Planet Rugby Forum

bimboman wrote:

Not if the spending produces more income.

When did the 175 billion per annum overspend produce more income?

I never claimed it did. I said certain parts of what we spend on generates or saves greater amounts then they cost and thus reduce the deficit even more. It's a concept morons don't appear to grasp.

You keep claiming this then calling people who disagree morons, look by all means have your stupid opinions, but don’t confuse them with actual facts.


We’ve had a deficit for nearly 20 continuous years, by your measure we should be rolling in it.

5th biggest economy in the world out of some 200 aren't we?

But seriously you son't appear to understand the difference between cutting spending and cutting the deficit. If something generates more income then it costs, it will cut the deficit. If something saves more money then what it costs, it will cut the deficit more compared with cutting the measure.

You not only can't grasp this but you moronically keep referring to the entirety of the deficit as if I agree with all the spending that contributes towards it. You argue like an extremist and fundamentalist. It's one or the other. It isn't, it's about sensible management.

Reading people in some of these threads makes me realize that fundamental economics 101 should be compulsory in school, some truly embarrassing nonsense being written here.

eldanielfire wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Not if the spending produces more income.

When did the 175 billion per annum overspend produce more income?

I never claimed it did. I said certain parts of what we spend on generates or saves greater amounts then they cost and thus reduce the deficit even more. It's a concept morons don't appear to grasp.

You keep claiming this then calling people who disagree morons, look by all means have your stupid opinions, but don’t confuse them with actual facts.


We’ve had a deficit for nearly 20 continuous years, by your measure we should be rolling in it.

5th biggest economy in the world out of some 200 aren't we?

But seriously you son't appear to understand the difference between cutting spending and cutting the deficit. If something generates more income then it costs, it will cut the deficit. If something saves more money then what it costs, it will cut the deficit more compared with cutting the measure.

You not only can't grasp this but you moronically keep referring to the entirety of the deficit as if I agree with all the spending that contributes towards it. You argue like an extremist and fundamentalist. It's one or the other. It isn't, it's about sensible management.

Here’s a clue , what time frame would spending on education of primary school age take to return a positive effect and would spending return more than he spend ?

The answer is 20 years or so, the answer is it isn’t a linear return as currently proven by the underemployed graduate issue in the Uk and it’s at least 20 years anyway, that’s 20 years of carrying each days spending as debt, that the deficit if you’re in that situation is absolute for that time and creates debt which in turn creates a repayment and interest burden.


Which bit of 175 billion of overspending wasn’t sensible management can you not grasp ? Which bit of that can’t you get.

For the record the UK tax burden is also at a 40 year high, there’s nothing left.

The UK is still massively in debt.

You’re an economic moron of amazing proportions.

I wonder what it would take for brexiteer Tory MPs to jump in with Farage? If we don’t leave in October there must be a reasonable chance of it happening?

bimboman wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Not if the spending produces more income.

When did the 175 billion per annum overspend produce more income?

I never claimed it did. I said certain parts of what we spend on generates or saves greater amounts then they cost and thus reduce the deficit even more. It's a concept morons don't appear to grasp.

You keep claiming this then calling people who disagree morons, look by all means have your stupid opinions, but don’t confuse them with actual facts.


We’ve had a deficit for nearly 20 continuous years, by your measure we should be rolling in it.

5th biggest economy in the world out of some 200 aren't we?

But seriously you son't appear to understand the difference between cutting spending and cutting the deficit. If something generates more income then it costs, it will cut the deficit. If something saves more money then what it costs, it will cut the deficit more compared with cutting the measure.

You not only can't grasp this but you moronically keep referring to the entirety of the deficit as if I agree with all the spending that contributes towards it. You argue like an extremist and fundamentalist. It's one or the other. It isn't, it's about sensible management.

Here’s a clue , what time frame would spending on education of primary school age take to return a positive effect and would spending return more than he spend ?

