Current Affairs The Labour Party

[bring the ghost on]

Wow go you, always backing the winners, thats called glory hunting isnt it?

I highly doubt @peteblue would be an Everton fan if that were true mate.

 

[ashwuk76]

Then if you ever want to get into a position of power, it might be better if you try to convince the swing voters rather than abuse them........

You actually think what ive been saying is abuse? Ha!

I will never apologise for speaking out against the tories, never ever, and less so tory everton fans.

 

[ashwuk76]

I highly doubt @peteblue would be an Everton fan if that were true mate.

ha i knew someone at some point would say that.

 

[peteblue]

Slightly off topic, but in my humble opinion the minnow PCSO gets an unfair level of stick and their numbers will continue to be purged.

For their price, level of training and ability to move on if unneeded they do a fabulous job of being a visible presence and doing mundane roles.

Back to the topic at hand however, a key issue with Police cuts has been the purging of particularly important yet dwindling skills due to pressure.

The public will always demand a visible presence and it'd be political suicide for these numbers to be drastically reduced, so they're prioritised.

You've also got a growing demand for terrorism (the old SB) and firearms officers, so the pot for you're every day Jack (CID) starts to dwindle.

Then there's specialisms such as fraud and finance being to diminish; traffic, public order and the likes have also seen significant cuts recently.

It's simple to talk about adding an extra 20,000 cops (average of 400+ per force), but it'll take years to rebuild the damage that's been done.

There's also the major issue of retention - there's growing numbers of recruits who simply don't stick it any more due to a number of issues.

But that's another topic entirely...

It's incredible the wide variety of demands upon the Police, but sometimes they don't really help themselves........

 

[Mrk]

This is the biggest myth going.

I don't have the exact figures, but I read a while ago that as a percentage of GDP, spending under Thatcher - circa. 40%, Major - 40%, Blair - 38%, Cameron - 42%.

Then there is the fact that Osbourne publicly backed all of Labour's spending plans before the global crash.

There is no doubt that the Tories played an absolute blinder in making the mud stick and carrying out a very aggressive campaign to make out that Labour were reckless over-spenders with no regard for the economy, but it is flatly not true.

I'm not really interested in getting too deeply involved in this debate, as it's been had a million times on here in the past, but while you're right to say that government spending has increased under the Tories (bloody Socialists), they have only been able to do that because tax receipts and other revenue has increased substantially.

Government spending in 2010: £697 billion
Government revenue in 2010: £548 billion
Government deficit in 2010: £149 billion

Now compare that with 2017...

Government spending in 2017: £802 billion (!!)
Government revenue in 2017: £744 billion
Government deficit in 2017: £58 billion

 

[jal123]

I highly doubt @peteblue would be an Everton fan if that were true mate.

Are you messing? He remembers the great sides of the late 1800s

 

[peteblue]

You actually think what ive been saying is abuse? Ha!

I will never apologise for speaking out against the tories, never ever, and less so tory everton fans.

Ever since you started posting in here you've done nothing but. Your 'I'm a Labour man and I hate all tories, I'm concerned about people and you're not' tirades are of course abusive, because it insults people about whom you have no knowledge. Even the thread you started, insulting Everton fans who may vote conservative was designed to be insulting. Mind you, you quickly changed your tune when Danny pulled you up and you went into public grovelling mode. Anyway, I've liked some of you multis Chico, but this is the worst.......im off to the pub.....

 

[tsubaki]

Slightly off topic, but in my humble opinion the minnow PCSO gets an unfair level of stick and their numbers will continue to be purged.

For their price, level of training and ability to move on if unneeded they do a fabulous job of being a visible presence and doing mundane roles.

Back to the topic at hand however, a key issue with Police cuts has been the purging of particularly important yet dwindling skills due to pressure.

The public will always demand a visible presence and it'd be political suicide for these numbers to be drastically reduced, so they're prioritised.

You've also got a growing demand for terrorism (the old SB) and firearms officers, so the pot for you're every day Jack (CID) starts to dwindle.

