|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2012 9:12:13 GMT
As FYD and the IFS report states public finances were in better shape in 2007 than they were in 1997. This despite a decade of reckless overspending; they were still in better shape. If there had been a decade of reckless overspending wouldn't they have been in worse shape or similar shape to 1997. Weird then that they weren't .I’ve already answered this and so has the IFS report. Context. 1997 was five years after the recession and we were in good shape in comparison to other countries. In 2000/01 we were in even better shape – then by 2007 they had increased the net debt by more than 6% as a % of GDP - fiscal drift – and we weren’t in good shape. The IFS report says that it was shit pre and post the financial crisis. Read the fucking thing properly or ‘my direct quotes’ from it that sit behind the summaries. What you have basically done is quote 1 line out of the summary and ignore those that sit behind the rather large ‘but’.... This IFS report that you said supported your claims doesn’t..it’s that simple. Deal with their belief that they overspent...’fiscal drift’.....just like it concludes ‘overspending’ in the Centre for Economic Performance, ukpublicspending’s ‘rapid’ increase etc. Stop denying the summaries, details and the conclusions of the bodies that you asked for in the first place. As far as the overspending argument goes – this should be the end. All I can do is keep posting these many damning quotes and conclusions from the articles that you asked for and I’m quite sure that it will get even more tedious that watching your wenching and wriggling around this topic. I’ll get on to your other wank next week Talking of wank, answer this: if we were in good shape in 1997 as you say above, then 10 years later we had a lower debt than in 1997 by 6% of GDP (check the figures if you like), how on earth does that equal not being in good shape ;D Do you think this might be why that IFS report says the public finances were in better shape than 10 years previously? Or does lower mean worse now or something!? You talk about selective use of figures yet here you are desperately trying to justify both your 13 years of utter wank and an alleged deacde of reckless overspending by looking at 2001-07 only! I don't dispute that money was spent on health and education to improve them after Major achieved the double whammy of raising taxes and cutting investment in them. Funny how you've stopped mentioning these public sector non-jobs now too after that IFS report confirmed investment for the future rather than day to day running costs . Yet even after all that reckless overspending on investment in the public sector our public finances were in better shape! Go figure! If you want to consider fiscal drift which ultimately left our public finances in better shape than 10 years previously indicative of reckless overspending then knock yourself out, but your report doesn't and neither do I. You're tying yourself in embarrassing knots here. Even FYD doesn't dispute the fact the public finances were in better shape. He might try and reduce their impact by saying it's no surprise that they were in better shape 15 years after a recession compared to 5 years but at least he doesn't simply argue that they weren't! I posted the entire summary of that IFS report which you posted not just one line! Perhaps you don't understand how summaries work but they take the information in the main body of the report and pull out the salient points to provide the overall picture of their findings. I don't need to wriggle, I'm just happy to post the entire summary of your report and watch you try to explain how having public finances in better shape actually means they were in worse shape because of reckless overspending! I'm also looking forward to seeing how 13 years of utter wank minus four years where they followed Major's spending plans plus Tory endorsement of spending plans in 2007 still equals 13 years of reckless overspending. Wriggle, wriggle! I'm not at all surprised you want to give up talking about this, you've done yourself up like a kipper there to use FYD's phrase! Anyway, spose I'd better do a bit of work. Us public sector non-jobbers have to make it look like we do something once or twice a week. Enjoy the England game and have a good weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2012 10:15:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2012 15:59:46 GMT
First of all, welcome back. Second, all the relevant charts are on this thread from about page 8 onwards if you want to check back. Third, only by using % of GDP do you get an accurate assessment of the impact of debt, spending, interest, whatever etc. In other words can you afford to spend that much or carry that debt. That's why every normal person considers it a standard and routine unit of measurement and every graph on every reliable website or newspaper uses it. Measured in billions, our debt has gone up almost every year since WWII which was as far back as I could be arsed to check. That shouldn't be a surprise. So why not put up a link to the same period using % of GDP and see how that looks. Fourth, your graph neatly shows the step change around 2007-08, and if you do bother to put one up in % of GDP this is even more marked. Fifth, time to watch the footie.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 15, 2012 16:28:25 GMT
Hey, Sif guess you must be winning the debate.............that is the only explanation for your opponents constantly aggressive and rude posts .
