 month ago
the bbc is so, in the labour partys pocket
thinkasecond 1 month ago
Blame the previous government, who blamed the previous government, who blamed the previous government, ad nauseum.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
BggProductions 1 month ago 2
@BggProductions It's all Hitler's fault.
LowleyUK 1 month ago
Labour ruined this country
Hjscott14 2 months ago 2
@Hjscott14 Yes, and that's putting it mildly. Gordon Brown selling all our gold on the cheap really rubs it in doesn't it.
LowleyUK 2 months ago
fucking propaganda
matbbm 4 months ago
@matbbm Propaganda? The people of North Korea would beg to differ.
It was a balanced discussion, they had videos of people criticising Cameron.
LowleyUK 1 month ago
press 5 then 1 = pay for my love ... ;)
ChocolateRampage1 4 months ago
"It's like maxing out your credit card" Yeah, David of course! - The complex subject of central banking, fiat currency, derivatives and quantative easing can be likened to my Barclaycard statement! Are people really stupid enough to swallow this tripe?
"If you max out a credit card it's no good maxing out another one" - but it's OK to artificially create money out of thin air to pay off the first one if you control the Bank of England is it?
zekezero12345 8 months ago
@zekezero12345 Of course it's simplified, It's an *analogy*. And the core principle IS the same. There's no good putting off the deficit for future generations, it's like handing down your credit card bills to your children once you're gone, there's another *analogy* for you.
LowleyUK 8 months ago
@LowleyUK I object to the fact that while we are being fed simplified analogies, there is no discussion of the actions and events that led to the economic collapse, no discussion of whether bailing out the banks was a sound decision and no discussion of the profits made by the financial corporations since the bail outs... I expect politicians to address the core issues.
zekezero12345 8 months ago in playlist tv stuff
@zekezero12345 Right well that's fair enough but it's a different point altogether. I expect Cameron didn't think The One Show was the best place to discuss economics that intensely, you know lol.
LowleyUK 8 months ago
@zekezero12345 It was to simplify the state of our economy chill PICK
cona192 2 months ago
BBC is supposed to be neutral and unbiased. this interview wasnt. what was that annoying Matt Baker thinking getting his own snyde remark at the end there?! So unprofessional.
sammi9388 8 months ago
@sammi9388 Yeh exactly.
LowleyUK 8 months ago
@sammi9388 This is typically coming out of a mouth of a ''Tory'' voter.
NLWK110710 8 months ago
Matt Baker is so bloody annoying and irritating.
imejustperfect 10 months ago
@imejustperfect well said.
sammi9388 8 months ago
Matt Baker is so bloody annoying and irritating.
imejustperfect 10 months ago
does David Cameron have smelly feet?
harlechnorthwales 10 months ago
impossible to cut it in half over 4 years? You mean like all the other countries in Europe are doing? Fucking idiot.
TheBritishFPS 10 months ago
@TheBritishFPS Each day the we spend £120 million on interest of £875 billion, don't you think it makes sense to pay it off as quickly as possible?
LowleyUK 10 months ago
@LowleyUK I can see your argument. But there are alot more things to take into account. Middle and lower income families simply cannot deal with the pace and depth of the cuts. Also, did you know that growth is down to 0%, and borrowing is up by something ridiculous like 44.6Billion? Cameron is also now desperately clutching at straws, saying that it would cost 1p less to refill your car. But it is a well known fact that the gas stations increased the amount it costs before the 1p reduction.
TheBritishFPS 10 months ago
@TheBritishFPS I don't accept middle and lower income families cannot cope, that statement is far too generalised. And none of the other points you mention change the fact the cuts are needed.
Visit the website debtbombshell com - there's no other option because it will continue to grow at a faster and faster rate.
LowleyUK 10 months ago
@LowleyUK it is not too generalised at all. I accept cuts are needed. But NOT. LIKE. THIS. It's too much. They are power hungry, and hope to win the election in 2015 by saying they fixed the deficit. You just see how the country looks by the end of this parliament. The Conservatives are not a party who believe in progressive politics. They are old and have had their day. The Tories need to fuck off, their policies don't apply to modern times.
TheBritishFPS 10 months ago
@LowleyUK you gave really good arguments against thebritishfps, and i agree debt is scary, but i think the Tory led government is being quite discerning on who they tax and where they reduce budgets. A government really shouldn't be biased, sure they can occasionally suggest bills that appeal to their major voters and benefactors, but retrenching an innocent generation instead of us is simply barbaric.
witchdoctorification 10 months ago
@witchdoctorification I don't agree with all of the individual cuts, just that something needs to be done right away. If we leave the debt to grow then that will effect the innocent generations of the future.
