UK jobless rate falls to five-year low, but real wages shrink

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:19 am

First topic message reminder :

The UK unemployment rate has hits new five-year low.

But average earnings only grow by 0.7% -- well behind inflation -- partly due to bonus effect

Jeremy Cook, chief economist at the currency company, World First, is concerned to see that wage growth has slumped, even as employment increased strongly:

That means interest rates won't rise for another year, Cook suggests:

“Wage growth has fallen to 0.7%, vs 1.2% expected, and this is still a major cause for concern. As a result I am still expecting the Bank of England to hold policy right through into the second quarter of 2015, mainly courtesy of the lack of real wage increases.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/blog/2014/jun/11/uk-unemployment-real-wages-uk-world-bank-live

So basically the Government will be crowing that more people are employed, while in reality the state is still having to pay them because they are paid such low wages they have to claim benefit. Such is the myth of the 'Recovery' built on the backs of the low paid.

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:40 pm

Alright said Fred wrote:Sassy is in denial again. She is obviously traumatised by looking such a loser when he calls everything wrong. Still in fairness she is innumerate so I shouldn't expect more.

Drinky, you have called me innumerate for years and it always makes me howl with laughter. You have come out with the same crap for so long you are just boring and not worth even considering having a proper debate with. Even Victor, who used to say he would have a pint with you down the pub changed his mind, and who can blame him.

by Irn Bru Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:08 pm

This figures released today is absolutely wonderful news and it's time to get the bunting hung up and celebrate the fact that inflation is surging ahead of pay meaning we are actually worse off than we thought we were.

It's only took this clown Osborne three wasted years to get back to the unemployment levels he was left with when he took over the economy. It's only took him 3 wasted years to get back to the growth figures he was left with when he took office. And in between that time he has lost our triple AAA credit rating. He has spent billions more that he planned for and his one term parliament deficit wipe out plan went out the window along with his Plan A which has been quietly shuffled out of sight from what it was at the start.

And what are all these people in all these jobs actually doing because there is no sign of increased productivity in the figures on GDP per capita, in fact it has been dropping consistently in the last 4 years?

But the really worrying aspect of these latest figures is the UK trade account which has slumped dramatically with an increase to £2.5 billion in April 2014, compared with £1.1 billion in March 2014. The GDP figures and the UK trade balance is a real measure on how the UK economy is performing and all this stuff from Osborne is short term measures designed purely to try and get them over the line in 2015.

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:14 pm

Yes, I'm sure we will hear more of the 'we're getting there but it will take some more time , and more cuts are inevitable"...

Despite missing his own financial targets...

I'm sure that if they did win next hear, we would still be hearing the constant bleating of...'it's still all Labour's fault".

by Guest Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:17 pm

Irn Bru wrote:This figures released today is absolutely wonderful news and it's time to get the bunting hung up and celebrate the fact that inflation is surging ahead of pay meaning we are actually worse off than we thought we were.

It's only took this clown Osborne three wasted years to get back to the unemployment levels he was left with when he took over the economy. It's only took him 3 wasted years to get back to the growth figures he was left with when he took office. And in between that time he has lost our triple AAA credit rating. He has spent billions more that he planned for and his one term parliament deficit wipe out plan went out the window along with his Plan A which has been quietly shuffled out of sight from what it was at the start.

And what are all these people in all these jobs actually doing because there is no sign of increased productivity in the figures on GDP per capita, in fact it has been dropping consistently in the last 4 years?

But the really worrying aspect of these latest figures is the UK trade account which has slumped dramatically with an increase to £2.5 billion in April 2014, compared with £1.1 billion in March 2014. The GDP figures and the UK trade balance is a real measure on how the UK economy is performing and all this stuff from Osborne is short term measures designed purely to try and get them over the line in 2015.