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 15, 2012 18:02:23 GMT
Bless you for your lack of understanding, FYD! There's a difference between laughing and taking the piss out of you and bothering to engage in a debate with you. There's me, mcf, huddy, tubes etc talking about nothing but politics. Even Squareball got involved again which was good. And what do you do? Two posts in and you're straight back into your sexual fetishes ;D. You know there might be specialist professional help available to get you off this addiction . As I say, I'd argue happily with you about the issues, as you can see the rest of us have been doing, but you already said you don't need to remember anything you've posted previously and you don't need to prove any of your standpoints to anyone, which doesn't make for a coherent argument on your side and doesn't make it worthwhile on mine, since you just claim everything that disproves your points is simply made up. You'll probably do it to this post too. It's what you do. Presumably because you don't remember what you posted previously. So it's not worth risking the descent into another pointless meander into the meaning of one word or phrase. Sorry Wow Gordon Brown apoligises who'd have thought it, the irony of you then appearing to try and start a debate about not debating is probably lost you on you though ! Do what you like I post less frequently on here nowadays but when I do you would seem less obsessive if you didn't reference me in every other post and in case you hadn't noticed I stopped responding to all the usual old guff you put in an attempt to pisstake \ meander down blind alleys sometime ago it's quite funny watching you get the runaround even when you set the terms of the debate to exclude anything you don't like.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2012 10:02:53 GMT
Aaaaaannd.......breathe. ;D I don't doubt there are "other websites" where you spend most of your time. ;D CBA with your perpetual pointless meandering on here. Ta-ra chuck
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 18, 2012 7:03:48 GMT
I don’t dispute that the actual % was lower in 2007 than in 1997 – it is there for all to see. Then bring on the context.
Is this more accurate then?
After 13 years of a Labour government (in 2010) the country found itself in with an even higher % of net debt as a % of GDP than what was inherited by the Tory government from Labour in 1979 of 47.1%. Despite a peak of circa 42.5% in 1996 and 2 recessions, by following Tory spending plans the country enjoyed the lowest level for some time of 30.9% in 2001. What followed seems to be 9 years of fiscal drift, overspending or rapid spending either side of the late 00's global recession. Excluding PFI and financial interventions, the figure passed over was circa 60%.....even higher than the figure that was passed over in 1979. Therefore, in economic terms, it could be described that the 13 years of a Labour government were a complete and utter disaster for the country ie utter, utter wank. In 2011, the figure will stand at more than double (64.3%) than the 2001 equivalent.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 18, 2012 12:53:20 GMT
Aaaaaannd.......breathe. ;D I don't doubt there are "other websites" where you spend most of your time. ;D CBA with your perpetual pointless meandering on here. Ta-ra chuck You couldn't make this up ;D Kind of self defeating (like most of your posts ;D) to log-on at a weekend to tell someone you're not bothering with them and that you CBA with them ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 18, 2012 12:58:22 GMT
Now, now Luke....people in glass houses and all that.
My son was telling me at the weekend how you had being grooming him on the PM function.
How was it you described yourself - 'a champagne socialist' was it?
No wonder I think it's a disease.