But I must say the tories haven't actually been that biased, they removed child benefits of the well off, they increased the bankers levy to £2 billion and then went went after every group in society. If they are biased at all then it's with the private sector, for getting business going.
LowleyUK 10 months ago 2
tory fucking scum
sayhellyes 11 months ago
@sayhellyes Mindless sheep.
LowleyUK 11 months ago 2
omg what is this about david cameron's looks??? we are in a RECESSION, inflation and defecits dont care about sexiness :||
123ertms 11 months ago
David Cameron has a great sense of humour too and he seems so down to earth and nice and friendly bless his cotton socks.
mrandmrsbenton 11 months ago
@mrandmrsbenton I hope you taking the piss, otherwise you are delusional
Jessiebeth1979 11 months ago
I have to say that David Cameron is a very attractive and sexy prime minister plus he has charisma. He still looks so young aswell. He sooooo reminds me of my doctor too.
mrandmrsbenton 11 months ago
I'm wondering how mr.cameron will attract investors?
canemirmutlu 11 months ago
I love David Cameron. He is soooo dishy! :) xx
fairgrounddiva 11 months ago
@fairgrounddiva its his hair and high forhead that makes him sexy I think
mrandmrsbenton 11 months ago
i wonder what Matt baker is doing now that hez unemployment lol
imerk69 11 months ago
The attempted privatization of the nhs, charities, forests, the royal mail to name a few are more than enough evidence to suggest ideological cuts. especially when there are less socially brutal ways to cut the deficit and grow the economy. Yes they are doing some things to tax the rich. But when yu look at ration impact on there tax of rich and the banks there extremely passive. and on trident, there is no way nuclear war would break out, every economy now is built on world relations,
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski and if countries kill other, china for example would suffer greatly and they cannot afford to do it. the enemies we now fight are like the 'taleyban' and other jungle warfare like opponents. the things that protect our country are taking those places out of poverty, foreign policy, and having an army to combat those threats, trident is useless against. i believe the cut of trident, even if temporarily is crucial if people like having jobs..
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski In reverse, people like Kim jong il, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, Saddam Hussein and many other crackpot dictators do not give a damn about world relations, Do you think Gadaffi cares what the world think? They don't care about being heavily sanctioned, they don't care about the consequences or their people. Chamberlain didn't think Hitler would start another world war after signing the Munich agreement, nobody did, but history tells us we can never be so sure. I could go on.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@LowleyUK im talking of an economic meltdown which would stop Major countries with the capabilities and block them from having this as an option. When i say relations i dont mean relationships i mean trade relations. The chinese etc, need us alive we are at the centre of their economies. We cant drop nuclear war heads on the middle east because their resources would be destroyed which we need, and i dont know maybe because genocide is deservedly illegal, but obviously you must support...
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski Those countries you speak of do not hold that threat, so temporarily your point is void and your fear mongering or just buying into it ? Dont compare the middle east to germany, they are entirely different situations playing in a very different world. We are now and will be focusing very carefully on their nuclear progression, and stopping them, even by force to develop that level of power. Everyone you mentioned does not have nuclear weapons.
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski We will not being dropping nuclear war heads, our governments will not be doing so because they cannot afford to, their existence is out dated and not an effective deterrent anymore. I would have agreed with you 50 years ago ... They are more used as a means to make us feel safer. there are much cheaper alternatives and temporarily this is a very low risk. And as you said before i can put a price on hypothetical safety, its about 20 000 000 jobs each paid at 50 000
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski sorry 40 000 000 jobs paid at 50 000
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski And yes I still say, you cannot put a value on peoples lives.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski I didn't say all those countries were a threat, I was simply listing examples of regimes and dictators that do not care about world relations. And two are potential threats. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the world is a safer place today than 50 years ago. Far from it and to state otherwise is in my humble opinion naive. All you have to do is look at Hezbollah that have been witnessed to have a mushroom cloud as their emblem, who are commited to anhilating israel
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski Economic meltdown? Lets take North Korea *for example*, They are so heavily sanctioned that without China they would have virutally no outside trade, but if they wanted to use WMD then they could. Ultimately we need a deterrent. If Britain, France and the US disarmed do you really think Iran, North Korea, China and other emerging rogue states would? The result would be a vast world shift in power and influence.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@LowleyUK i'm not gonna keep re-typing out the same points, i feel you have ignored vital parts of what im trying to get through to you and mis-understanding what im trying to say. i didnt say the world was safer 50 years ago.. i said nuclear weapons were more important 50 years ago. And your essentially implying if we dont have nuclear weapons we have absolutely no deterrent...that is ridiculous. if yu want to know why
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski they will not be used please refer back to my other answers. Iran, north korea dont have nuclear weapons, and we can bombt them without the genocide brought by use of nuclear warfare. And your taking the idea if we dont have nuclear weapons, which we cannot use anyway that suddenly we are defenseless, and peoples lives are suddenly going to perish. its just fear mongering. i agree you cannot put a Price on peoples lives, but that price tag is not embedded in nuclear weapons.