Trade figures are the ones that tell the real story, and that's not good by any stretch.

by Irn Bru Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:48 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics - Finalised annual awards 2012-13
Section 1 : Time series
Figure 1.2 shows that annual entitlement to tax credits has risen over time, increasing from
around £16bn in 2003-04 to over £29.5bn in 2012-13. The bulk of entitlement is claimed by
families entitled to either the full amount of CTC (when out of work) or families in work and
entitled to both WTC and CTC. Over time, the proportion of entitlement covered by those
claiming WTC and CTC has risen from around 51% to 57% of entitlement while the proportion
covered by out of work families has fluctuated slightly between 31% and 27%, but rising again

there ya go didge...its going up...tax credits that is...

Yes as it would be because birth rates are up each year the last year we had 800,000 births, so what have you proven, except the natural state of affairs of people having children, that is not showing anything really is it Victor?

Well it does Didge because logic surely says that around a similar number of children would move out of the age range for CTC to be claimed. Children don't stay children forever.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:00 pm

What about the new children arriving......

They don't stay in The womb forever you know....

The rise in all and overall costs is evident......

by Irn Bru Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:07 am

Tommy Monk wrote:What about the new children arriving......

They don't stay in The womb forever you know....

The rise in all and overall costs is evident......

I just answered that. Offset by children moving out of the age range.

Surely even you can understand that?

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:25 am

While you also claimed a similar number would move out of range....

The graph shows all ranges rising and rising......

But I'm sure you will forget to notice and then deny it later, or come up with some more lame excuses for it.

Again another load of extra labour spending, but they didn't raise taxes, or increase borrowing..... it was all down to the extra money in The economy..... which also had nothing to do with borrowing, even though most of it was fueled by PFI investment borrowing and consumer spending spree based on personal borrowing.......

Ok.

Right.

by Irn Bru Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:35 am

Tommy Monk wrote:While you also claimed a similar number would move out of range....

The graph shows all ranges rising and rising......

But I'm sure you will forget to notice and then deny it later, or come up with some more lame excuses for it.

Again another load of extra labour spending, but they didn't raise taxes, or increase borrowing..... it was all down to the extra money in The economy..... which also had nothing to do with borrowing, even though most of it was fueled by PFI investment borrowing and consumer spending spree based on personal borrowing.......

Ok.

Right.

Yes, the graph shows all ranges rising - exactly the point.

Are you trying to say that no children moved out of the age range then? If you are then you are even thicker than I thought.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:02 am

Well actually, the range that is increasing the most by far is the working tax credits throughout, with other child tax credits either hardly changing significantly and/or showing fluctuations.

See you ignore the rest of my post......

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:08 am

I think you just made Irn's point for him. The working tax credits rise because more people are low paid.

by Irn Bru Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:12 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Well actually, the range that is increasing the most by far is the working tax credits throughout, with other child tax credits either hardly changing significantly and/or showing fluctuations.

See you ignore the rest of my post......

I think it was the working tax credits that Sass had originally said that had gone up and you have just confirmed that they have. And having realised your mistake with the births without considering those moving out of the age range you do as you always do and introduce something else to divert away from the subject in hand.

Go back and read the discussion on the other thread about PFI etc. and you will see that all your questions and claims about PFI were dealt with there and shown that the Tories were up to their necks in PFI and and still are.

Don't try and come the old soldier routine to escape from the mess you are in and just admit that the graph that Victor produced shows the original claim that tax credits have gone up.

by Irn Bru Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:13 am

Sassy wrote:I think you just made Irn's point for him. The working tax credits rise because more people are low paid.

He did

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:14 am

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:39 am

Yes and hook line and fucking sinker.......

Mass immigration drove down wages as I've said all along!!!!!!

Plus would have also accounted for rising claimants of child tax credits with immigrants bringing kids and higher birth rate among certain immigrants!!!!

As well as The admission that the whole costs were rising throughout this very expensive labour policy of trying to counter the rising costs of living they created, again through mass immigration, and The declining wages, also because of mass immigration.

