Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Do we need Hammond?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,547
    Thanks
    396
    Thanked 273 Times in 209 Posts

    Do we need Hammond?

    Is Hammond actually a waste of space? Is his pessimism a sign of a careful accountant and therefore a sensible holder of the Country's financial reigns or simply a man with an agenda opposed to the people? People shout for the removal of Boris because he steps out of line, but is Hammond any better? Should he go?
    By their deeds will you know them! xx

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    7,753
    Thanks
    1,080
    Thanked 895 Times in 749 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    I don't know, I think he works well to offset the worst excesses of May. But of course, the real problem is, clarkson. They should have had him for PM like the petition demanded ...
    --
    "The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde: "Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services V Inland Revenue, 1929"

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to johnofgwent For This Useful Post:

    Streetwalker (12-10-2017)

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    3,531
    Thanks
    347
    Thanked 307 Times in 265 Posts
    Well there is a dilemma toots,politicians are struggling,the media is no longer a force of control over the electorate and have been severely weakened,it has caused the real power brokers to break cover,Hammond is backing the power brokers,it ain't rocket science,keep handing them a rope.
    17,410,742 people said LEAVE!

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Sheepy For This Useful Post:

    Pierre-Z (13-10-2017)

  6. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3,039
    Thanks
    618
    Thanked 478 Times in 410 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by T00ts View Post
    Is Hammond actually a waste of space? Is his pessimism a sign of a careful accountant and therefore a sensible holder of the Country's financial reigns or simply a man with an agenda opposed to the people? People shout for the removal of Boris because he steps out of line, but is Hammond any better? Should he go?
    No.

    Hammond is a dour lump, but someone has to keep an eye on the spondoolies and he is as good as anyone else. Interestingly enough, he is very much like Jacob Rees Mogg in that he feels that if you haven't got it don't spend it.

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,395
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 156 Times in 143 Posts
    We need to keep the current chancellor and the current PM up until next year's general election
    This is because they would probably do less damage to the nation than those right-wing Tories waiting in the wings to oust them. In the game of snakes and ladders there are at least 3 snakes waiting to gobble up this Tory administration.
    1) Theresa May's leadership declining even further into pantomime.
    2) Brexit going so badly the government realises they're steering the country onto the rocks and it's for real and the time for denial is over.
    3) The DUP deciding it no longer suits their aims to prop up the Tory minority government.

    A lot of politicians will be soul-searching over which of the following three things is most important.
    1) The popularity of their party and their career within it.
    2) The 'will of the people' expressed in the marginal result of an advisory referendum in 2016
    3) The future well-being of our nation.
    I dahn do non-judgement'aw. ... and put ya blinkin' shirt on mate, wiwya!

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    7,753
    Thanks
    1,080
    Thanked 895 Times in 749 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyperduck Quack Quack View Post
    We need to keep the current chancellor and the current PM up until next year's general election
    This is because they would probably do less damage to the nation than those right-wing Tories waiting in the wings to oust them. In the game of snakes and ladders there are at least 3 snakes waiting to gobble up this Tory administration.
    1) Theresa May's leadership declining even further into pantomime.
    2) Brexit going so badly the government realises they're steering the country onto the rocks and it's for real and the time for denial is over.
    3) The DUP deciding it no longer suits their aims to prop up the Tory minority government.

    A lot of politicians will be soul-searching over which of the following three things is most important.
    1) The popularity of their party and their career within it.
    2) The 'will of the people' expressed in the marginal result of an advisory referendum in 2016
    3) The future well-being of our nation.

    And none of them will be over-bothered about item 3 on that list ...
    --
    "The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde: "Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services V Inland Revenue, 1929"

  9. #7
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    13,960
    Thanks
    3,368
    Thanked 3,265 Times in 2,497 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by johnofgwent View Post
    I don't know, I think he works well to offset the worst excesses of May. But of course, the real problem is, clarkson. They should have had him for PM like the petition demanded ...
    Yeah, why bother answering Corbyn's tricky questions when you can just cross the floor of the House and thump him?
    It's amazing how common this narcissism is: I disagree with person A, and I also disagree with person B, therefore A and B are identical - Daniel Hannan

  10. #8
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    13,960
    Thanks
    3,368
    Thanked 3,265 Times in 2,497 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Borchester View Post
    No.

    Hammond is a dour lump, but someone has to keep an eye on the spondoolies and he is as good as anyone else. Interestingly enough, he is very much like Jacob Rees Mogg in that he feels that if you haven't got it don't spend it.
    I'm not sure by what measure Hammond is as good as anyone else. And Rees-Mogg wouldn't know a great deal about 'not having it', having been raised in immense privilege, not to mention living in a house for which his wife received huge government largesse in maintaining.