;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2012 17:24:46 GMT
Now, now Luke....people in glass houses and all that. My son was telling me at the weekend how you had being grooming him on the PM function. How was it you described yourself - 'a champagne socialist' was it? No wonder I think it's a disease. ;D Rhodesy's your son!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Fucking hell! That explains an awful lot about him! Does he still think "wars fuel the economy" ;D and "virtually venerate Margaret Thatcher"? ;D You've indoctrinated the lad well, although that might constitute child abuse in some quarters . Bit disappointing to see a lad nearing his 20's who's not able to think for himself yet! I remember wishing him well with his efforts to get into University. He mentioned Durham I think as one of the "red bricks" ;D. And clearly bought everything I said to him hook, line and sinker ;D. Durham? Not a fucking chance! Jesus, I'm running out of emoticons here. Now that is quality! (Actually, I quite like the lad, seems a good sort if a little naive - grooming by proxy, sorry about that )
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2012 17:30:19 GMT
Aaaaaannd.......breathe. ;D I don't doubt there are "other websites" where you spend most of your time. ;D CBA with your perpetual pointless meandering on here. Ta-ra chuck You couldn't make this up ;D Kind of self defeating (like most of your posts ;D) to log-on at a weekend to tell someone you're not bothering with them and that you CBA with them ;D ;D ;D Since you have a problem remembering anything you've written previously I'm guessing you have the same problem with everyone's posts, so here's what I said just a few posts back ;D one more time: There's a difference between laughing and taking the piss out of you and bothering to engage in a debate with you.I'm quite happy to do the former, CBA with the latter old fruit. Too many times you've just gone off pointlessly about the meanings of words or some weird transexual nonsense to bother any more
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2012 17:56:10 GMT
I don’t dispute that the actual % was lower in 2007 than in 1997 – it is there for all to see. Then bring on the context. Is this more accurate then? After 13 years of a Labour government (in 2010) the country found itself in with an even higher % of net debt as a % of GDP than what was inherited by the Tory government from Labour in 1979 of 47.1%. Despite a peak of circa 42.5% in 1996 and 2 recessions, by following Tory spending plans the country enjoyed the lowest level for some time of 30.9% in 2001. What followed seems to be 9 years of fiscal drift, overspending or rapid spending either side of the late 00's global recession. Excluding PFI and financial interventions, the figure passed over was circa 60%.....even higher than the figure that was passed over in 1979. Therefore, in economic terms, it could be described that the 13 years of a Labour government were a complete and utter disaster for the country ie utter, utter wank. In 2011, the figure will stand at more than double (64.3%) than the 2001 equivalent. Brilliant piece of analysis that, mcf! Using the Guardian figures which is what you are doing I think, debt pre 2007 = 37% (excl PFI and financial interventions) oooh that's sooooo bad! A whole 4% (Guardian figures) less than Major's debt legacy! Naughty boys bringing their debt in lower than Tory governments, tut. Then in 2010, post financial crisis it was 60% of GDP. No shit Sherlock! What do you think might have done that! 300k public sector jobs to create a public sector smaller than Thatchers?! ;D That's some borrowing and spending splurge Labour went on from 2008-2010, almost £350bn - what the fuck did they spend all that cash on? The fact is, as your IFS report clearly demonstrates, unless you add in the years after the financial crisis, the public finances were in better shape, even after a decade of reckless overspending from 1997 to 2007 than those of a government which handed over a great set of cards, which by anyone else's non-subjective analysis would be very, very strange and hard to explain ;D. And following Tory spending plans for four years is part of 13 years of utter wank is it now? Why not just say nine and we can start again . Go on admit it, or are you actually saying Tory spending plans are shit as well now? You're getting very confused about all this! Lots of my questions in my posts you've simply not answered by the way. Please answer them as coherently as possible.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 19, 2012 6:27:45 GMT
Luke
You are just waffling again.
Let's get the Labour overspending out of the way and then we move on to other stuff.
I'll argue all day long that Major's debt legacy goes into 2000/2001. Why shouldn't he be credited with the economic results of his spending plans?
It's from this point where Labour fuck it up.
Should I not use the Guardian figures now? Weren't you the one that was happy to post and quote from them too?
You are bizarre to say the least, anything in an attempt to divert and a reluctance (I wonder why) to acknowledge the appropriate figures.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 19, 2012 8:30:40 GMT
You couldn't make this up ;D Kind of self defeating (like most of your posts ;D) to log-on at a weekend to tell someone you're not bothering with them and that you CBA with them ;D ;D ;D Since you have a problem remembering anything you've written previously I'm guessing you have the same problem with everyone's posts, so here's what I said just a few posts back ;D one more time: There's a difference between laughing and taking the piss out of you and bothering to engage in a debate with you.I'm quite happy to do the former, CBA with the latter old fruit. Too many times you've just gone off pointlessly about the meanings of words or some weird transexual nonsense to bother any more Except when you're engaging in a debate about why you're not debating hey champ brilliant. The weird transsexual nonsense that you keep bringing up champ, you must remember when I asked and didn't get an answer on Mervyn's opinion (whose view you loved to quote over and over again that the economy was perfectly functioning before the economic crisis) that Labour stuffed up the bank bailout (a view the ex-head of the FSA subsequently backed up) and your response was to wonder whether he liked transsexuals ! It's ok though pretty much your whole time on the oatcake has been spent droning on about it all being the banks fault so it's perfectly understandable how you'd want to ignore people with less knowledge than you of the economy saying Labour stuffed it up big time especially when the head of the FSA came out and said pretty much exactly what I've told you several times re Northern Rock and which you of course dismissed as I didn't have any graphs !