This so called healthy and growing economy iron brain talks about......

What a twat!!!!

And You Sassy are a mess already. I'm sure this will put you over the edge tonight....!!!!

But not as sure as I am that you iron and JD will be the same 3 not very wise monkeys tomorrow and The next day and again the day after ad nausem......

Idiots the lot of you, completely devoid of rational and independent thought, totally run by your labour leftie bullshit programming.

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:26 am

I'll tell you what Tommy

We will all post with gaps

Because you seem to think it makes you look clever

It doesn't

It makes you look an idiot

And the more you do it

The more idiotic you look

As well as always being wrong.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:39 pm

It's not about trying to look clever, although you obviously think it does look clever, it is about separating what I'm saying into easy to read and bite size chunks, rather than just a wall of text with no spaces which I find a little bit more difficult to read.

Ok?

Why not address the content rather than the style of layout....????

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:47 pm

How about using paragraphs if you run to a few sentences, not great gaps. It's affected, very silly and rather pointless.

by Fred Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:47 pm

Sassy wrote:
Alright said Fred wrote:Sassy is in denial again. She is obviously traumatised by looking such a loser when he calls everything wrong. Still in fairness she is innumerate so I shouldn't expect more.

Drinky, you have called me innumerate for years and it always makes me howl with laughter. You have come out with the same crap for so long you are just boring and not worth even considering having a proper debate with. Even Victor, who used to say he would have a pint with you down the pub changed his mind, and who can blame him.

Sassy you are innumerate I don't care what Drinky thinks I know you are. You are an iconic lefty a liar a denialist and completely unable to own up to your mistakes.

Did you or did you not say we should carry on spending when this govt reigned in spending?

id you not say you support tax and spend like France?

Have you and your dimwit cohorts been proved soundly wrong but also have you not been proven unable to accept your errors.

That's the true measure of thick never learning from your mistakes.

Which are you thick or a liar or BOTH?

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:50 pm

Fred, you are Drinky. Nobody speaks like that except Drinky. You can try to claim you are someone else, but you, I, and everyone else knows you are Drinky. Until you learn to speak to me properly, that is the only kind of reply you will get from me. I don't suffer bullies, never have, never will. If you wish to address a question to me, do so in normal manner. If not, don't bother.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:01 pm

The gaps are a sort of paragraph marker.

Problem is, on here, just putting one line gap everywhere gets lost when actually posted.

All gets bunched up again for some reason.

So I have to put different size gaps to get any gaps at all.

Don't know why but it is The only way it works and shows any gaps at all.

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:10 pm

In that case, that's different and not your fault. Could you not do one block if it's only a few sentences?

by Irn Bru Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:11 pm

Fred wrote:
Sassy wrote:
Alright said Fred wrote:Sassy is in denial again. She is obviously traumatised by looking such a loser when he calls everything wrong. Still in fairness she is innumerate so I shouldn't expect more.

Drinky, you have called me innumerate for years and it always makes me howl with laughter. You have come out with the same crap for so long you are just boring and not worth even considering having a proper debate with. Even Victor, who used to say he would have a pint with you down the pub changed his mind, and who can blame him.

Sassy you are innumerate I don't care what Drinky thinks I know you are. You are an iconic lefty a liar a denialist and completely unable to own up to your mistakes.

Did you or did you not say we should carry on spending when this govt reigned in spending?

id you not say you support tax and spend like France?

Have you and your dimwit cohorts been proved soundly wrong but also have you not been proven unable to accept your errors.

That's the true measure of thick never learning from your mistakes.

Which are you thick or a liar or BOTH?

