|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 22, 2012 14:04:22 GMT
Over the next 30 years, what about how much was wasted in the previous 13 years of Labour government - 4 or 5 years of PFI payments makes a pretty big dent in the 123 billion. To answer your question why don't you ask me again in 30 years when we see what the real cost of PFI turns out to be. I'm asking you now though about the impact on the economy now. Do you think shelling out an unplanned for 123bn in one year, approx 21% extra borrowing, might have damaged our economy right now more than a planned for 8bn a year every year? Simple yes or no will do. I'll happily ask you again in 30 years and you might be right, but I want to know what your answer is to the above question. Hard to give a straightforward answer to a question that doesn't really make sense as neither "shelling" out the £123 billion or the £8 billion damage the economy. The need to lend money to the banks (ie the financial crisis) damaged the economy, but my premise is quite simple as it is for many other people if Labour had better managed and spent the tax revenues they'd collected the UK would not have needed to borrow as much and the pain would not have been so great. Your arguements now seem to include wasting a little (£6 billion WTF) each year for 30 years (£180 billion) is not as bad as having to lend £123 billion to the banks. In 30 years some or all of the £123 billion will have been repaid to the Government whereas the £180 billion will have gone forever.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 20:21:41 GMT
I'm not sure I can really be arsed to carry on after a cracking few days in the sun especially as it's difficult to argue rationally with someone who a few months ago was openly stating "it's true that the banks brought down the economy" and is now saying that neither borrowing in excess of £123bn to give to the banks nor his PFI obsession damaged the economy. Then goes on to concede exactly that point with regard to the banks in the next sentence? I'm sure this position will shift back once again to an argument no-one else is having at some point too
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 20:54:42 GMT
I'm not sure I can really be arsed to carry on after a cracking few days in the sun especially as it's difficult to argue rationally with someone who a few months ago was openly stating "it's true that the banks brought down the economy" and is now saying that neither borrowing in excess of £123bn to give to the banks nor his PFI obsession damaged the economy. Then goes on to concede exactly that point with regard to the banks in the next sentence? I'm sure this position will shift back once again to an argument no-one else is having at some point too # FFS Sif, Let it go. Long time ago, we have 'sussed' you out son PS, are you Ed Balls?
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Feb 26, 2012 1:43:01 GMT
Did anyone win in the end?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2012 14:56:50 GMT
Yes, Phil, in the sense that the original premise of the thread was neatly borne out over 13 pages.
Here endeth the thread.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 27, 2012 13:32:08 GMT
I'm not sure I can really be arsed to carry on after a cracking few days in the sun especially as it's difficult to argue rationally with someone who a few months ago was openly stating "it's true that the banks brought down the economy" and is now saying that neither borrowing in excess of £123bn to give to the banks nor his PFI obsession damaged the economy. Then goes on to concede exactly that point with regard to the banks in the next sentence? I'm sure this position will shift back once again to an argument no-one else is having at some point too Why start arguing rationally after 1,800+ posts ? ;D Just to clarify for a distinctly less than averagely smarter left winger like you, I am not conceding the same point. You seem to be confusing the economy with government finances (which I guess makes you Gordon Brown rather than Ed Balls), so I'll add that to the list of things you don't understand along with the difference between the debt and the defecit and your arse and your elbow ;D Your original question made no sense as your premise is that lending £123 billion to the banks damaged the economy, I think you will find that the opinion of every economic commentator the world over that bailing out the banks was designed to support / help the economy - unless of course you want to disagree ? ;D
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Feb 27, 2012 13:47:53 GMT
My God are these thicko right-wingers still going on and on? ;D
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 27, 2012 14:38:59 GMT
My God are these thicko right-wingers still going on and on? ;D Slow day elsewhere no rape or paedo jokes for you to laugh at while you're enforcing a no nips rule and you think right wingers are thick ;D
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Feb 28, 2012 9:01:42 GMT
The money given to the banks will seem like borrowing £10k for a Fird Focus as your £100-200k mortgage and overall liabilities just keep on rising.
It's very simple. The 2 striking conclusions are around financial regulation and public debt. Labour should have been running a surplus and paying off the debt. There is no excuse.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2012 14:15:26 GMT
It's very simple. The 2 striking conclusions are around financial regulation and public debt. Labour should have been running a surplus and paying off the debt. There is no excuse. And you still think that, despite you yourself posting a report which you yourself found which clearly stated that neither of those aspects created the financial mess we're in. I'd love to be able to walk away from this thread, but when you come up against reasoning like that, I can't help but ask if you ignore everything which doesn't fit neatly into your pre-formed agenda even when you find it out yourself? ??? The ol' 'facts which cease to be real if I ignore them' approach.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Feb 28, 2012 16:20:01 GMT
The policy area where Labour cleared failed was in financial regulation. In addition, and more clearly with hindsight, public debt was allowed to rise higher than it should have.