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2012 10:54:35 GMT
Luke You are just waffling again. Let's get the Labour overspending out of the way and then we move on to other stuff. I'll argue all day long that Major's debt legacy goes into 2000/2001. Why shouldn't he be credited with the economic results of his spending plans? It's from this point where Labour fuck it up. Should I not use the Guardian figures now? Weren't you the one that was happy to post and quote from them too? You are bizarre to say the least, anything in an attempt to divert and a reluctance (I wonder why) to acknowledge the appropriate figures. Just man up and answer the questions! I don't care whether we use Guardian figures or ukpublicspending figures, they both show the same thing: that up to 2007, the public finances were in better shape than in 1997 ;D. Was just seeking clarification of which figures you'd used, no idea why it was deserving of such an odd response? So that's no longer 13 years of utter wank then ;D You're getting there, painfully slowly admittedly, but getting there!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2012 11:05:51 GMT
Since you have a problem remembering anything you've written previously I'm guessing you have the same problem with everyone's posts, so here's what I said just a few posts back ;D one more time: There's a difference between laughing and taking the piss out of you and bothering to engage in a debate with you.I'm quite happy to do the former, CBA with the latter old fruit. Too many times you've just gone off pointlessly about the meanings of words or some weird transexual nonsense to bother any more Except when you're engaging in a debate about why you're not debating hey champ brilliant. The weird transsexual nonsense that you keep bringing up champ, you must remember when I asked and didn't get an answer on Mervyn's opinion (whose view you loved to quote over and over again that the economy was perfectly functioning before the economic crisis) that Labour stuffed up the bank bailout (a view the ex-head of the FSA subsequently backed up) and your response was to wonder whether he liked transsexuals ! It's ok though pretty much your whole time on the oatcake has been spent droning on about it all being the banks fault so it's perfectly understandable how you'd want to ignore people with less knowledge than you of the economy saying Labour stuffed it up big time especially when the head of the FSA came out and said pretty much exactly what I've told you several times re Northern Rock and which you of course dismissed as I didn't have any graphs ! Perhaps you could ask mcf or one of the other rightwingers if they'll be your mouthpiece for you since I see absolutely no point in engaging with someone with a history of pointless meanderings about the meanings of words? A little like using him as a ventriloquist's dummy. Oh, shit, please don't think about that in too much detail, given your regular diversions into tits/bollocks and transexualism, I'm worried you'll not be able to remain flaccid ;D Off you trot
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 19, 2012 13:42:20 GMT
Except when you're engaging in a debate about why you're not debating hey champ brilliant. The weird transsexual nonsense that you keep bringing up champ, you must remember when I asked and didn't get an answer on Mervyn's opinion (whose view you loved to quote over and over again that the economy was perfectly functioning before the economic crisis) that Labour stuffed up the bank bailout (a view the ex-head of the FSA subsequently backed up) and your response was to wonder whether he liked transsexuals ! It's ok though pretty much your whole time on the oatcake has been spent droning on about it all being the banks fault so it's perfectly understandable how you'd want to ignore people with less knowledge than you of the economy saying Labour stuffed it up big time especially when the head of the FSA came out and said pretty much exactly what I've told you several times re Northern Rock and which you of course dismissed as I didn't have any graphs ! Perhaps you could ask mcf or one of the other rightwingers if they'll be your mouthpiece for you since I see absolutely no point in engaging with someone with a history of pointless meanderings about the meanings of words? A little like using him as a ventriloquist's dummy. Oh, shit, please don't think about that in too much detail, given your regular diversions into tits/bollocks and transexualism, I'm worried you'll not be able to remain flaccid ;D Off you trot Wow you've come a long way from complaining about the use of and calling people stupid to implying homosexuality and homosexual acts as a means of ridicule I think there's a word for that homophobia isn't it. As for regular diversions I'd check your posts you'll see far more mention in those than mine.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2012 15:50:27 GMT
;D I wonder if you'll ever realise just how desperate you sound, me old mucker! No-one noticed your absence when you were spending your time "elsewhere" cos we all got on with discussing the politics and economics. Huddy, mcf, Tubes, Squareball, Sausage, Salop, iglukgluk, me - it was just politics. You come back and straight into these pointless excursions once again! Can you see why I don't bother, I wonder ;D
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 19, 2012 16:43:09 GMT
It's quite funny champ that you can't even see that it's you who is responsible for at least 50% (if not more) of the "pointless excursions" ;D.