The answer is 20 years or so, the answer is it isn’t a linear return as currently proven by the underemployed graduate issue in the Uk and it’s at least 20 years anyway, that’s 20 years of carrying each days spending as debt, that the deficit if you’re in that situation is absolute for that time and creates debt which in turn creates a repayment and interest burden.


Which bit of 175 billion of overspending wasn’t sensible management can you not grasp ? Which bit of that can’t you get.

For the record the UK tax burden is also at a 40 year high, there’s nothing left.

The UK is still massively in debt.

You’re an economic moron of amazing proportions.

WOW! Amazing. The poster who posted a link to claim crime costs the country 50 billion and didn't even read the link to see that it stated the 50 billion didn't include the billions on direct business costs nor the overall economic impact calls someone a moron. Of course you haven't addressed that because you are a liar.

Also for at least the 4th time you have replied to my statements with questions to situations I haven't even claimed I believe in and aren't even in my argument. Your only reply is to invent new arguments that are not anything I have discussed as some sort of. counter, shows how fake and full of lies your position is.

Caley_Red wrote:Reading people in some of these threads makes me realize that fundamental economics 101 should be compulsory in school, some truly embarrassing nonsense being written here.

I agree.

WOW! Amazing. The poster who posted a link to claim crime costs the country 50 billion and didn't even read the link to see that it stated the 50 billion didn't include the billions on direct business costs nor the overall economic impact calls someone a moron. Of course you haven't addressed that because you are a liar.

Also for at least the 4th time you have replied to my statements with questions to situations I haven't even claimed I believe in and aren't even in my argument. Your only reply is to invent new arguments that are not anything I have discussed as some sort of. counter, shows how fake and full of lies your position is.

Flapping now, the two reports are clear in what and what isn’t included your report does state the weak correlations between police numbers and crime decreases though so it ruins your argument.

As for lies, lies and all that you’re an idiot, I’ve made clear arguments on where I disagree with your very very basic premises regarding linear spend and receive income.

I’ve proposed questions to try and get across the simplistic and in fact incorrect approach you take to the issue.

eldanielfire wrote:

bimboman wrote:For eldanski :

The cause of the decrease in violence is not abundantly
clear from examining data on violence alone. In fact, given
that police numbers have actually declined over the past ten years and there has been a recession, the result is seemingly counterintuitive. One way to confirm that changes in police numbers are not connected to the decrease in violence is to examine changes in the size of police forces compared to changes in violent crime in the same areas. There are 45 Police Force Areas in the UK, which enables this comparision.
Chart 28 shows the percentage change in the police employment rate vs the percentage change in violent crime in the UK, from 2003 to 2012.

There is a very weak correlation (r=.2) between decreases in police numbers and increases in violent crime, which is not statistically significant. Similar correlations between reductions in police numbers and homicide, weapons crime, public disorder and the UKPI as a whole produced even weaker associations. This suggests that the reductions in police numbers have not played a significant role in either reducing or increasing crime. However, as the majority of the cuts to police numbers only occurred in the last three years, it is too early
to tell whether such cuts will lead to an increase in crime over time.

It’s a great report Eldanski, I’m glad you’ve made such good points.

A government that cut police numbers and overseas a rise in crime doesn't want to connect the loss of police with rising crime FFS!

Your report.

DragsterDriver wrote:I wonder what it would take for brexiteer Tory MPs to jump in with Farage? If we don’t leave in October there must be a reasonable chance of it happening?

I think you can put your house on the fact that the UK will be leaving in Oct one way or the other.

The Sun God wrote:

DragsterDriver wrote:I wonder what it would take for brexiteer Tory MPs to jump in with Farage? If we don’t leave in October there must be a reasonable chance of it happening?

I think you can put your house on the fact that the UK will be leaving in Oct one way or the other.

You might as well. It won't be worth much soon.

The Sun God wrote:

DragsterDriver wrote:I wonder what it would take for brexiteer Tory MPs to jump in with Farage? If we don’t leave in October there must be a reasonable chance of it happening?