Recent times have indeed been turbulent. After a decade and a half of stability, with rising employment and living standards, came the crisis and recession - the biggest economic upheaval since the Great Depression. Before the crisis, steady growth with low inflation and high employment was in our grasp. We let it slip - we, that is, in the financial sector and as policy-makers - not your members nor the many businesses and organisations around the country which employ them. And although the causes of the crisis may have been rooted in the financial sector, the consequences are affecting everyone, and will continue to do so for years to come.
Thankfully, the costs of the crisis have been smaller than those of the Great Depression. But only because we learnt from that experience. An unprecedented degree of policy stimulus, here and abroad, prevented another world slump. Even so, around a million more people in Britain are out of work than before the crisis. Many, especially the young unemployed, have had their futures blighted.

Mervyn King – Governor of the Bank of England

But he added: "If I'm honest, I have to admit that we, the Conservative Party, didn't see this as early as we could have."
There were other areas where Tory party policy had gone wrong, he said, such as basing its plans on the hope that economic growth would continue.
In a striking admission, Mr Cameron said not all of the present problems had been created since Labour came to power almost 12 years ago. "If we're honest we must recognise that some of our economic difficulties today relate not only to what has happened in the last ten years, but also to fundamental weaknesses that have been there for decades," he said.
These remarks could upset Tory traditionalists who will see it as a partial apology for Thatcherite policies.

David Cameron – Prime Minister

http://www.scotsman.com/news/cameron-apologises-for-past-tory-failings-over-economy-1-1029731

Over the first eleven years of Labour government, from 1997 to the eve of the financial crisis in 2007, the UK public finances followed a remarkably similar pattern to the first eleven years of the previous Conservative government, from 1979 to 1989. The first four saw the public sector move from deficit to surplus, while the following seven saw a move back into the red.
By 2007 Labour had reduced public sector borrowing slightly below the level it inherited from the Conservatives.• And more of that borrowing was being used to finance investment rather than the day-to-day running costs of the public sector. Labour had also reduced public sector debt below the level it had inherited. As a result the ‘golden rule’ and ‘sustainable investment rule’ that Gordon Brown had committed himself to on becoming Chancellor in 1997 were both met over the economic cycle that he eventually decided had run from 1997–98 to 2006–07.

Institute for Fiscal Studies...

We can't all be wrong and borrowing went up because of the banking crisis. Just deal with it. You don't have a clue.

And remember, Osborne and Cameron pledged to match and exceed Labour's spending plans and copy the Irish economic model as well. Shame they had to stump up £7.5 billion to help bail them out. Phew!!! could have been us with these clowns in charge leading up to the banking collapse.

Back to the footie

Laughing

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:15 pm

Selective waffle.....

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:15 pm

Upheld facts.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:34 pm

Selective.

Tax credits was yet another vastly expensive labour spend, rising continuously throughout.

And shows that wages were already not keeping up with the rising costs of living from early on.

Wages were driven down by high immigration while costs of living rose.

My arguments were proved last night and I will repost for you....

I said you lot were like spongep, smashed up but you just reaggregate and continue as if nothing has happened.

Yes and hook line and fucking sinker.......

Mass immigration drove down wages as I've said all along!!!!!!

Plus would have also accounted for rising claimants of child tax credits with immigrants bringing kids and higher birth rate among certain immigrants!!!!

As well as The admission that the whole costs were rising throughout this very expensive labour policy of trying to counter the rising costs of living they created, again through mass immigration, and The declining wages, also because of mass immigration.

This so called healthy and growing economy iron brain talks about......

What a twat!!!!

And You Sassy are a mess already. I'm sure this will put you over the edge tonight....!!!!

But not as sure as I am that you iron and JD will be the same 3 not very wise monkeys tomorrow and The next day and again the day after ad nausem......

Idiots the lot of you, completely devoid of rational and independent thought, totally run by your labour leftie bullshit programming.