It's fucking hilarious however that you call me desperate when it's you posting at all times of day and night and weekends erm replying to "my" pointless excursions nevermind the fact that you have to mention me in debates with other people (I really am starting to wonder if an injunction might be needed ;D).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2012 17:57:57 GMT
Yeah, cos when you were off on your other websites, none of us was discussing politics were we ;D ;D Perhaps I should just have this on permanent cut and paste, for the goldfish amongst us : Since you have a problem remembering anything you've written previously I'm guessing you have the same problem with everyone's posts, so here's what I said just a few posts back one more time: There's a difference between laughing and taking the piss out of you and bothering to engage in a debate with you.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 20, 2012 7:33:28 GMT
...because it's becoming tiresome Luke
Brilliant piece of analysis that, mcf! Using the Guardian figures which is what you are doing I think, debt pre 2007 = 37% (excl PFI and financial interventions) oooh that's sooooo bad! A whole 4% (Guardian figures) less than Major's debt legacy! Naughty boys bringing their debt in lower than Tory governments, tut. Then in 2010, post financial crisis it was 60% of GDP. No shit Sherlock! What do you think might have done that! 300k public sector jobs to create a public sector smaller than Thatchers?! That's some borrowing and spending splurge Labour went on from 2008-2010, almost £350bn - what the fuck did they spend all that cash on?
You tell us given that this 60% is the one that excludes financial interventions isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 20, 2012 8:07:45 GMT
Yeah, cos when you were off on your other websites, none of us was discussing politics were we ;D ;D Perhaps I should just have this on permanent cut and paste, for the goldfish amongst us : Since you have a problem remembering anything you've written previously I'm guessing you have the same problem with everyone's posts, so here's what I said just a few posts back one more time: There's a difference between laughing and taking the piss out of you and bothering to engage in a debate with you.Call it whatever you like but if your thought on waking up on a Saturday morning was to think I must go and take the “piss” out of FYD it says a lot for the state of your life champ just like the assumption not posting on here means other websites - there is life outside the Internet champ ;D.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2012 8:38:25 GMT
<Yawn> Since you have a problem remembering anything you've written previously I'm guessing you have the same problem with everyone's posts, so here's what I said just a few posts back one more time: There's a difference between laughing and taking the piss out of you and bothering to engage in a debate with you.Now, back to the poilitcs and economics with those more sensible hopefully...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2012 9:29:21 GMT
...because it's becoming tiresome Luke Brilliant piece of analysis that, mcf! Using the Guardian figures which is what you are doing I think, debt pre 2007 = 37% (excl PFI and financial interventions) oooh that's sooooo bad! A whole 4% (Guardian figures) less than Major's debt legacy! Naughty boys bringing their debt in lower than Tory governments, tut. Then in 2010, post financial crisis it was 60% of GDP. No shit Sherlock! What do you think might have done that! 300k public sector jobs to create a public sector smaller than Thatchers?! That's some borrowing and spending splurge Labour went on from 2008-2010, almost £350bn - what the fuck did they spend all that cash on?You tell us given that this 60% is the one that excludes financial interventions isn't it? Because you've tied yourself up in knots more like You've said Major was a great set of cards. You've said you prefer to pay lower taxes and prefer shittier public services. You showed that Major raised taxes and cut public services. How does this fit into your idea of a great set of cards?! You've posted a report which said the public finances were in better shape in 2007 than they were in 1997 yet refuse to accept that this cannot be true if a decade of reckless overspending had taken place. You've said Major's debt was middle-ranking and "not too shabby, Sir John". Yet a debt which is 4% of GDP lower a whole decade later is somehow "very, very bad". You've consistently clung to this dogmatic mantra of 13 years of Labour "utter utter wank" despite saying that the first four years were fine because they followed Tory spending plans. So that's not 13 years is it?! And then posting a report which showed the following six years resulted in public finances being in better shape than the great set of cards and "none too shabby" debt Major handed over! You've never demonstrated how "a nation is like a business that is like a household" but this household can still function despite spending more than it brings in for 30 out of the last 37 years. It's all over the place! ;D To answer your question, rather than simply avoiding them because it's tiresome , the increase is due to a combination of factors: increase in interest on our higher debt as a result of having to borrow more, a massive loss of revenue and increase in associated borrowing as a result of a 30s style recession caused by the "banks bringing down our economy" and killing growth, the fiscal stimulus which replaced the absence of private sector growth (but this doesn't account for c.20% of GDP through 300k non-jobs ) and an increase in welfare as a result of the recession. Feel free to put it down to Labour handing out money to dole-scroungers or wasting it on these elusive non-jobbers you never get round to quantifying or identifying in any detail if you like, but the reason we are where we are is quite simple: it's what happened in 2007-08 and the rightwing belief in leaving the financial sector to its own devices for the last couple of decades which preceded that crash.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 20, 2012 10:31:00 GMT
Stop shooting the messenger....
