1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Here's a simple question to mull over...

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Duke of York, Dec 9, 2019.

  1. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    If you were in charge of the world bank and found the PM of the UK knocking on your door, cap in hand, asking for money to fulfil the manifesto promises he made, would you lend him more money to pi$$ up the wall in getting the Brexit scam done and making it simpler than ever for billionaires to get away without paying tax, or would you be more favourable to a PM with a plan to knock all that nonsense on the head and invest the loan into building an economy that could repay the loan?

    Is it rocket science?
     
  2. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    I'd lend to the one most likely to be able to pay back the loan including interest, not unlike the actual world bank I imagine... Your post assumes paying back the loan is more likely with one leader than the other but has no evidence to back up that assumption.

    In any case are you suggesting we vote Lib Dem?
     
  3. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Star commenter

    Why will Brexit affect personal taxation so that 54 people will be permitted to pay no tax?
     
  4. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    Before agreeing to a loan, all banks first look at the spending plans of the borrower in order to assess whether or not the loan is affordable:

    upload_2019-12-9_7-37-51.png
     
  5. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Dare I say the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. :eek:
     
  6. sabrinakat

    sabrinakat Star commenter

    Yet this presupposes that all was level in the Tories before this, e.g. they are promising to throw money into the austerity pot (they say that austerity is 'finished'), so it's not really comparable to Labour or the Lib Dems, if that makes sense?

    What about a chart that shows what base the tories are coming from, lets take NHS:

    [​IMG]

    so what about debt?


    [​IMG]

    dunno, but the Tories stripped back massively on spending during their time in office, so in order to bring it back to something decent, the LDs and Labour have to overspend to an extent to keep up with what it should be.
     
  7. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Who decides what it "should be"?
     
  8. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Star commenter

    To do that they would have to borrow significant sums. . Is it appropriate to borrow indefinitley in order to ensure public spending always increases?
     
    florian gassmann and needabreak like this.
  9. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    An overspend has to be paid for by our children and grandchildren. We have already pretty much wished a dying planet on them; do you really want to saddle them with mountainous debt as well?
     
    needabreak likes this.
  10. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Chances are they'd be voted out when reality hits then they can go back to the blame game... It won't be their fault.
     
  11. magic surf bus

    magic surf bus Star commenter

    On a more basic level I reckon if I lent Boris a fiver I'd never get it back. Plenty of vague promises but he'd never get round to it.

    If I lent Corbyn a fiver I'd maybe get £2.50 back but the rest would be an IOU because he'd given it to a homeless bloke.

    Jo Swinson would probably borrow a fiver then spend it on a campaign saying how wrong it is to lend money, so she'd never pay me back.

    On that basis I'd rather lend a fiver to Corbyn, but hey, I'm biased. :)
     
    grumpydogwoman likes this.
  12. hhhh

    hhhh Lead commenter

    Sorry, don't trust any of them. I once liked Corbyn, and I couldn't care less if he watches Liz's speech, sits on the floor of trains or thinks Theresa's stupid, but it's his response to these things which bothers me.

    Also I don't think it's all about money-last time I was in the local hospital, lots of staff were chatting and ignoring patients. In the NHS ward of a private hospital, there was only one nurse with the same number of patients, but she was focused and helping them all; in an ideal world I'd be against any private healthcare or education, but I can understand why some people think it can be helpful. I'm sure a lot more money is spent on education than it was when I was a child, but spending it on having non-teachers harassing experienced teachers is not, in my view, a good use of money; we'd be better off having less money and letting teachers decide what to spend it on (stupid things like books, teachers, counsellors etc, no doubt). My only gripe is people who profess to be 'anti' private for anyone else, but them use it for themselves.
     

Share This Page