I think you can put your house on the fact that the UK will be leaving in Oct one way or the other.

Any sterling sell on something “hopeful” or is the best we’ll get for a year or so?

bimboman wrote:

WOW! Amazing. The poster who posted a link to claim crime costs the country 50 billion and didn't even read the link to see that it stated the 50 billion didn't include the billions on direct business costs nor the overall economic impact calls someone a moron. Of course you haven't addressed that because you are a liar.

Also for at least the 4th time you have replied to my statements with questions to situations I haven't even claimed I believe in and aren't even in my argument. Your only reply is to invent new arguments that are not anything I have discussed as some sort of. counter, shows how fake and full of lies your position is.

Flapping now, the two reports are clear in what and what isn’t included your report does state the weak correlations between police numbers and crime decreases though so it ruins your argument.

Yes and you tried to issue a quote that didn't even have the total cost of crime. It isn't 50 billion by the evry evidence you produced.

As for lies, lies and all that you’re an idiot, I’ve made clear arguments on where I disagree with your very very basic premises regarding linear spend and receive income.

I’ve proposed questions to try and get across the simplistic and in fact incorrect approach you take to the issue.

You claimed crime costs the country 50 billion. Your own report you linked to says it costs more. Your own calculations on this false low figure even shows the 20k police officers would save money on crime costs and your own report says it actually costs more and this must save more money than you calculated. You lied. Your a liar, disingenuous and dishonest. And everyone on this board knows it.

bimboman wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

bimboman wrote:For eldanski :

The cause of the decrease in violence is not abundantly
clear from examining data on violence alone. In fact, given
that police numbers have actually declined over the past ten years and there has been a recession, the result is seemingly counterintuitive. One way to confirm that changes in police numbers are not connected to the decrease in violence is to examine changes in the size of police forces compared to changes in violent crime in the same areas. There are 45 Police Force Areas in the UK, which enables this comparision.
Chart 28 shows the percentage change in the police employment rate vs the percentage change in violent crime in the UK, from 2003 to 2012.

There is a very weak correlation (r=.2) between decreases in police numbers and increases in violent crime, which is not statistically significant. Similar correlations between reductions in police numbers and homicide, weapons crime, public disorder and the UKPI as a whole produced even weaker associations. This suggests that the reductions in police numbers have not played a significant role in either reducing or increasing crime. However, as the majority of the cuts to police numbers only occurred in the last three years, it is too early
to tell whether such cuts will lead to an increase in crime over time.

It’s a great report Eldanski, I’m glad you’ve made such good points.

A government that cut police numbers and overseas a rise in crime doesn't want to connect the loss of police with rising crime FFS!

Your report.

No your report, the one you missquoted because you lied or can't read.

eldanielfire wrote:

bimboman wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

bimboman wrote:For eldanski :

The cause of the decrease in violence is not abundantly
clear from examining data on violence alone. In fact, given
that police numbers have actually declined over the past ten years and there has been a recession, the result is seemingly counterintuitive. One way to confirm that changes in police numbers are not connected to the decrease in violence is to examine changes in the size of police forces compared to changes in violent crime in the same areas. There are 45 Police Force Areas in the UK, which enables this comparision.
Chart 28 shows the percentage change in the police employment rate vs the percentage change in violent crime in the UK, from 2003 to 2012.

There is a very weak correlation (r=.2) between decreases in police numbers and increases in violent crime, which is not statistically significant. Similar correlations between reductions in police numbers and homicide, weapons crime, public disorder and the UKPI as a whole produced even weaker associations. This suggests that the reductions in police numbers have not played a significant role in either reducing or increasing crime. However, as the majority of the cuts to police numbers only occurred in the last three years, it is too early
to tell whether such cuts will lead to an increase in crime over time.

It’s a great report Eldanski, I’m glad you’ve made such good points.

A government that cut police numbers and overseas a rise in crime doesn't want to connect the loss of police with rising crime FFS!

Your report.