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski North Korea do but Iran do not currently, but they have refused to stop enriching uranium which resulted in sanctions being placed on Tehran. I wouldn't be so sure about not using them in return, though it is a horrible thought, laws like that go out of the window when you have been attacked with nuclear weapons, other countries may even return fire for us. I am all in favour for worldwide disarmament but currently, with countries sectretly try to aquire them, I am not.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski If anything its very hypocritical because the money being thrown away is being wasted and not helping peoples lives. i assume you can see the contradiction. Oh and yes economic meltdown. China etc. are manufacturing countries not self sufficient industries. The death of the west means good-bye economy to them. They will not be starting any wars with us anytime soon. The wars fought now are becoming more and more classed as the cold war. And guirella based. We need to adapt
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski As I said before, If you could live with europe and the west disarming whilst people in uncertain places are arming then sure I can see a condradiction. I don't believe China are a threat so I agree with that to an extent. And I agreed with your point on guerilla warfare from when it was first made, but I'm sorry, that doesn't change the uncertainty of the future, unless you can predict it?
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski Well I'm sorry you feel that way, It was 3am so I was very tired when replying but I have listened to every point you raised and critically examined them, I apologise if you feel I have overlooked them as that wasn't my intention. I realise you were talking of the threat 50 years ago, and that is precisely what I was referring to too. I think the threat from the two "axis of evil" countries is potential, you do not, that is our fundamental disagreement and I fully understand why.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@LowleyUK Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree then i suppose. i understand why you believe in the nuclear deterrent but at the moment i believe the proportionate weight behind justifying them versus their cost and effectiveness doesn't stand up enough to validate keeping them, whilst pushing people out of work. the bottom line here i suppose is im a Liberal (before the Clegg saga) and your a Torie. so we probably cant ever agree,All i can say is i hope your right, purely for our countries sake
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski Obviously i cannot predict the future. but just because you use vague and subjective points like that doesnt add any credibility to the use of nuclear weapons.. i and temporary disarmament is very low risk whilst they 'may' aquire them. dont worry im sure america has all the bombs we need.but the fact we cannot use them, contradicts the purpose of the deterrant. The main tragedies of receant, 9/11, 7/7, bombing in russia how excatly did the deterrant work for us there ?
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski You make a strong case, and I'm happy to say it forces me to question everything I think I know. Perhaps your best point for me is that we may not use them in return, but you know my thoughts on why I still support a deterrent. Actually I am a Liberal Conservative, (also before the coalition) with many of my beliefs coming from the left and very few from the right. I like to think I am an agreeable person :D but you just caught me on two things I support ardently!!