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:54 pm

UK jobless rate falls to five-year low

the question i have is this figure calculated on total benifit clamants or some other criteria

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:01 pm

one thing IS for sure...however it is calculated...you can be sure its a "fiddle"

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:01 pm

We have the Thatcher government to thank for the majority of the statistical trickery which currently renders the government released unemployment figures redundant. Prior to 1979, the unemployment rate was anyone registered as unemployed, this was converted to a percentage of the total workforce and that was the published unemployment rate. Then some changes came in:

Redefining Unemployment: originally defined as those ‘registered’ unemployed, changed to only count ‘claimants’ – this obviously reduced the number greatly as many unemployed people do not, for various reasons, claim benefits.
Cutting Benefit Entitlements: By making changes to the benefit system (who is eligible and not) the government can magic away unemployment numbers by simply removing eligibility for benefits. If the person cannot claim, they are not classed as unemployed.
Training Schemes & Work Programmes: the conservative government of the 80’s began to double count those in training & work programmes. First, they excluded them from the unemployed figures, then they added them to the total workforce figures – this means that simply by recruiting people into a work programme, the government has reduced the unemployment figures. Prior to Thatcher, these schemes were not counted as employment.

The Thatcher government was able to show a drop in unemployment of 550,000 in July 1986, and 668,000 in 1989 by transferring those unemployed into work programmes. They also kept an average 90,000 unemployed under 18 year olds off the books by making them ineligible to claim benefits.

Sadly, none of these changes have since been reversed, giving the UK public a much skewed view of unemployment and underemployment. If we look at the research prepared by other bodies without such downright deceitful exemptions, we reveal a more realistic picture of the economic woe being meted out across the country.A study put together by Sheffield University last year set out to establish the real level of unemployment in the UK, given that there has been little change in the published unemployment statistic, we can suppose they still hold relatively true. The study found:

For Britain as a whole in April 2012, the new figures point to more than 3.4 million unemployed. This compares to just 1.5 million on the claimant count and 2.5 million according to the Labour Force Survey – the government’s two official measures of unemployment. The difference is attributable to extensive hidden unemployment.
An estimated 900,000 unemployed have been diverted onto incapacity benefits. These are men and women with health problems who claim incapacity benefits instead of unemployment benefits. They do not represent fraudulent claims.
Hidden unemployment is disproportionately concentrated in the weakest local economies, where claimant unemployment is already highest. The effect has been to mask the true scale of labour market disparities between the best and worst parts of the country.
In the worst affected districts, the real rate of unemployment is often around 15 per cent. Knowsley in Merseyside tops the list with a real rate of unemployment estimated at 16.8 per cent.
The older industrial areas of the Midlands, the North, Scotland and Wales mostly have the highest rates of unemployment. In large parts of the south of England the rate is still only 3-4 per cent.
Comparisons with similar data for earlier years shows that Britain was still a long way off full employment before the 2008/9 recession. Full employment is now still further away and the real rate of unemployment is higher than at any time since 1997.
The report casts serious doubt on the likely impact of the Coalition government’s reforms, notably the Work Programme and Universal Credit, which are founded on the assumption that unemployment can be brought down by encouraging the unemployed to find work. The evidence points to large and continuing shortfalls in job opportunities away from the most prosperous parts of southern England.

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/

smoke and mirrors

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:02 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:one thing IS for sure...however it is calculated...you can be sure its a "fiddle"

see above

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:04 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:UK jobless rate falls to five-year low

the question i have is this figure calculated on total benifit clamants or some other criteria

Well KD, don't think they calculate it on benefit claimants at all, because they count all kinds of people as being in work. Zero hours, those having to do the Government ordered work to claim JSA etc. So even though people are having to claim benefits, this Government crow that they are in work!