No your report, the one you missquoted because you lied or can't read.

What ? This is from the report you stated the 124 billion from locked to the Telegraph article, the one you said you had read and I hadn’t.

http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads ... t-2013.pdf

bimboman wrote:

What ? This is from the report you stated the 124 billion from locked to the Telegraph article, the one you said you had read and I hadn’t.

http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads ... t-2013.pdf

No yo hadn't read your own government link, hence YOUR OWN LINK

eldanielfire wrote:

bimboman wrote:

What ? This is from the report you stated the 124 billion from locked to the Telegraph article, the one you said you had read and I hadn’t.

http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads ... t-2013.pdf

No yo hadn't read your own government link, hence YOUR OWN LINK

No, I quoted from your report as per these the comments you laughed about on correlations were on YOUR report.

What has me quoting your report have anything to do with a completely separate report.

There is a very weak correlation (r=.2) between decreases in police numbers and increases in violent crime, which is not statistically significant. Similar correlations between reductions in police numbers and homicide, weapons crime, public disorder and the UKPI as a whole produced even weaker associations. This suggests that the reductions in police numbers have not played a significant role in either reducing or increasing crime. However, as the majority of the cuts to police numbers only occurred in the last three years, it is too early
to tell whether such cuts will lead to an increase in crime over time.

Is there something wrong with you?

happyhooker wrote:

The Sun God wrote:

DragsterDriver wrote:I wonder what it would take for brexiteer Tory MPs to jump in with Farage? If we don’t leave in October there must be a reasonable chance of it happening?

I think you can put your house on the fact that the UK will be leaving in Oct one way or the other.

You might as well. It won't be worth much soon.

In theory it’s worth nothing unless I sell up and live in a tent I’ve been spending a fair amount of time on the French rightmove and you can buy a fixer-upper for fudge all.

How is work in London? It’s dying a slow death here with brexit uncertainty.

DragsterDriver wrote:

happyhooker wrote:

The Sun God wrote:

DragsterDriver wrote:I wonder what it would take for brexiteer Tory MPs to jump in with Farage? If we don’t leave in October there must be a reasonable chance of it happening?

I think you can put your house on the fact that the UK will be leaving in Oct one way or the other.

You might as well. It won't be worth much soon.

In theory it’s worth nothing unless I sell up and live in a tent I’ve been spending a fair amount of time on the French rightmove and you can buy a fixer-upper for fudge all.

How is work in London? It’s dying a slow death here with brexit uncertainty.

It seems nothing can stop the rise of house prices in London.

Nobody bothered about The Saj entering the leadership race?

Me neither...

House prices in London are falling.

bimboman wrote:House prices in London are falling.

Party because the richest areas aren't selling but the poorest areas are. E.g. House prices are just to expensive for ordinary people.

eldanielfire wrote:

bimboman wrote:House prices in London are falling.

Party because the richest areas aren't selling but the poorest areas are. E.g. House prices are just to expensive for ordinary people.

Another fact we shall dispense with. Even Havering fell over the last 12 months.

Sefton wrote:

openclashXX wrote:Nobody bothered about The Saj entering the leadership race?

Me neither...

It’ll be easier to list those who haven’t declared soon, McVey FFS.

It’s stunning the vanity of these tits who think they could be the front man for the U.K., that Rory Stewart looks a right twat.

eldanielfire wrote:

DragsterDriver wrote:

happyhooker wrote:

The Sun God wrote:

DragsterDriver wrote:I wonder what it would take for brexiteer Tory MPs to jump in with Farage? If we don’t leave in October there must be a reasonable chance of it happening?

I think you can put your house on the fact that the UK will be leaving in Oct one way or the other.

You might as well. It won't be worth much soon.

In theory it’s worth nothing unless I sell up and live in a tent I’ve been spending a fair amount of time on the French rightmove and you can buy a fixer-upper for fudge all.

How is work in London? It’s dying a slow death here with brexit uncertainty.