    But in any case, what do you mean by 'if you haven't got it, don't spend it'? I can see how that argument works for a private individual - although not poor, nor am I rich, and when it comes to spending anything substantial, I usually have to make considered decisions. I think most people are like that, other than the preposterously rich. But a government generally operates a debt model - the idea is that you invest in the future, you don't just tick along and survive. That does not mean you spend massive amounts of state money on wasteful projects, when you are spending you should spend wisely. But spend you must - on schools, hospitals, roads, trains, power stations, regeneration - so that the country can generate more receipts and not rack up larger future debts.

    Likewise, business has to invest in order to grow. A few years ago, I had a choice between one IT system and another. I know nothing about IT so I took some advice, and soon discovered that the cheaper - much cheaper - option, was unlikely to work as well for me long-term. So I invested more money in the more expensive option. It is now paying for itself in two ways - one, by making things more efficient long-term and also still up-to-date as the other is apparently now obsolete; and two, by doing this at an otherwise tricky time for my business, which means my earlier decision has probably saved my firm from extinction. Admittedly, I did not have to borrow to pay for this, but if I had had to, I would have done, as it would not only have allowed me to keep operating, but it would also have saved 14 other jobs. Broaden that out to the whole economy and perhaps you can now see the importance sometimes of spending money you haven't got?
    It's amazing how common this narcissism is: I disagree with person A, and I also disagree with person B, therefore A and B are identical - Daniel Hannan

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to uganda For This Useful Post:

    T00ts (13-10-2017)

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    7,753
    Thanks
    1,080
    Thanked 895 Times in 749 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by uganda View Post
    I'm not sure by what measure Hammond is as good as anyone else. And Rees-Mogg wouldn't know a great deal about 'not having it', having been raised in immense privilege, not to mention living in a house for which his wife received huge government largesse in maintaining.

    But in any case, what do you mean by 'if you haven't got it, don't spend it'? I can see how that argument works for a private individual - although not poor, nor am I rich, and when it comes to spending anything substantial, I usually have to make considered decisions. I think most people are like that, other than the preposterously rich. But a government generally operates a debt model - the idea is that you invest in the future, you don't just tick along and survive. That does not mean you spend massive amounts of state money on wasteful projects, when you are spending you should spend wisely. But spend you must - on schools, hospitals, roads, trains, power stations, regeneration - so that the country can generate more receipts and not rack up larger future debts.

    Likewise, business has to invest in order to grow. A few years ago, I had a choice between one IT system and another. I know nothing about IT so I took some advice, and soon discovered that the cheaper - much cheaper - option, was unlikely to work as well for me long-term. So I invested more money in the more expensive option. It is now paying for itself in two ways - one, by making things more efficient long-term and also still up-to-date as the other is apparently now obsolete; and two, by doing this at an otherwise tricky time for my business, which means my earlier decision has probably saved my firm from extinction. Admittedly, I did not have to borrow to pay for this, but if I had had to, I would have done, as it would not only have allowed me to keep operating, but it would also have saved 14 other jobs. Broaden that out to the whole economy and perhaps you can now see the importance sometimes of spending money you haven't got?
    there is nothing wrong with spending money you do not have if you can make some sort of case that such expenditure will pay for itself in some way. Borrowing 2500 to spend 5000 as I did back then, to acquire equipment now available for perhaps 150-200, seems almost labourite, until you realise that having it in my office then enabled me to invoice thirty clients 1500 each when without it I would have been lucky to have been able to secure five.

    My fear is that certain persons in the house past and present have / had no interest in the returns or the likelihood of their ever being any.

    The massive sums a certain Mr Brown burned on the sacrificial alter of the banking sector for a start.
    --
    "The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde: "Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services V Inland Revenue, 1929"

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    40
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T00ts View Post
    Is Hammond actually a waste of space? Is his pessimism a sign of a careful accountant and therefore a sensible holder of the Country's financial reigns or simply a man with an agenda opposed to the people? People shout for the removal of Boris because he steps out of line, but is Hammond any better? Should he go?
    Yes, he should definitely go! Let's hope his 'enemy' speech causes shite in Brussels

Similar Threads

  1. Wrong move, Mr Hammond?
    By DeppityDawg in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 19-05-2014, 11:40 PM
  2. Hammond warns MPs over Army vote
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19-11-2013, 04:50 PM
  3. Hammond: Gay marriage 'angered many'
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 18-05-2013, 06:49 PM
  4. Hammond backs UK rethink on EU
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 14-10-2012, 10:19 PM
  5. Hammond warns on BAE-EADS merger
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-10-2012, 12:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •