|
Post by mcf on Jun 21, 2012 17:08:03 GMT
Clinging to the fact that the % of net debt as a proportion of GDP was lower in 2007 than 1997 and ignore the vast majority of other facts in the report is desperate.
The fact that Labour fucked one of the best financial positions we had in the early 00s must really hurt.
Rightwing ideology under the Tories improved the debt picture.
Whatever ideology Labour followed totally fucked it.
It's a simple as that and it's based on figures.
47% in 1979, 31% in 2001 and 60% in 2010 and it's still rising.
As for some of your questions,
Banks have and will fail. Barings didn't have to be bailed out - it was sold for £1. The reason why it was so bad in 2007 can be attributed to Brown's 1997 changes. Lots of seasoned and qualified commentators agree, including those pesky Economic Performance kids.
Sometimes you have to take higher taxes and lesser public services when you recover from a recession, or when a government has wanked away a load of cash in the good times and left you in an even shitter position for a recession.
Cameron and Osbourne were wrong to agree to match the spending plans. However, I'll judge them on how they deal with the 'hospital pass' they have been given.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 18:19:11 GMT
Not clinging to anything, mcf, just stating the conclusion of your report . In better shape than after a decade of wild and carefree abandonment on spending (or six years since the first four were now Tory approved utter utter wank ;D)! You conclude they fucked it because you hate Labour and love the Tories and are desperate to find evidence that that was the case. For example you ask "In what sense is the current govt failing?". They're failing because they've killed growth through their cuts. They're also failing in your eyes because they haven't cut enough, so whichever way you want to play it, they're failing but you have to ask how they're failing - not one-eyed at all is it ). Your IFS report doesn't say they fucked it, it says the public finances were in better shape than ten years previously. Oh boy, the agony . "Rightwing ideology under the Tories improved the debt picture."What?! From 42% of GDP in 1980 to 27% in 1990 to 42% in 1997. A great improvement that. You're just flailing now, mcf, flailing. Then a decade of reckless overspending later and it's still 4% of GDP lower than the debt they inherited! Then a massive jump of approx 30% of GDP between 2007 and now. Fuck me that's an awful lot of reckless spending in 3 years even when compared with the previous decade's overspending, mate! I think we might even have noticed ;D What could have caused it I ask myself? You asked which banks went bust under the Tories cos you didn't accept any had. I said Barings. Being sold for £1 after being worth several billion doesn't constitute success, although you might think so, given you're on the barest of nodding terms with facts and appropriate conclusions! "The reason why it was so bad in 2007 can be attributed to Brown's 1997 changes. Lots of seasoned and qualified commentators agree, including those pesky Economic Performance kids."You might be right, so let's see these seasoned and qualified commentators and what they said about how the changes in 1997 specifically made things worse in 2007. "Sometimes you have to take higher taxes and lesser public services when you recover from a recession, or when a government has wanked away a load of cash in the good times and left you in an even shitter position for a recession."Ouch. You've wriggled so hard you may have pulled something there . Right, so higher taxes and shittier public services after a recession which came under a Tory watch is still a great set of cards despite you saying you'd prefer lower taxes and shittier public services. And you think my conclusions don't follow ;D. At least you're applying the same logic to New Labour and to Thatcher now - ie that they both wanked away cash during the good times so there was not enough in the pot when the recession came (of differing size and impact btw!) and debts and deficits rose! "Cameron and Osbourne were wrong to agree to match the spending plans. However, I'll judge them on how they deal with the 'hospital pass' they have been given."Again, nice wriggle, but they weren't wrong at the time, given the prevailing rightwing economic thinking (by Tory and Labour) because the finances were nothing out of the ordinary. Indeed they were in better shape than 10 years earlier. That's why a much more sensible conclusion is that both Labour and the Tories saw that a simple correction of the deficit was required and both planned to halve it by 2011 after a period of spending on public services. Public spending was due to increase by 2% in real terms every year from 2007 onwards and the Tories signed up to it. And they both assumed that leaving the markets alone they'd sort themselves out and we'd carry on as before.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 22, 2012 7:14:46 GMT
I conclude they fucked it because the IFS says so –
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.