From the IFS...that i've already posted...that you ignore...
When Labour took office in 1997, the public finances were already starting to improve following the deterioration seen during the recession of the early 1990s, thanks to the substantial tax increases and cuts to public spending implemented by the previous Conservative government since 1993.
During Labour’s first four years in office, the public finances strengthened further, as the new government stuck to the tight public spending plans laid out by the Conservatives.
By international standards Labour inherited relatively low levels of borrowing and ‘mid-table’ levels of debt when compared with other industrial countries.
The following seven years, however, were characterised by fiscal drift. By the eve of the financial crisis, this had left the UK with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the developed world.
It couldn't be any clearer.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 20, 2012 13:25:26 GMT
<Yawn> Since you have a problem remembering anything you've written previously I'm guessing you have the same problem with everyone's posts, so here's what I said just a few posts back one more time: There's a difference between laughing and taking the piss out of you and bothering to engage in a debate with you.Now, back to the poilitcs and economics with those more sensible hopefully... Brilliant ;D Just when you think you can't look any sillier you come back nearly an hour later to change a cut and paste job ;D Christ knows how unfunny your original post must have been. I see you're hoping "those" are more sensible than you, no need to worry champ I'd take it as a given if I was you ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2012 15:37:30 GMT
Stop shooting the messenger.... From the IFS...that i've already posted...that you ignore... When Labour took office in 1997, the public finances were already starting to improve following the deterioration seen during the recession of the early 1990s, thanks to the substantial tax increases and cuts to public spending implemented by the previous Conservative government since 1993.
During Labour’s first four years in office, the public finances strengthened further, as the new government stuck to the tight public spending plans laid out by the Conservatives.
By international standards Labour inherited relatively low levels of borrowing and ‘mid-table’ levels of debt when compared with other industrial countries.
