Bloo Loo Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 So Gidiot, we have 1% of the world population. What percentage of global housing costs do we have? I dont know if people get benefits at all in some poor places, but the cost of living in many parts of the World is tiny compared to here. £70 per week doesnt house and feed a single person in the UK...it would feed and house family for a month in Thailand, if what I read from expats is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorrowToLeech Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Just to make things easier for oldies like me, Could left wingers please make entries in red, right wingers in blue? Is innumeracy an ideology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assume The Opposite Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 The same man who has no qualifications apart from house flipping and towel folding? He's a well polished liar. That's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 The relevant statistic is that we have 4% of the GDP and 7% of the welfare. Now true lots of countries do not provide enough welfare it still seems strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Just to make things easier for oldies like me, Could left wingers please make entries in red, right wingers in blue? No for colour blind people that would be awful. Also left wing and right wing are out dated concepts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbiebegood Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 By the same kind of logic we must also be massively overspending on defense ; since we have the fifth largest military budget in the world despite having only 1% of the worlds population. So can we expect to see Osborne enacting massive cuts here too, to ensure our defense spending reflects our global population ratio? And how about the health service? The NHS is the fifth largest employer in the world - yet we only have 1% of the worlds population- so again we must expect savage cuts to bring this expenditure in line with our global population ratio. The same must be true of pensions- and infrastructure ect ect. This is a joke surely- because using the metric of global population ratio must mean we are overspending on just about everything from education to the agricultural subsides that have paid out over a million pounds to one family alone in the past ten years- that family being the close relatives of Ian Duncan Smith. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 More meaningless figures being brandished like a weapon by an old coke head. Why not just reintroduce contributions based unemployment insurance like other developed countries and allow the price of housing to fall to a sustainable level. Oh yes, silly me, I forgot that most of his mates have BTL portfolios and his paymasters in the City wouldn't be happy about losing all that lovely interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agentimmo Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 wonderpup, on 18 Jun 2015 - 12:45 AM, said: By the same kind of logic we must also be massively overspending on defense ; since we have the fifth largest military budget in the world despite having only 1% of the worlds population +100 The Tories and their advisors really do treat the electorate like idiots , feeding them this sort of statistical claptrap. The UK also consumes vast amounts of food , compared to the world average. Should they all be put on diets ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RentingForever Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Enviromentalists in green, Islamists in black, feminists in pink, gays in rainbow, etc. That's going to make exhausting work posting for us muesli-munching lesbian muslim bra-burning UKIPPers ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) Just out of interest apparently total global debt is about $199 trillion assuming the figures in the guardian link below are correct. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/feb/05/global-debt-has-grown-by-57-trillion-in-seven-years-following-the-financial-crisis Apparently the UK's official total national debt is currently about £1.6 trillion ($2.55 trillion) which is about 1.3% of the total global amount - similar to the percentage population. Seeing as the percentage debt isn't likely to be going down that much in percentage terms (or at all) it would be interesting to know where Osborne intends to direct the amount of welfare money he claims to be excessive. To the bankers? Typical of UK politicians he highlights a possible statistical problem then sheds no real light on the possible solutions. Likely he doesn't know himself. For sure the eventual solutions won't have been mentioned before the general election. Edited June 18, 2015 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awaytogo Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 +100 The Tories and their advisors really do treat the electorate like idiots , feeding them this sort of statistical claptrap. The UK also consumes vast amounts of food , compared to the world average. Should they all be put on diets ? May be a good idea in a lot of cases Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canbuywontbuy Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Osborne talked a lot about austerity in 2010. Then he spent in 3 years more than Labour did in 13 years. Whatever he says is of no consequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blod Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Osborne talked a lot about austerity in 2010. Then he spent in 3 years more than Labour did in 13 years. Whatever he says is of no consequence. Exactly, how can the left be demanding an end to something that hasn't started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) Osborne talked a lot about austerity in 2010. Then he spent in 3 years more than Labour did in 13 years. And yet that is the spin and