Beware the 'i' Word!

[threegee]

It's the most misused, disingenuous word used at this election.  It obfuscates and downright deceives.  No, that word isn't immigration, it's invest.  When you hear "we are going to invest in..." you know you are being lied to - a politician never invests in anything!  This is politico code for spending money we haven't actually got (and will never have), on things we probably don't need, in ways that won't actually produce any tangible investment returns. It's generally empty rhetoric, because anyone getting into power will have to face the broad reality of how state spending is already structured, and the wiggle room for changing anything at all is minimal - if you pursue the pet political project you used to buy votes you'll have to steal from things which pretty much everyone has already decided is really important.  And... as spending on those other things has been refined over the years in the light of hard experience, and your pet political project is just starting out - the chances of simply squandering public money now becomes very much higher! 

Say you'll raise more tax to pay for it and your're fooling no one, because tax revenue has already been maximised by the numerous budgets of all governments.  Yes, the plain truth is that raising the tax rate will result in less tax; or less tax from some other source, or worse: an actual drop in Gross Domestic Product to tax!

So, any poltico using the 'i' word is either fooling you or fooling themselves.   And... here's the kicker: is anyone who is either lying to you to grab power, or so easily fooled themselves, a safe enough pair of hands to put at the controls of our economy?

Beware the 'i' word: it's a trap for fools!

[Alan Edgar (Eggy1948)]

I believe I have heard the 'i' word used in the 

1966 (MPs)	31 March 1966	Harold Wilson	Labour	98	75.8
At this point, the Representation of the People Act 1969 gave suffrage to the adult population over 18 years old.
1970 (MPs)	18 June 1970	Edward Heath	Conservative	30	72
February 1974(MPs)	28 February 1974	Harold Wilson	Labour (minority government)	−33	78.8	Hung Parliament
October 1974 (MPs)	10 October 1974	Harold WilsonJames Callaghan	Labour	3	72.8	635 seats in Commons
1979 (MPs)	3 May 1979	Margaret Thatcher	Conservative	43	76
1983 (MPs)	9 June 1983	Margaret Thatcher	Conservative	144	72.7	650 seats in Commons
1987 (MPs)	11 June 1987	Margaret ThatcherJohn Major	Conservative	102	75.3
1992 (MPs)	9 April 1992	John Major	Conservative	21	77.7	651 seats in Commons
1997 (MPs)	1 May 1997	Tony Blair	Labour	179	71.4	659 seats in Commons
2001 (MPs)	7 June 2001	Tony Blair	Labour	167	59.4
2005 (MPs)	5 May 2005	Tony BlairGordon Brown	Labour	66	61.4	646 seats in Commons
2010 (MPs)	6 May 2010[32]	David Cameron	Conservative (formed coalition with Liberal Democrats)	78 (combined coalition)	65.1	650 seats in CommonsHung Parliament
At this point, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was passed. Elections are now every 5 years, barring parliamentary vote. Before this, the election could be called at any point the Prime Minister wished.
2015 (MPs)	7 May 2015	David CameronTheresa May	Conservative	16	66.1	650 seats in Commons
2017

 

Does that mean they have all been telling porkies?

I will just have to get back to my norm :- 

I'm singing and dancing in the rain - Doobe Do Do, Doobe Doobe Do Do, what a glorious feeling I'm happy again, just singing and dancing, in the rain, Doobe Do Do, Doobe Doobe Do Do

[webtrekker]

Given the fact that national debt HAS to increase year on year to keep the Bankers'  Ponzi scheme afloat, then, no matter who is in power, austerity will be the name of the game for the foreseeable future. 

 

This scam whereby the Treasury issues bonds (IOU's) to the Banks to print currency from thin air, backed by nothing at all, and then pays them interest on it, is the prime reason the UK, and the rest of the World for that matter, is perpetually in debt, and perpetually at war. 

[threegee]

16 hours ago, Eggy1948 said:

I believe I have heard the 'i' word used in the 

....

Does that mean they have all been telling porkies?