The following seven years, however, were characterised by fiscal drift. By the eve of the financial crisis, this had left the UK with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the developed world.It couldn't be any clearer. If it's as clear as you think it is, why don't you answer the questions I asked in my posts? Should only take a couple of seconds surely?! Could it be because you realise you've tied yourself up in knots here (see my post above for example!) and your position just doesn't make any coherent sense. 13 minus four = 13 years of utter wank ;D. 13 minus ten years of getting to a better position than ten years earlier = 13 years of utter wank! Why does that report conclude that the public finances were in better shape then I wonder?! A decade of reckless overspending would not result in better figures would they? And you think I ignore it! Far from it, I'm enjoying your report, mcf, because that and the figures on ukpublicspending or the Guardian illustrate quite nicely what I've been saying all along! Go on, mcf, man up and see if you can answer those questions I asked while maintaining your position on everything
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2012 15:46:34 GMT
<Yawn> Since you have a problem remembering anything you've written previously I'm guessing you have the same problem with everyone's posts, so here's what I said just a few posts back one more time: There's a difference between laughing and taking the piss out of you and bothering to engage in a debate with you.Now, back to the poilitcs and economics with those more sensible hopefully... Brilliant ;D Just when you think you can't look any sillier you come back nearly an hour later to change a cut and paste job ;D Christ knows how unfunny your original post must have been. I see you're hoping "those" are more sensible than you, no need to worry champ I'd take it as a given if I was you ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 21, 2012 7:27:52 GMT
Don't start this 13 year bollocks. I've 'revised' to this : Therefore, in economic terms, it could be described that the 13 years of a Labour government were a complete and utter disaster for the country ie utter, utter wank. In 2011, the figure will stand at more than double (64.3%) than the 2001 equivalent. Isn't it amazing how we all use the same data yet you have conclusions all on your very own. IFS talks about Major's exit in terms of 'improving finances' (following a recession), 'strengthened further' by NL following his spending plans, Labour inheriting relatively low levels of borrowing and ‘mid-table’ levels of debt. I say a 'great set of cards' to assess these positive IFS conclusions yet you think its wank. IFS talks about fiscal drift, ukpublicspending - rapid spending and Economic performance body says overspending. I think this is reckless overspending as we borrow shitloads in good times and yet you think its all perfectly reasonable. It's fucking mental reasoning. When you accept this then we can move on to deregulation and get that nailed out the best we can...I might even use this pearler from the FT earlier in the week (Patrick Jenkins, Banking Editor) In the run-up to the financial crisis, the FSA combined its regulatory responsibilites with a drive to boost the City of London with 'light touch' supervision - often at the behest of the then Labour government and with fatal consequences for financial stability' When we've done that I'll answer your questions.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 15:29:44 GMT
The irony of this statement:"Isn't it amazing how we all use the same data yet you have conclusions all on your very own". They're not my conclusions, mcf, they're those of the report you posted! I don't understand why you just can't acknowledge this!The public finances were in better shape than those they inherited from your great set of cards! I'm quite happy to acknowledge the size of the deficit in 2007 (after a period of trying to improve the shitty public services your lot left us with after 18 years) was one of the largest in the developed world and that Labour was planning to halve it from 2007 to 2011, something the Tories were also quite happy to endorse ;D. As I've said I doubt very much that other countries had had 18 years of neglect to try to deal with! But even if you do swallow your 10 years of reckless overspending it was nothing compared to what we have now. Same with the debt, so what do you think might have caused that I wonder . What is extraordinary is that you can take away four from 13 and still have 13! I'm referring to the first four years of Labour's term of office obviously which were ok because they followed Tory spending plans but still evidence of 13 years of wank. A great set of cards and wank all at the same time ;D. What's also weird is refusing to accept the overall conclusion of your own report ie that public finances were in better shape than ten years previously despite a decade of reckless overspending. They simply couldn't be in better shape if that had taken place could they? Perhaps Robert Peston wrote the IFS report and it's biased ;D. "IFS talks about fiscal drift, ukpublicspending - rapid spending and Economic performance body says overspending. I think this is reckless overspending as we borrow shitloads in good times and yet you think its all perfectly reasonable.
It's fucking mental reasoning."How could reckless overspending produce public finances in better shape than those which were already evidence of a great set of cards? "In the run-up to the financial crisis, the FSA combined its regulatory responsibilites with a drive to boost the City of London with 'light touch' supervision - often at the behest of the then Labour government and with fatal consequences for financial stability'" No shit! Labour followed a light touch, free market, non interventionist right wing approach to financial sector regulation did they? Now who's been saying that for the last god knows how long ;D. You have now neatly demonstrated first with your IFS report and secondly with that quote above precisely what I've been saying all along. Namely, there was no reckless overspending because the public finances were in better shape than ten years earlier and the Tories were happily committed to matching their spending plans. Second, that the reason the financial sector went tits up was because of this light touch regulatory approach, started with the Big Bang, continued on through Major's govt and New Labour. Why else does the RBS's Sir Philip Hampton refer to 30 years of dysfunctional capitalism and the banks being the key transmission mechanism to where we now are! Of course a lack of regulation was a problem! Both Labour and the Tories bought into the rightwing ideology that leaving the markets alone was the correct approach. Now answer the questions please or is it too difficult to maintain a coherent position if you do? I can't wait to see how 13-4=13 for a start. I also can't wait to see how you conclude that raising taxes and cutting services when you want lower taxes and shittier services = a great set of cards in your book ;D.
|
|