What more could you possibly want to describe Labour’s time?
Compare to their thoughts on Major,
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.
...and you say I’m ‘all over the place’ and can’t do Maths.
In your world, 30.9% = 44.2% = 60-80% and doesn’t constitute an increase. No wonder the debt picture under Labour is fine and there is no difference from a Tory government.
Not only can you not do Maths - you can't fucking read either. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2012 15:30:48 GMT
I'll tell you exactly "what more I'd want" to come to your "correct conclusions": I'd want a debt which wasn't 6% of GDP lower than the one they'd inherited after a decade of reckless overspending! I'd want a spending plan which was torn to shreds by the opposition for its inherent recklessness, not one which was openly endorsed for the next four years by the very same opposition after a period of reckless overspending! They were both planning on increasing spending by 2% in real terms each year. Those reckless numpties, the pair of them ;D. Or could it actually be that a simple correction to halve the deficit was planned on the assumption that everything would carry on in its own sweet deregulated way . "Compare to their thoughts on Major,
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.
...and you say I’m ‘all over the place’ and can’t do Maths.
In your world, 30.9% = 44.2% = 60-80% and doesn’t constitute an increase. No wonder the debt picture under Labour is fine and there is no difference from a Tory government."I'm sorry I've read this a number of times and I'm struggling to make any sense of it. The first bit I think I've got. The public finances were fucked under the Tory recession, yep got that ;D. They then improved as a result of higher taxes and shittier public services. Got that. But you want lower taxes and shittier public services so how does this constitute your great set of cards? It's the opposite of what you want, so I can't wait to hear how it's actually a great thing! Things got even better from 1997 to 2001 so this four year period still counts as part of the 13 years of utter utter wank does it? Another "correct conclusion" of yours? You do appear to have a problem with taking information and forming a logical conclusion from it. I think you probably work backwards: the Tories are great and Labour are bad, therefore they can't have done things that don't fit into my Tories are great and Labour are bad conclusion, therefore the data which shows that the first four years of Labour actually improved things further is still indicative of the whole 13 years of utter utter wank! 13 minus four still equals 13! Or were Labour only in power from 2001 now? But you've lost me with the last bit! When have I ever said that! According to ukpublicspending, debt was 30.45% of GDP in 2003 (ooh look, a whole six years off that 13 years of utter utter wank now!). In 2008 it had risen to a humungous, earth-shattering, catastrophic, historically unprecedented 36.25% of GDP. Fuck me pink, that's so bad ;D Absolutely catatastrophic levels of debt those, they've gone up a whole minus 6% of GDP from the level they inherited! All that reckless overspending for a decade pre 2007-08 (it's 13 years of wank remember ) and yet the debt only went up by minus 6% of GDP over that time period and plus 6% of GDP from 2003 to 2008! Very very bad that, mcf, very very bad! And then went up 16% of GDP over the next two years. What on earth could have done that, mate? Gordon change all the stationery or something? When you going to get round to trying to answer my questions in a coherent manner?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 25, 2012 12:20:08 GMT
You would fail to make any sense of it because despite clamouring for the opinions or facts from independent and credible sources you wanted, you then choose to ignore the majority of the findings that don’t suit your agenda.
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.
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.
Still ignoring these 4 points I see and still trying to claim the Labour years of following Tory spending plans to 2001 as some kind of Brown magic.
You are also arguing against ‘things’ I’ve accepted and I’ve revised my stance accordingly:
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.
Let’s get the view of the National Audit Office to see how much these pesky banks cost that changed everything in 2007. They claim that the most likely scenario is that there will be no overall loss on the main guarantees, namely, the Asset Protection, Special Liquidity or Credit Guarantee Schemes (the Treasury had originally estimated on the information available in 2009 that the total cost of this support might be between £20 billion and £50 billion)
The amount of cash currently borrowed by the Government to support UK banks has risen by £7 billion since December 2009 to a total of £124 billion. The eventual cost or return to the taxpayer as a result of the Treasury’s support of the banks is dependent on the Treasury’s successfully disposing of its shares in RBS and Lloyd’s and recouping its loans to the banking sector. Meanwhile, the Government is paying £5 billion a year (£10 billion so far) in interest on the Government borrowing required to finance the purchase of shares and loans to banks. So far, this has been offset by the fees and interest received by the Treasury from the supported banks, but these are likely to fall in future.