It seems nothing can stop the rise of house prices in London.

Cambridge is usually bulletproof and pegged to London so who knows !

DragsterDriver wrote:

Sefton wrote:

openclashXX wrote:Nobody bothered about The Saj entering the leadership race?

Me neither...

It’ll be easier to list those who haven’t declared soon, McVey FFS.

It’s stunning the vanity of these tits who think they could be the front man for the U.K., that Rory Stewart looks a right twat.

Rory Stewart isn’t my politics but he’s an interesting fello. Son of the head of M16 Asia....

Another Candidate has throw his hat in the ring for the Leadership; & unlike the others, he has years of unblemished service, in the Highest Office in the land.

Eldanfire and binboman should do themselves a favour and step away from this thread, it’s like reading those 2 old men ‘History today’ Newman and baddil, “that’s youbthat is”

Think what they are trying to communicate just isn’t coming across well on here and neither now listening to the other. At times they seem to be arguing the exact same thing !

Bimbo, I think the main point is that cuts to police cause increases in other spending due to rise in crime much much faster than cutting education costs which as you say, can take 20 years to show a return.
I don’t mind the sacking of lesbian disabled Afro Caribbean outreach workers on £40k a year for an empty job - but culling cops, libraries , youth hostels etc to save not very much has been shown to increase costs way over what they saved (LBC had an investigation on this, and even Mr Righty Nick Ferrari said it was crackers)

Bimbo, I think the main point is that cuts to police cause increases in other spending due to rise in crime much much faster

That seems to be a weak correlation though .... at the point the report Eldanski produced claiming the 124 billion of costs from crime spending on police and police numbers and crime where falling.

I’d not argue the 0.6 billion is something that should have been cut, but the ludicrous argument eldanski keeps making about “investment” is plain silly and I’ll challenge.


Well done eldanski though, he’s muddied the water enough that his embarrassing dismissal of his own report has been missed.

bimboman wrote:

Bimbo, I think the main point is that cuts to police cause increases in other spending due to rise in crime much much faster

That seems to be a weak correlation though .... at the point the report Eldanski produced claiming the 124 billion of costs from crime spending on police and police numbers and crime where falling.

I’d not argue the 0.6 billion is something that should have been cut, but the ludicrous argument eldanski keeps making about “investment” is plain silly and I’ll challenge.


Well done eldanski though, he’s muddied the water enough that his embarrassing dismissal of his own report has been missed.

Crime falling ? Or reported crime falling ? Not much point phoning cops now if your car window has been smashed and your satnav nicked , if you know nobody will show up or even attempt to solve that crime. Do you really feel safer now than 5 years ago or think crime actually has fallen ?
My insurance premiums say otherwise ...

backrow wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Bimbo, I think the main point is that cuts to police cause increases in other spending due to rise in crime much much faster

That seems to be a weak correlation though .... at the point the report Eldanski produced claiming the 124 billion of costs from crime spending on police and police numbers and crime where falling.

I’d not argue the 0.6 billion is something that should have been cut, but the ludicrous argument eldanski keeps making about “investment” is plain silly and I’ll challenge.


Well done eldanski though, he’s muddied the water enough that his embarrassing dismissal of his own report has been missed.

Crime falling ? Or reported crime falling ? Not much point phoning cops now if your car window has been smashed and your satnav nicked , if you know nobody will show up or even attempt to solve that crime. Do you really feel safer now than 5 years ago or think crime actually has fallen ?
My insurance premiums say otherwise ...

At the point the report was produced (2012) , crime was still falling.

eldanielfire wrote:

DragsterDriver wrote:

happyhooker wrote:

The Sun God wrote:

DragsterDriver wrote:I wonder what it would take for brexiteer Tory MPs to jump in with Farage? If we don’t leave in October there must be a reasonable chance of it happening?

I think you can put your house on the fact that the UK will be leaving in Oct one way or the other.

You might as well. It won't be worth much soon.