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:06 pm

Korban_Dallas wrote:We have the Thatcher government to thank for the majority of the statistical trickery which currently renders the government released unemployment figures redundant. Prior to 1979, the unemployment rate was anyone registered as unemployed, this was converted to a percentage of the total workforce and that was the published unemployment rate. Then some changes came in:

Redefining Unemployment: originally defined as those ‘registered’ unemployed, changed to only count ‘claimants’ – this obviously reduced the number greatly as many unemployed people do not, for various reasons, claim benefits.
Cutting Benefit Entitlements: By making changes to the benefit system (who is eligible and not) the government can magic away unemployment numbers by simply removing eligibility for benefits. If the person cannot claim, they are not classed as unemployed.
Training Schemes & Work Programmes: the conservative government of the 80’s began to double count those in training & work programmes. First, they excluded them from the unemployed figures, then they added them to the total workforce figures – this means that simply by recruiting people into a work programme, the government has reduced the unemployment figures. Prior to Thatcher, these schemes were not counted as employment.

The Thatcher government was able to show a drop in unemployment of 550,000 in July 1986, and 668,000 in 1989 by transferring those unemployed into work programmes. They also kept an average 90,000 unemployed under 18 year olds off the books by making them ineligible to claim benefits.

Sadly, none of these changes have since been reversed, giving the UK public a much skewed view of unemployment and underemployment. If we look at the research prepared by other bodies without such downright deceitful exemptions, we reveal a more realistic picture of the economic woe being meted out across the country.A study put together by Sheffield University last year set out to establish the real level of unemployment in the UK, given that there has been little change in the published unemployment statistic, we can suppose they still hold relatively true. The study found:

For Britain as a whole in April 2012, the new figures point to more than 3.4 million unemployed. This compares to just 1.5 million on the claimant count and 2.5 million according to the Labour Force Survey – the government’s two official measures of unemployment. The difference is attributable to extensive hidden unemployment.
An estimated 900,000 unemployed have been diverted onto incapacity benefits. These are men and women with health problems who claim incapacity benefits instead of unemployment benefits. They do not represent fraudulent claims.
Hidden unemployment is disproportionately concentrated in the weakest local economies, where claimant unemployment is already highest. The effect has been to mask the true scale of labour market disparities between the best and worst parts of the country.
In the worst affected districts, the real rate of unemployment is often around 15 per cent. Knowsley in Merseyside tops the list with a real rate of unemployment estimated at 16.8 per cent.
The older industrial areas of the Midlands, the North, Scotland and Wales mostly have the highest rates of unemployment. In large parts of the south of England the rate is still only 3-4 per cent.
Comparisons with similar data for earlier years shows that Britain was still a long way off full employment before the 2008/9 recession. Full employment is now still further away and the real rate of unemployment is higher than at any time since 1997.
The report casts serious doubt on the likely impact of the Coalition government’s reforms, notably the Work Programme and Universal Credit, which are founded on the assumption that unemployment can be brought down by encouraging the unemployed to find work. The evidence points to large and continuing shortfalls in job opportunities away from the most prosperous parts of southern England.

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/

smoke and mirrors

Bloody Hell!!!!!!

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:07 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Selective.

Tax credits was yet another vastly expensive labour spend, rising continuously throughout.

And shows that wages were already not keeping up with the rising costs of living from early on.

Wages were driven down by high immigration while costs of living rose.

My arguments were proved last night and I will repost for you....

I said you lot were like spongep, smashed up but you just reaggregate and continue as if nothing has happened.

Yes and hook line and fucking sinker.......

Mass immigration drove down wages as I've said all along!!!!!!

Plus would have also accounted for rising claimants of child tax credits with immigrants bringing kids and higher birth rate among certain immigrants!!!!

As well as The admission that the whole costs were rising throughout this very expensive labour policy of trying to counter the rising costs of living they created, again through mass immigration, and The declining wages, also because of mass immigration.

This so called healthy and growing economy iron brain talks about......

What a twat!!!!

And You Sassy are a mess already. I'm sure this will put you over the edge tonight....!!!!

But not as sure as I am that you iron and JD will be the same 3 not very wise monkeys tomorrow and The next day and again the day after ad nausem......

Idiots the lot of you, completely devoid of rational and independent thought, totally run by your labour leftie bullshit programming.