it is by and large accepted. For Labour it fits the nasty Tories meme. The question is: where has all this (borrowed) money gone? Who is filling their boots? Edited June 18, 2015 by tinker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Exactly, how can the left be demanding an end to something that hasn't started. Because cutting spending in a recession (zlb, output gap) increases debt. Osborne implemented austerity in 2010-12 and then if you recall (or not) quietly dumped it to buy votes for the election win. Plan "B" which he claimed not to have. His latest wheeze is to repeat that mistake, so if he actually does implement another round of austerity i.e. fiscal tightening he will likely reduce output again and thus his debt/gdp targets wont be met. He will then ramp up giveaways to his chosen voters again in the 2 years running up to 2020 election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) The relevant statistic is that we have 4% of the GDP and 7% of the welfare. Now true lots of countries do not provide enough welfare it still seems strange. Because we're a developed first world economy. Most of the world isn't. They cannot yet afford pensions and healthcare. It is the most irrelevant statistic, worse it is outrageously misleading. Would you prefer we were like Yemen? The only reason he has used these numbers is because Daily Mail readers will read them and nod sagely in agreement. Edited June 19, 2015 by R K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durhamborn Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 This is a very interesting move. Frank Field was moved by Brown because he understood welfare and where Browns tax credits would end up.He saw them as a trap.Rightly.The fact he is now chair says two things.Tax credits really are in line for big reform,and IDS will will not be able to brush off UC problems.Frank Field knows very well why UC is failing. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/frank-field-fierce-critic-of-governments-record-on-tackling-poverty-elected-to-examine-12bn-welfare-cuts-10329797.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHAL Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 By the same kind of logic we must also be massively overspending on defense ; since we have the fifth largest military budget in the world despite having only 1% of the worlds population. So can we expect to see Osborne enacting massive cuts here too, to ensure our defense spending reflects our global population ratio? And how about the health service? The NHS is the fifth largest employer in the world - yet we only have 1% of the worlds population- so again we must expect savage cuts to bring this expenditure in line with our global population ratio. The same must be true of pensions- and infrastructure ect ect. This is a joke surely- because using the metric of global population ratio must mean we are overspending on just about everything from education to the agricultural subsides that have paid out over a million pounds to one family alone in the past ten years- that family being the close relatives of Ian Duncan Smith. And again by the same logic I would have thought that our politicians have a disproportionately large pension benefits compared to the world average for politicians. Meaningless statistics!! Complete tosh! We should be ashamed. Ashamed because benefits are being wasted on buying votes, enriching the few, political expediency and locking the unemployed in a lifetime of the same. We on the other hand should be proud to have a higher level of benefits proportionately - if only it could be spent on the right things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtickle Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 This is a very interesting move. Frank Field was moved by Brown because he understood welfare and where Browns tax credits would end up.He saw them as a trap.Rightly.The fact he is now chair says two things.Tax credits really are in line for big reform,and IDS will will not be able to brush off UC problems.Frank Field knows very well why UC is failing. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/frank-field-fierce-critic-of-governments-record-on-tackling-poverty-elected-to-examine-12bn-welfare-cuts-10329797.html This is great news, but I don't know why you think it says tax credits will have reform (I hope they do). Rather, doesn't it just say that he won more votes from fellow MPs then the other people standing to be elected chair of that committee? I certainly look forward to him grilling IDS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Roady Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Enviromentalists in green, Islamists in black, feminists in pink, gays in rainbow, etc. Oh wouldnt life be easier for us old duffers if that was the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durhamborn Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 This is great news, but I don't know why you think it says tax credits will have reform (I hope they do). Rather, doesn't it just say that he won more votes from fellow MPs then the other people standing to be elected chair of that committee? I certainly look forward to him grilling IDS! It shows to me fellow MPs know Frank was right when he tried to stop Brown with tax credits.Like you say its almost certain he will grill IDS over UC as he understands it and why its failing. Very much the right person for the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Because we're a developed first world economy. Most of the world isn't. They cannot yet afford pensions and healthcare. It is the most irrelevant statistic, worse it is outrageously misleading. Would you prefer we were like Yemen? The only reason he has used these numbers is because Daily Mail readers will read them and nod sagely in agreement. Do you think it is a binary choice spend lots on benefits or be like Yemen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.