In theory it’s worth nothing unless I sell up and live in a tent I’ve been spending a fair amount of time on the French rightmove and you can buy a fixer-upper for fudge all.

How is work in London? It’s dying a slow death here with brexit uncertainty.

It seems nothing can stop the rise of house prices in London.

Wrong.

Dragster- busy. People aren't moving so are happy to spend on renovations.

So far

Touch wood

Just a suggestion:

Andrew R
‏

@ExcelPope
@ExcelPope

The BBC should put Juncker in the front-row for the Tory leadership debates, with a set of cue cards - "We wouldn't agree to that", "No more negotiations", "No free-trade without sorting the Irish border", "I also like unicorns" - and just pan to him after every statement.

Turbogoat wrote:Just a suggestion:

Andrew R
‏

@ExcelPope
@ExcelPope

The BBC should put Juncker in the front-row for the Tory leadership debates, with a set of cue cards - "We wouldn't agree to that", "No more negotiations", "No free-trade without sorting the Irish border", "I also like unicorns" - and just pan to him after every statement.

Do the BBC still have an in-house bar? If so, I reckon he'd be up for it.

happyhooker wrote: Wrong.

Dragster- busy. People aren't moving so are happy to spend on renovations.

So far

Touch wood

I’ll be doing a Dick Whittington I reckon.


Just seen Hancock floundering under pressure on the Richard Madeley show

DD, I don’t know your skill set, but Saffron Waldron to Braintree has a massive shortage of builders right now.

bimboman wrote:

DragsterDriver wrote:

Sefton wrote:

openclashXX wrote:Nobody bothered about The Saj entering the leadership race?

Me neither...

It’ll be easier to list those who haven’t declared soon, McVey FFS.

It’s stunning the vanity of these tits who think they could be the front man for the U.K., that Rory Stewart looks a right twat.

Rory Stewart isn’t my politics but he’s an interesting fello. Son of the head of M16 Asia....

I have actually warmed quite a bit to Rory Stewert in recent months

Sure he is a long shot candidate for the Tory leadership but he seems to be running a clever slow burner campaign that is probably teeing him up as a leader in opposition rather then PM. Yes he is another Eton, PPE Oxford graduate but rather then getting some cushy job as a 'researcher' at Conservative HQ he opted for the Foreign Office instead with stints in Indonesia, Iraq, Montenegro and Afghanistan with some possible side work with MI6. Always struck me as a fairly thoughtful and measured interviewee when I have seen him and a bit more serious then the likes of Boris and co. I shall keep an eye on him.

danny_fitz wrote:

bimboman wrote:

DragsterDriver wrote:

Sefton wrote:

openclashXX wrote:Nobody bothered about The Saj entering the leadership race?

Me neither...

It’ll be easier to list those who haven’t declared soon, McVey FFS.

It’s stunning the vanity of these tits who think they could be the front man for the U.K., that Rory Stewart looks a right twat.

Rory Stewart isn’t my politics but he’s an interesting fello. Son of the head of M16 Asia....

I have actually warmed quite a bit to Rory Stewert in recent months

Sure he is a long shot candidate for the Tory leadership but he seems to be running a clever slow burner campaign that is probably teeing him up as a leader in opposition rather then PM. Yes he is another Eton, PPE Oxford graduate but rather then getting some cushy job as a 'researcher' at Conservative HQ he opted for the Foreign Office instead with stints in Indonesia, Iraq, Montenegro and Afghanistan with some possible side work with MI6. Always struck me as a fairly thoughtful and measured interviewee when I have seen him and a bit more serious then the likes of Boris and co. I shall keep an eye on him.

I reckon he has the dirt file.

I don't think any of the better known candidates really want the job now. They shouldn't if they have any sense. The smart move would be to let some plonker be the face of the Brexit disaster endgame and subsequent Tory GE annihilation. Then take on the role of saviour rebuilding the party afterwards.

Sefton wrote:Who is left who isn’t standing?

Lord Asbestos of Oundle, Marquess of Qasquai