Tommy, you have the highest degree of self delusion I have ever come across!

by Fred Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:56 pm

From Sassy the biggest lying delusionist. Fuck me you are simply the pits woman. Never ever do you admit you have ben wrong.

You are a Socialist Sassy who is committed to economic ruin and I've yet to see a single prediction of yours come to fruition.

What irritates us is that you are are a lying creep to boot as many former friends will attest.

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:00 pm

DRINKY YOU ARE A MISOGYNISTIC, WEAK, PITIFUL LITTLE MAN.

OTHER MEN MUST LAUGH OUT LOUD AT YOU

by Fred Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:46 pm

I think you must be a misogynist Sassy not Drinky. Isn't Drinky against fundamentalist Islamist who treat women like dirt I know I am. Since you defend them and constantly lie about things aren't you the suspect one? I am deeply against the Taliban Al Queda and yet I have seen you defend these scum at work in Israeli Cafes when debating with others

Indeed you stick knives in the back of your female friends do you not. No sorry thick lying lady you are the one with distinctly dodgy habits.

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:49 pm

DRINKY YOU ARE A MISOGYNISTIC, WEAK, PITIFUL LITTLE MAN.

OTHER MEN MUST LAUGH OUT LOUD AT YOU

I PITY YOU PROFOUNDLY

by Fred Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:55 pm

Oh dear is constanly getting it wrong getting even to you?

Do you deny any of the foregoing i.e

You stabbed your friends in the back

You lied about your affiliations and continue to lie.

You supported spend spend spend when the govt cut spending and said we would go back nto recession.

I might add I don't think Dinky is misogynisticc he just hates fat arsed thick lying Sassys so he must be sassyist.

I don't like thicko fat arses either Sassy and I am definitely not misogynistic.

You can't add up because you are a very thick lefty.

by Guest Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:16 am

FRED/DRINKY HAS A TINY PENIS THAT WOMEN LAUGH AT. HE GETS SO ANGRY HE COMES ON HERE TO TRY AND LOOK BIG AND PRETEND HE'S A REAL MAN

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:20 am

Fred wrote:Oh dear is constanly getting it wrong getting even to you?

Do you deny any of the foregoing i.e

You stabbed your friends in the back

You lied about your affiliations and continue to lie.

You supported spend spend spend when the govt cut spending and said we would go back nto recession.

I might add I don't think Dinky is misogynisticc he just hates fat arsed thick lying Sassys so he must be sassyist.

I don't like thicko fat arses either Sassy and I am definitely not misogynistic.

You can't add up because you are a very thick lefty.

Behave yourself Drinky. Here's a reality check for you...

"I can confirm for the first time that a Conservative Government will adopt [the Government's] spending totals. Total government spending will rise by 2 per cent a year in real terms, from £615 billion next year to £674 billion in the year 2010-11. Like Labour, we will review the final year’s total in a spending review in 2009. The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative Government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year."

George Osborne September 2007 - right on the eve of the banking collapse.

Laughing

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:29 am

And there's more, lots more...

Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in economic policy-making. With its vision of a highly-educated, innovative, open, dynamic, low-tax economy, and relentless focus on the long-term drivers of prosperity,Ireland’s economic miracle has shown that it has the right answers to the challenges of the new global economy.
That new global economy offers us great challenges, and also great opportunities. Ireland has shown the world that wise economic policy-making can produce outstanding results that surpass all expectations, so that we can meet our potential, achieve our goals, and share rising prosperity in an increasingly competitive world.
We in Britain would do well to listen and learn from our Irish neighbours.

The speech

Britain can learn from Ireland’s economic success

GEORGE OSBORNE MP
Shadow Chancellor
23rd February 2006
Speech to the University College Dublin’s Michael Smurfit School of Business

The Celtic Tiger. That was George's vision for Britain. And he had the gall to come back later and tap the British taxpayer for £7.5 billion quid to bail them out when it all went tits up.
Thank goodness the Tories weren't in power at that time otherwise we would have been on the end of a bail out ourselves.