Then there's specialisms such as fraud and finance being to diminish; traffic, public order and the likes have also seen significant cuts recently.

It's simple to talk about adding an extra 20,000 cops (average of 400+ per force), but it'll take years to rebuild the damage that's been done.

There's also the major issue of retention - there's growing numbers of recruits who simply don't stick it any more due to a number of issues.

But that's another topic entirely...

I'd add to that the massive cuts to police staff (most of whom were in roles that require an officer to replace them now) and the closure / sell-off of police stations as causing significant damage as well (at least in London).

Plus it should be pointed out that the population now is several million more than it was when the high point of officer / staff numbers was reached in 2003-4; replacing the numbers lost since then would not only take ages but it wouldn't really take into account the fact that we now ask them to do more for more people as well.

Though all of the above will be much less damaging than if the "College" of Policing gets its* proposed reforms brought in by the Government - an officer class, no job security, a "police reserve" on the model of the RUC, degree-entrants only etc.

* ie: the Home Office's

 

[Tree13]

This is the biggest myth going.

I don't have the exact figures, but I read a while ago that as a percentage of GDP, spending under Thatcher - circa. 40%, Major - 40%, Blair - 38%, Cameron - 42%.

Then there is the fact that Osbourne publicly backed all of Labour's spending plans before the global crash.

There is no doubt that the Tories played an absolute blinder in making the mud stick and carrying out a very aggressive campaign to make out that Labour were reckless over-spenders with no regard for the economy, but it is flatly not true.

Remind me who sold a huge chunk of Britain's gold reserves at what was then a record low price per ounce?

 

[Tree13]

I'm not really interested in getting too deeply involved in this debate, as it's been had a million times on here in the past, but while you're right to say that government spending has increased under the Tories (bloody Socialists), they have only been able to do that because tax receipts and other revenue has increased substantially.

Government spending in 2010: £697 billion
Government revenue in 2010: £548 billion
Government deficit in 2010: £149 billion

Now compare that with 2017...

Government spending in 2017: £802 billion (!!)
Government revenue in 2017: £744 billion
Government deficit in 2017: £58 billion

Well THIS certainly doesn't fit the narrative, now does it?

Who would have thought that a Tory government would spend more public money, and pull in more funds via taxation AND reduce the deficit in the process? It's almost as if they know what they're doing.

 

[jal123]

Well THIS certainly doesn't fit the narrative, now does it?

Who would have thought that a Tory government would spend more public money, and pull in more funds via taxation AND reduce the deficit in the process? It's almost as if they know what they're doing.

Have you seen the deficit has actually increased you Tory whopper?

 

[roydo]

Have you seen the deficit has actually increased you Tory whopper?

There have been plenty of comments in this thread re the civil nature and grown up nature it has demonstrated.

Please dont spoil that.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Remind me who sold a huge chunk of Britain's gold reserves at what was then a record low price per ounce?

So what? The price of gold is notoriously volatile and the country has no reason to hold gold, we will at least make interest from the cash. Yes, if he'd have held out we could have sold at a higher price, but equally, the price could have plummeted and no investment analyst would have been any the wiser other than with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Tree13]

Have you seen the deficit has actually increased you Tory whopper?

Debt has increased.
Deficit has not.
They are two different things. In fact, the figures quoted in the post which I referred to actually showed that.

Please don't let what has been a very good discussion descend into name-calling mate.

 

[Tree13]

So what? The price of gold is notoriously volatile and the country has no reason to hold gold, we will at least make interest from the cash. Yes, if he'd have held out we could have sold at a higher price, but equally, the price could have plummeted and no investment analyst would have been any the wiser other than with the benefit of hindsight.

We won't make interest from cash that has been spent pal.

The sale of gold at that low price had a knock-on effect on consumer confidence, lender confidence, the stock market and the currency market. It was a very bad move, and the money raised was used to fund unsustainable spending, leading to a large deficit which in turn contributed towards national debt.

"The country has no reason to hold gold". Even if that was true (it's not), selling it of on the cheap is still a stupid move.