...

Can we have an example of it being used as a meaningless buzz-word, and a euphemism for "spend spend spend" before the Blair government?  It's such a common word that there must be many many examples - surely?

I read through the entire Harold Wilson "White Heat" speech from 1963 last night (excellent bedtime reading), many pages of it, and not once did I find the the word, and the speech was in connection with future industrial strategy.  In fact the only search engine return I could find of Harold Wilson actually using the word was in the proper financial sense of creating a UK investment bank to fund small enterprises (which would of course have demanded a fixed and defined monetary return for the taxpayer).

Pro tem my answer to your question is:  No, I don't think they were telling porkies, because the word was formerly used truthfully:

Quote

invest

1.

put (money) into financial schemes, shares, property, or a commercial venture with the expectation of achieving a profit.

 

[Alan Edgar (Eggy1948)]

2 hours ago, threegee said:

Can we have an example of it being used as a meaningless buzz-word, and a euphemism for "spend spend spend" before the Blair government?  It's such a common word that there must be many many examples - surely?

Pro tem my answer to your question is:  No, I don't think they were telling porkies, because the word was formerly used truthfully:

 

There is no way I am taking any reading to bed, never have and never will. I have better things to do, like sleep after I have worn myself out filling in the hours I am awake with the thinks I want to do. I haven't found anything that keeps me awake, after I have fulfilled my day, and my day does not involve reading.   

I take your word that it wasn't used in 'White Heat' but you can read all the papers you want; deny what you want; prove comments on this subject inaccurate but regardless of the arguments you come up with my simple point is - 'I promise' is a phrase that is, and always has been, used over and over.

You can delve into all the historical documents you like and make your decision based on the experience you have gained.

I have no bias I just accept that politicians have a job to do are out to win votes and they can promise what they like. I will make my vote and I promise  I will not keep talking about it and try and convince anyone else to do what I do.

Otherwise you would all be -  singing and dancing in the rain - Doobe Do Do....................     

[threegee]

On 6/1/2017 at 17:33, Eggy1948 said:

I have no bias I just accept that politicians have a job to do are out to win votes and they can promise what they like.

They certainly can, but a failure to challenge their nonsense is a failure of the democratic process. You might as well abstain from voting if you uncritically accept what you are told, and vote for a now meaningless rosette.

It took Corbyn about one minute to get around to abusing the 'i' word tonight, and he went on to do it again within seconds.  He's trying to justify massive spending of money we haven't got, and anyone "of an age" aware of what was going on around them in the 1970's knows that this is just a few short steps away from our Country being at the mercy of the IMF.  Of course some people claim that he'd put us at the mercy of a vindictive EU long before this.  If you want to find out who is right here then vote Labour!  You might not want to know the details of politician's promises, but I don't want to find out the details of who is right about the way Corbyn bankrupts our country!

[Alan Edgar (Eggy1948)]

Stop trying to convince me that you believe that everyone that casts a vote has studied the candidates and the manifesto of their parties? Save your breath (and typing skills).

I don't think it was one of the christmas books every child looked forward to - The 'I Spy - politics'.

How can you believe that the majority of the general public don't vote for 'a now meaningless rosette' and that the majority of the general public know what they are talking about 

I couldn't quote you a percentage of the total voters that have actually known what they are voting for but I do know that over the 50 years I have been able to vote the majority from the areas I have lived in ( that I have discussed elections with)  'uncritically accept' what they have been told by previous generations and simply voted for the party that their families voted for. Only the minority are able to evaluate what they think the whole election package will do for them, and the country.  

The majority (and that includes me) have no idea how one parties policies benefit the economy, and the majority of the people, of their country better than the other parties policies so they vote for the candidate that they think (and that doesn't include me) will give them more money in their pocket.

The majority don't understand but they are still entitle to vote and should't abstain.

My postal vote was in last leek so if it's raining on Thursday 8th of June I will not have to sing and dance to the polling station, it will be raining in my heart anticipating the result.

And that's me last word on this subject.