Close shave eh?

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:41 am

An opposition party promising to do more and increase public spending....... wow.... shock horror!!!

Isn't that what labour are doing now...???

More spending everywhere and sunny times ahead, but not from increased borrowing or taxes of course eh iron....

by Fred Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:47 am

Is sassy having a melt down. Im guessing all the blood is being diverted to that huge arse denying her few brain cells much needed oxygen.

She hasnt denied she is a liar though and that she cant add up I wonder if drinkys penis is as small as her IQ that would indeed be small. Laughing

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:53 am

Tommy Monk wrote:An opposition party promising to do more and increase public spending....... wow.... shock horror!!!

Isn't that what labour are doing now...???

More spending everywhere and sunny times ahead, but not from increased borrowing or taxes of course eh iron....

Growth in the economy through investment rather than just blowing it on nothing which was the Tory policy over 18 years.

You know it's true Tommy.

Now where's that equal venom you were talking about?

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:56 am

Fred wrote:Is sassy having a melt down. Im guessing all the blood is being diverted to that huge arse denying her few brain cells much needed oxygen.

She hasnt denied she is a liar though and that she cant add up I wonder if drinkys penis is as small as her IQ that would indeed be small.

Haven't you got rent to collect from your tenants that are on benefits? Probably not as the cheque from the taxpayer arrives every month without fail.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:02 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Fred wrote:Is sassy having a melt down. Im guessing all the blood is being diverted to that huge arse denying her few brain cells much needed oxygen.

She hasnt denied she is a liar though and that she cant add up I wonder if drinkys penis is as small as her IQ that would indeed be small.

Haven't you got rent to collect from your tenants that are on benefits? Probably not as the cheque from the taxpayer arrives every month without fail.

I think those on HB get the rent and then pay it themselves, unless they're in a council house.

by Guest Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:07 am

Fred wrote:Is sassy having a melt down. Im guessing all the blood is being diverted to that huge arse denying her few brain cells much needed oxygen.

She hasnt denied she is a liar though and that she cant add up I wonder if drinkys penis is as small as her IQ that would indeed be small.

DRINKY, A MAGNIFYING GLASS WOULDN'T SHOW UP YOUR DICK, NO WONDER YOUR WIFE SHAGS HER FELLOW WORKERS.

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:07 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Fred wrote:Is sassy having a melt down. Im guessing all the blood is being diverted to that huge arse denying her few brain cells much needed oxygen.

She hasnt denied she is a liar though and that she cant add up I wonder if drinkys penis is as small as her IQ that would indeed be small.

Haven't you got rent to collect from your tenants that are on benefits? Probably not as the cheque from the taxpayer arrives every month without fail.

I think those on HB get the rent and then pay it themselves, unless they're in a council house.

Yes but Drinky has been pocketing the cheques for years from the taxpayer even though he despises the claimants.

What a hypocrite.

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:12 am

UK jobless rate falls to five-year low, but real wages shrink - Page 2 Screen-Shot-2013-09-30-at-16.08.53

The dotted line is George's Plan A. The thick line is reality.

Laughing

by gerber Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:18 am

Tommy Monk wrote:An opposition party promising to do more and increase public spending....... wow.... shock horror!!!

Isn't that what labour are doing now...???

More spending everywhere and sunny times ahead, but not from increased borrowing or taxes of course eh iron....

all is well with the world......

mansion tax......

What liebpour hasen't told you it will affect all households.................

Maggie and the poll tax, liebour and the lid dens are not in government, can hold sway, what they are not saying and refuse to tell is it will be the equivalent of the Poll tax. Great it helped to exit Maggie but they want to reintroduce the same ' cause they know it was right.

hypocrites............ and it will cost us all a hell of a lot more.

by Sponsored content