Although these factors did not drive the boom and did not cause the global recession by themselves, the UK economy was more vulnerable to the recession than it should have been.
Fuck me Luke
2 bits - financial regulation and public debt - its exactly what the report said.
...and you say its the right wingers that are less intelligent????
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Feb 28, 2012 16:56:10 GMT
The policy area where Labour cleared failed was in financial regulation. In addition, and more clearly with hindsight, public debt was allowed to rise higher than it should have. Although these factors did not drive the boom and did not cause the global recession by themselves, the UK economy was more vulnerable to the recession than it should have been. all you get from that is "labour were just carrying on the torie policy on derefulation" thats ok then
|
|
|
Post by frasier99 on Feb 28, 2012 17:01:42 GMT
My God are these thicko right-wingers still going on and on? ;D Slow day elsewhere no rape or paedo jokes for you to laugh at while you're enforcing a no nips rule and you think right wingers are thick ;D ;D ;D Back of the net
|
|
|
Post by seasidestokie on Feb 28, 2012 17:09:03 GMT
Slow day elsewhere no rape or paedo jokes for you to laugh at while you're enforcing a no nips rule and you think right wingers are thick ;D ;D ;D Back of the net Which ones you gnasher ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on Feb 28, 2012 17:27:29 GMT
all you get from that is "labour were just carrying on the torie policy on derefulation" thats ok then the Tories got it wrong with deregulation, and Labour happily followed the free market ideology to it's inevitable conclusion. With hindsight it's pretty easy to say they should have regulated against it but hardly anyone saw the crisis coming. The financial sector has bullied governments of all colours with threats to take their ball away every time regulation is even mentioned. The sad truth is we have built our economy on the financial sector to the point when we can't just tell them to go fuck themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2012 19:13:46 GMT
The policy area where Labour cleared failed was in financial regulation. In addition, and more clearly with hindsight, public debt was allowed to rise higher than it should have. Although these factors did not drive the boom and did not cause the global recession by themselves, the UK economy was more vulnerable to the recession than it should have been. Fuck me Luke 2 bits - financial regulation and public debt - its exactly what the report said. ...and you say its the right wingers that are less intelligent???? The point being, mcf, that according to your report "neither factor drove the boom nor created the global recession" so didn't create the financial mess we're in (although the economy was more vulnerable than it should have been [to the thing which did create the financial mess we're in]). Do we agree on this? If so, you may wish to try to get RMB72, Squareball, FYD et al to finally acknowledge that the banking crisis was what caused the global recession and ultimately screwed the country's finances. The overwhelming majority of independent political and economic commentators hold this view not incidentally! Is your opinion that the govt should have been putting money away for an unforeseen rainy day instead of spending it on trying to improve public services? Does this then lead you to conclude that "Labour made an utter fucking mess of it"?
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Feb 28, 2012 20:11:34 GMT
The policy area where Labour cleared failed was in financial regulation. In addition, and more clearly with hindsight, public debt was allowed to rise higher than it should have. Although these factors did not drive the boom and did not cause the global recession by themselves, the UK economy was more vulnerable to the recession than it should have been. Fuck me Luke 2 bits - financial regulation and public debt - its exactly what the report said. ...and you say its the right wingers that are less intelligent???? When Labour was deregulating The City what do you think George Osborne was doing? Was he warning them of the inevitable boom and bust? The rise in inequalitY? The lack of separation between retail and investment banking? Or was he telling everyone he would deregulate even further? You seem to have a very short memory.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2012 20:27:01 GMT
all you get from that is "labour were just carrying on the torie policy on derefulation" thats ok then the Tories got it wrong with deregulation, and Labour happily followed the free market ideology to it's inevitable conclusion. With hindsight it's pretty easy to say they should have regulated against it but hardly anyone saw the crisis coming. The financial sector has bullied governments of all colours with threats to take their ball away every time regulation is even mentioned. The sad truth is we have built our economy on the financial sector to the point when we can't just tell them to go fuck themselves. Come on Tubes, healthy spending in 1997, Gordon carried on with Tory spending plans for 2 years and the rest is history. No return to boom & bust, remember that. Why didn't Gordon in 2006 say " Hold on, house prices are getting abit silly here"? Who do we blame here? The individual, the government or the banks.......I blame all 3 meself.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2012 20:56:03 GMT