So in short, the £5 billion a year was being offset and not contributing to the spending that was going up and up and up – no more so than in 2008 and 2009 - as tax receipts were falling. So this banking bailout you claim killed us, isn’t even as costly as a solitary year on paying the PFIs back.
Nothing new here of course - all posted and explained before but its better for you to ignore the majority of the credible findings and babble on about 9 or 13 years of wank instead and moaning about not having coherent answers on pointless questions that have been answered before.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 25, 2012 12:40:07 GMT
PS - Which bright spark came up with this glorious speech in 1997? I've even bolded some pearls of wisdom.
With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement. The Government's central economic objective is high and stable levels of growth and employment. That can happen only if we build on the solid foundation of monetary and fiscal stability. I am determined to set the British economy on a new, long-term course by taking the correct long-term decisions. The previous arrangements for monetary policy were too short-termist, encouraging short but unsustainable booms and bust and higher inflation, which was inevitably followed by recession. That is why we promised in our election manifesto to reform the Bank of England, to ensure that decision making on monetary policy was more effective, open, accountable and free from short-term political manipulation. On 6 May, I announced the means by which we would achieve that promise: by giving the Bank operational responsibility for setting interest rates. On the first economic day in the new Parliament, I have sought the opportunity to explain my proposals for legislation, which will be introduced to, and fully debated in, the House. The House will understand that the length of the statement reflects the significance of the changes that I propose. May I say to the shadow Chancellor that I made arrangements for him to receive a copy of the statement earlier than he did, and I apologise if that did not happen. In undertaking the reforms, I have taken account of the recommendations of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's report on the role of the Bank of England, which stressed the need for clear lines of accountability and answerability for monetary policy to Parliament. In 1993, the Committee stated: The present system for determining monetary policy does not, in practice, allow for clear Parliamentary accountability. The reforms that I propose represent a British solution to meet British needs. Their main elements are as follows. The Bank's monetary policy objective will be to deliver price stability and, without prejudice to that objective, to support the Government's economic policy, including their objectives for growth and employment. The Government will set the inflation target for the Bank. The target will be reviewed annually and announced in the Budget. The Bank will have operational responsibility to achieve the inflation target. Decisions on what actions need to be taken to achieve the target will be taken by a Monetary Policy Committee, on the basis of a majority vote. The committee will include the Governor and two deputy Governors nominated by the Government, and two senior Bank officials with management responsibility for monetary policy and market operations. However, it will also include four other expert members appointed from outside the Bank by the Government. The committee will be responsible for taking full account of regional and sectoral information in its monetary policy decisions. The Monetary Policy Committee will meet on a monthly basis. All decisions on interest rates will be announced immediately after the meeting. The proceedings of the meetings, including votes, will be minuted and published within six weeks. The Monetary Policy Committee's performance will be reviewed by the Court of the Bank. The Court will be substantially reformed, so that it is able to take account of the full range of industrial and business views in this country, and for the first time it will be fully representative of the whole of the United Kingdom. The Bank will be expected to report to the Treasury Select Committee and to the House. I shall write to the Chairman suggesting that the Bank's annual report be debated in the House, and that the Bank appear four times a year before the Committee to give evidence and answer questions on each of its inflation reports, so that the Bank's performance will be able to be judged by Parliament. There will be a review of the Bank's financial arrangements, to ensure that the Bank meets the highest standards of accountability and transparency in the light of its new responsibilities. The Bank's role in debt management will be transferred to the Treasury.The Government will retain the right to override the Bank's operational independence in extreme economic circumstances for a limited period only, and subject to ratification by the House. I would expect that right to be exercised rarely, if at all. Those requirements mean that, while the Government retain clear responsibility to Parliament for the goals of monetary policy, the Bank will be clearly accountable for the operation of monetary policy and will be required to report to Parliament regularly. In addition, through the regular publication of the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee's meetings and the Bank's inflation report, the public will have sufficient information to judge the Bank's performance against the target it is set. I intend to introduce legislation enacting those changes as soon as possible, for the House to consider. In the meantime, the