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@LowleyUK Thank you, you make a good argument to. i believe in us having nuclear weapons to but just not as a priority, so i guess im half way in a position to agree with you, but i cant meet you there during a recession, thats my main problem with them. i have to admit ive never met a liberal conservative, ideologically they seem almost unjoinable but you seem to have made it work for you, so in that sense well done i hope it prospers
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski . And yes i would say your an agreeable person, your willing to at least listen to the other side without trying to damine them at the same time. i believe i am too, but like you i feel very strongly about this and our governments direction. I think i believe one thing to be true of us both though. we both wont be voting lib dem at the next election lool ! i think anyway ha
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski Thank you too for an interesting debate. Haha yes it's possible, I am also a vegan, humanist and animal rights supporter, hugely influenced by Peter Singer and I would protest against the tories if there was ever a chance of fox hunting returning. I support them because I am fed up with lenient punishments for murders and other criminals and I was getting frustrated with the decline of Britain. I like David Cameron because he has said he is a Liberal Conservative too.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@LowleyUK yh i studied peter singer to alot while i was in college, hes v. smart. i agree with you as well on not having lenient sentencing for crimes of a high nature such as murder, rape, pedophiles. and all the peak of evil crimes. but am coming round to some alternatives for prison for petty crime, because if people keep re-offending, and prison is ment to reform. Then i believe there is a fundamental flaw in the system. I want the decriminalization of all drugs to, or atleast based on fact
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski I was influenced by the Baby P story, I just couldn't believe the sentencing when I read it. I haven't looked in detail at other alternatives for lesser or petty crimes but I am aware that criminals go on to reoffend and evidence suggests that some go onto to worse crimes as a result of meeting other criminals, I think the phrase was "Crime school", so yeh I would be interested in learning more, I haven't formed an opinion on that yet. Decriminalisation, hmmm, again I'm not sure.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@LowleyUK @LowleyUK alternatives/at least a reformation of the prison system. we dont reform them, we just cage, alienate and force them down a single avenue. i believe its something we need to change, but again am not sure in which direction as of yet. i believe individual decisions and treatment per person are crucial on any new route to success. and forgive the this minor summary of points, but i think you'll find them interesting. firstly illegalising drugs like cannabis
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@LowleyUK doesnt stop its availability or use. more people smoke weed over here than in the netherlands. also on this point you have to be 18 to use alcohol here, 21 in the US and and about 14 in france. However france has a huge amount less amount of alcoholics indicating education and a change in culture is more important than keeping it out of reach. In Portugal they decrimanalized all drugs and saw a massive reduction in crime, and use rates especially in crack and heroin.
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@LowleyUK and i cannot think of one reason used to justify the use of alcohol that isnt applicable to cannabis and alot of other drugs. just a brief summary, i encourage you to look into this, as i think you may eventually join me.
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski Thats very interesting about portugal. thanks and I will look into it. I think the reason given for why alcohol and cannabis isn't is legal is that cannabis has proven links with psychosis with much less usage than alcohol, so it's much more potent. Personally I don't like the idea of a nanny state and we should be able to do what we want, within reason and as long as it doesn't affect others. Euthanasia for example.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@LowleyUK its not proven* there is some evidence to suggest it. But there has never been a definitive conclusion, aside from stronger links that show if you are going to develop a mental illness, it wont hinder its progression. Theres lots of contradictory studies. However !! CBD an innate chemical within weed stops the progression of mental illness and is used as a treatment as well as for cancer.
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@LowleyUK however the strains we smoke are not cultivated to increase the amount of CBD content, this is unfortunately a result of prohibition whereby THC content is increased not CBD, this can be solved via legalization and regulation. And thus although i can see your point here, its only made worse by keeping it illegal, the solution i believe is education and regulation. And i agree 100% with you about the nanny state and euthanasia, Singer to was passionate on this.
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@LowleyUK like you i am also a big advocate of human and animals rights, but dont think i could manage being a vegan. i respect you for being able to do that though
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@LowleyUK I insulted your Dear Leader, not you.
MetaCraken 11 months ago
'We will protect the NHS' you're lying again Cameron - 50,000 job losses including nurses plus privatisation. Hardly protecting it, ist???
cupcakefairy87 11 months ago
@cupcakefairy87 The 50,000 jobs losses you speak of do exist but £5 billion will be saved from the administrative cut backs, then that money will be put directly back into the NHS. That's equivilent to 40,000 nurses, 17,000 doctors and 11,000 consultants. Also there will be no privatisation of the NHS, only the patients right to choose where they recieve care. The NHS needs modernisation, we have some of the worst cancer survival rates, we are twice as likely to have a heart attack than french.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@LowleyUK i believe,you are confusing two issues, the modernization of the NHS and firing people who work there are two completely different areas of debate. Your point on heart attacks is in essence irrelevant to the NHS's performance because heart attacks are the the result of poor health, this is a cultural problem not a reflection on the nhs, in terms of after treatment i cannot comment. Also Where did yu find those firgures im confused to how firing 50000 people saves enough to hire 68000
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski All of the figures are direct quotes from the recently published health and social care bill. The £5 billion in savings doesn't just come from job cuts (which will take place gradually over a 2 year period) but it comes from the *administative* changes (patients, doctors and nurses being given more control instead of managers and other staff). As for the heart attack point, you may be right, i'm not an expert but I would say that France has cultural obesity problems too.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@LowleyUK yh most of europe has obesity problems now, mostly the whole of the developed western world does. the reason i disagree with these cuts and this government, is simple. Areas which are irrelevant to peoples quality of life i.e trident which cost billions, are not being cut, at least temporarily. and peoples jobs and our social quality are being sacrificed to do so. If they did the cuts out of a purely deficit easing method instead of a largely ideological hidden guise. i would agree
MeekErinovski 11 months ago
@MeekErinovski I would be the first to agree if I saw evidence of any ideological cuts, and I'm guilty of thinking it momentarily myself, but when I look into these things I find genuine reasons why they are necessary. Are we forgetting the removal of benefits of the higher earners from late last year etc?