The policy area where Labour cleared failed was in financial regulation. In addition, and more clearly with hindsight, public debt was allowed to rise higher than it should have. Although these factors did not drive the boom and did not cause the global recession by themselves, the UK economy was more vulnerable to the recession than it should have been. Fuck me Luke 2 bits - financial regulation and public debt - its exactly what the report said. ...and you say its the right wingers that are less intelligent???? The point being, mcf, that according to your report "neither factor drove the boom nor created the global recession" so didn't create the financial mess we're in (although the economy was more vulnerable than it should have been [to the thing which did create the financial mess we're in]). Do we agree on this? If so, you may wish to try to get RMB72, Squareball, FYD et al to finally acknowledge that the banking crisis was what caused the global recession and ultimately screwed the country's finances. The overwhelming majority of independent political and economic commentators hold this view not incidentally! Is your opinion that the govt should have been putting money away for an unforeseen rainy day instead of spending it on trying to improve public services? Does this then lead you to conclude that "Labour made an utter fucking mess of it"? The banks screwed Labour's spending. Sif's standards are slipping What we need is a mumf comment blaming the country's immigration on the tories
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Feb 29, 2012 7:35:14 GMT
"neither factor drove the boom nor created the global recession"
Luke
Put the next 2 words on the end of it - 'by themselves'
Don't be an idiot mate
There will always be an element of boom and bust that our country can do little about other than prepare for it. Did Labour prepare though? Did they fuck....and that is why they fucked it.
I've never seen such a bag of shit support for a party that has been in for 13 years and ultimately left us in a far worse position than when it started.
...but the conservatives wouldn't have regulated the banks either ...it was the global recession ...it was the bankers ...nobody saw the crisis coming (well other countries put money aside for their liabilities). Even in 2007, Brown had no idea even though he would been warned (see comments in his Mansion House 2007 speech). 'Unforeseen' or 'ignored' - these things are cyclical so he should have fucking known but I guess he hoped he'd be a million miles away by then or that the foreign banks would just keep throwing money around.
Yep, we know, anybody but the cunts that were actually in charge who could decide what they did and didn't save.
|
|
|
Post by frasier99 on Feb 29, 2012 7:40:04 GMT
;D ;D Back of the net Which ones you gnasher ;D Under the chin of the one in the middle
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Mar 1, 2012 13:48:47 GMT
'Clearly, however, all socially conservative people are not prejudiced, and all prejudiced persons are not conservative.' phew, that's all right then... My thoughts exactly, I'd never vote for those tory bastards ;D
|
|
|
Post by seasidestokie on Mar 1, 2012 15:51:04 GMT
Which ones you gnasher ;D Under the chin of the one in the middle ... purrrrrrrrrrrrrfect... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2012 18:27:21 GMT
"neither factor drove the boom nor created the global recession" Luke Put the next 2 words on the end of it - 'by themselves' Don't be an idiot mate There will always be an element of boom and bust that our country can do little about other than prepare for it. Did Labour prepare though? Did they fuck....and that is why they fucked it. I've never seen such a bag of shit support for a party that has been in for 13 years and ultimately left us in a far worse position than when it started. ...but the conservatives wouldn't have regulated the banks either ...it was the global recession ...it was the bankers ...nobody saw the crisis coming (well other countries put money aside for their liabilities). Even in 2007, Brown had no idea even though he would been warned (see comments in his Mansion House 2007 speech). 'Unforeseen' or 'ignored' - these things are cyclical so he should have fucking known but I guess he hoped he'd be a million miles away by then or that the foreign banks would just keep throwing money around. Yep, we know, anybody but the cunts that were actually in charge who could decide what they did and didn't save. Ok, happy with that, neither the public debt nor financial regulation caused the boom nor the global recession by themselves. The thing is though, mcf, that your desire to hate the previous Labour administration clouds your judgment about previous Tory administrations which just makes your overall judgment suspect. For example, you believe John Major handed over, and I quote, "a brilliant set of cards" and "I can't believe they got voted out". Most political commentators rate Major's government as a car crash. He handed over a public net debt which was higher than it had been for some time and a deficit. If the set of cards was so brilliant, why did we have to pay off such a huge debt for the first five or six years of the new Labour administration? Here you go: Or was this mess Major left us with just a result of an unfortunate set of external circumstances? An approach which you seem unwilling to apply to other governments? You've said in the past that your opinions come basically from what your dad's told you and what you read in the Daily Mail. Is it any surprise, in all honesty, that this is your approach to reasoned analysis?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2012 18:31:40 GMT
the Tories got it wrong with deregulation, and Labour happily followed the free market ideology to it's inevitable conclusion. With hindsight it's pretty easy to say they should have regulated against it but hardly anyone saw the crisis coming. The financial sector has bullied governments of all colours with threats to take their ball away every time regulation is even mentioned. The sad truth is we have built our economy on the financial sector to the point when we can't just tell them to go fuck themselves. Come on Tubes, healthy spending in 1997, Gordon carried on with Tory spending plans for 2 years and the rest is history. No return to boom & bust, remember that. Why didn't Gordon in 2006 say " Hold on, house prices are getting abit silly here"? Who do we blame here? The individual, the government or the banks.......I blame all 3 meself.To be fair, that's a lot more rational than you normally are. Can't argue.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 5, 2012 7:43:54 GMT
I think you have me confused with somebody else Luke - my Dad can rarely be arsed to vote and I read a variety of newspapers.
Quite a few economic commentators were happy with what Major did - not as though I entirely agree. We went through a recession but then he'd already started to bring down the deficit himself.
Labour simply weren't given the opportunity to fix their bollocks.
Given they never had any intention to bring down the deficit in the years that they were in and the rhetoric about borrowing our way out of trouble then it sounds like 'thank fuck'. Apart from the years straight after Major, it was all one way traffic.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2012 13:15:53 GMT
Well I remember you saying you agreed with the Daily Mail by and large and with regard to politics "listened to your Dad and Thatcher and you've been alright". So I don't think I've confused you with anyone I hate to say it, mcf, but you really don't know what you're talking about. You've claimed Major handed over a surplus, he didn't. You've claimed he handed over a brilliant set of cards - he handed over the biggest public debt in the last 25 years (until the banks needed public money to keep them afloat). Now you're saying you don't entirely agree with this brilliant set of cards ??? I'n not sure why it's such a big issue anyway for you rightwingers. If you agreed with Thatcher and Joseph (and the rest of the Friedman acolytes from the right), the fact that the Big Bang resulted ultimately in the mess we're currently in is surely simply "the harsh realities of the market place" to quote Mr Joseph.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 5, 2012 14:22:31 GMT
Well I remember you saying you agreed with the Daily Mail by and large and with regard to politics "listened to your Dad and Thatcher and you've been alright". So I don't think I've confused you with anyone I hate to say it, mcf, but you really don't know what you're talking about. You've claimed Major handed over a surplus, he didn't. You've claimed he handed over a brilliant set of cards - he handed over the biggest public debt in the last 25 years (until the banks needed public money to keep them afloat). Now you're saying you don't entirely agree with this brilliant set of cards ??? I'n not sure why it's such a big issue anyway for you rightwingers. If you agreed with Thatcher and Joseph (and the rest of the Friedman acolytes from the right), the fact that the Big Bang resulted ultimately in the mess we're currently in is surely simply "the harsh realities of the market place" to quote Mr Joseph. I think you've managed to beat your earlier bailing out the banks damaged the economy claim with the pearler above ;D So the Major government handed over the biggest debt in the last 25 years if you exclude the only other change of government in the last 25 years after them which of course is an absolutely fair and rational test to apply seeing as how pretty much every uk government increases the national debt and I'm guessing you'd probably find the Thatcher / Major government inherited the biggest debt in the last 25 years too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2012 18:23:39 GMT
It's like talking a small child through a tricky sum this ;D So leaving aside the increase in our debt as a result of the banking bailouts etc, which I made direct reference to in my post and you highlighted in bold, I'd say the above pretty neatly demonstrates that Major did indeed leave us with the largest debt of the last 25 years (1983 to 2008). Do I need to put approximately to satisfy the semantic pedants? ;D I'm also talking as usual in % GDP terms not absolute terms, FYD, which I presume (perhaps naively) that you understood since I've said many times that absolute figures mean very little, but feel free to assume the opposite if it makes it easier to score a little point
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2012 18:31:44 GMT
I think you've managed to beat your earlier bailing out the banks damaged the economy claim with the pearler above ;D So the Major government handed over the biggest debt in the last 25 years if you exclude the only other change of government in the last 25 years after them which of course is an absolutely fair and rational test to apply seeing as how pretty much every uk government increases the national debt and I'm guessing you'd probably find the Thatcher / Major government inherited the biggest debt in the last 25 years too.Guess again, Sherlock ;D Unless of course you meant in simple billions, in which case, things get more expensive over time you say? ;D
|
|