As for Trident, the world is a very uncertain place and nobody can foresee the future, you cannot put a price on the safety of the UK.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
You can see the hate in bakers eyes through the BBC smile
mrmerriecity 11 months ago
'how do you sleep at night' lmfaoooooooooooo <£ matt baker
hannaah099 11 months ago
I also agree that Labour have simply spent to much and that was wrong.
NLWK110710 11 months ago
The cuts are indeed inevitable, but they way the cuts affect the most vulnerable and the people who simply can't lose a penny is simply bad, it's as if the super-rich will be avoided by the cuts, off course I'm not against the rich, if people would like to earn more money it's up to them, but they get lots of money so they simply can lose something, while the poorer simply can't, this is quite logic.
NLWK110710 11 months ago
@NLWK110710 Yes I think more should be done to tax the super rich too, the £2 billion levy on the banks is a good start, but I do think it's a good thing and a relief that the government is dedicated to cutting waste.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
such a patronising cunt. and did he not listen to the world's leading economists who say that having a budget defecit in a country that has one of the highest credit ratings in the world is not actually a bad thing and can actually help promote economic growth. say no to the shock doctrine and these purely ideological cuts
murrayisarobot 11 months ago
@murrayisarobot I completely disagree with this nonsense though, we almost certainly would have ended up like Ireland, the cuts are needed and are not ideological. They are increasing the NHS budget and anyway, the Lib dems would be the first to say so if it were true.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@LowleyUK Are you actually David Cameron disguised as a mere commoner. Go on Big Dave admit it. You're either that or a sheep being led along. If you believe that then you'll believe anything. If Cameron told me that I have knee caps then I'd not believe till I'd checked and had an X ray. Which I probably won't be able to afford fairly soon because I'll have to pay for it. The cuts are happening my mother works as a director at a hospital that I won't be naming. IT'S HAPPENING
mrmerriecity 11 months ago
"We were spending more than we were getting in in taxation." Increase taxation, then, you disgusting twisted bellend.
MetaCraken 11 months ago
@MetaCraken What an idiotic statement. No government would do that, it's not even an answer.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@LowleyUK You make me feel sad on the inside :(
MetaCraken 11 months ago
@MetaCraken grow a sack mate
Carrington123 11 months ago
OH well, dont worry people "we're all in it together", YEAH RIGHT!!!!!
PEOPLE OF BRITAIN, JOIN US IN LONDON, 26/03/2011, MARCH AGAINST THE SAVAGE TORY CUTS, !!!!! TOGETHER WE ARE UNITED !!!!!
dimebagruiz666 11 months ago
Comparing THE BANKS deficit problems with maxing out a credit card? I've never needed a credit card, I've never been in debt. I assume that's why I haven't been awarded a £6.5 million pound bonus! You are an utter cretin sir.
Melomanic07 11 months ago
@Melomanic07 A higher bonus would have happened under labour (the banks reduced it from 9 million) and they were the ones that unrestricted the banks.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@LowleyUK it's nothing to do with whether it would have happened under labour or not. the point is it's just not right that the money that gets deducted from our hard earned paycheck goes to prop up banks so that they can still give out extortionate bonuses. the rich are getting richer and everyone else is feeling the consequences
murrayisarobot 11 months ago
@murrayisarobot Yes I know, I agree with that. I'm just making the point that the Conservatives are at least handling them better that Labour.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
the one show has turned into a fucking kiddies show
damienslash 11 months ago
Our budget deficit is the biggest in europe...
That isn't even true! look it up!
What about greece or Italy?
SouthPads 11 months ago
@SouthPads He said our deficit *was* the worst, which is true, (and I looked it up even though it's common knowledge) but not anymore thanks to the swift action thats been taken.
LowleyUK 11 months ago
@LowleyUK I used the wrong tense, sorry.
Our deficit was bad, undeniably. However other nations in europe were considerably worse off! infact it was only due to less outrageous spending of Gordon Brown, and his frugal investments that total catastrophe was avoided.
At the end of the day, its not hard to solve a defecit crisis if you just cut everything is it. Education is essential... for instance, I achieved AAC in geog, history, and lit. but he has made uni unaffordable. Labour weren't bad.
SouthPads 11 months ago