Governor—for whose co-operation in this matter I am grateful—has agreed on a transitional basis to implement the new procedures for decision making, and I shall nominate the four new members of the Monetary Policy Committee. The question of prudential supervision, of course, concerns not just the Bank of England but the reform of the Financial Services Act 1986. Financial services lie at the heart of a modern, dynamic economy. The effectiveness and competitiveness of all our industries depend on the availability and efficiency of the increasingly wide array of financial products and services, from pensions and insurance to securities and derivatives. Our standard of living depends on them, particularly in retirement. Financial services are often complex and long-term. Products, markets and advice must therefore be fair, honest and transparent, and command confidence. It has long been apparent that the regulatory structure introduced by the Financial Services Act is not delivering the standard of supervision and investor protection that the industry and the public have a right to expect. The current two-tier system splits responsibility between the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulatory organisations, together with the recognised professional bodies. This division is inefficient and confusing for investors, and lacks accountability and a clear allocation of responsibilities. Reform is long overdue to simplify the delivery of financial services regulation, and this was a key commitment in our business manifesto. At the same time, it is important to preserve the beneficial aspects of the current Act, including practitioner involvement and differential levels of regulation for wholesale and retail business. I can announce today that work is to start immediately on the legislation needed to simplify and reform the regulatory system at an early opportunity. I am announcing our intentions in advance to give the SIB and the self-regulating bodies the opportunity to work with us on the detailed implementation of our proposals to ensure the smoothest possible transition to the new regime. I am confident that the simpler system we are proposing will reduce compliance costs, and increase public confidence in the regulatory regime. Simply reforming the Financial Services Act 1986 is not enough in itself. In today's world of integrated global financial markets, the financial services industry transcends geographical and political boundaries and the regulatory response must meet this challenge. The United Kingdom financial services industry needs a regulator which can deliver the most effective supervision in the world. One cannot ensure the success of British financial services in the 21st century without modernising arrangements for the protection of investors. My reforms are essential to ensure the future confidence of investors small and large, and the future success of the increasingly integrated financial services industry on which so many British jobs now depend. At the same time, it is clear that the distinctions between different types of financial institution—banks, securities firms and insurance companies—are becoming increasingly blurred. Many of today's financial institutions are regulated by a plethora of different supervisors. This increases the cost and reduces the effectiveness of the supervision. There is therefore a strong case in principle for bringing the regulation of banking, securities and insurance together under one roof. Firms now organise and manage their businesses on a group-wide basis. Regulators need to look at them in a consistent way. That would bring the regulatory structure closer into line with today's increasingly integrated financial markets. It would deliver more effective and efficient supervision, giving both firms and customers better value for money, and would improve the competitiveness of the sector and create a regulatory regime to genuinely meet the challenges of the 21st century. I have decided to take the opportunity presented by the Bank of England reform Bill that we will introduce to reform the regulatory system. Responsibility for banking supervision will be transferred, as soon as possible after passage of the Bill, from the Bank of England to a new and strengthened Securities and Investments Board, which will also, as a result of forthcoming legislation, take direct responsibility for the regulatory regime covered by the Financial Services Act. The Securities and Investments Board will become the single regulator underpinned by statute. The current system of self-regulation will be replaced by a new and fully statutory system, which will put the public interest first, and increase public confidence in the system. The Governor of the Bank of England will be fully involved in drawing up the detailed proposals. The Bank will remain responsible for the overall stability of the financial system as a whole. The enhanced Securities and Investments Board will be responsible for prudential supervision.As the House will already be aware, Sir Andrew Large, the current chairman of the SIB, has decided to step down. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him, and thank him for his contribution to financial regulation over the past years. It is crucial to the success of these reforms that we have a new chairman with the stature and calibre to implement them quickly and smoothly. Because of the importance I attach to drawing on the Bank of England's expertise in these areas, the Governor and I have asked Howard Davies, the deputy Governor of the Bank, to be the first chairman of the enhanced Securities and Investment Board, responsible for integrating the supervision of banking and financial services. I am pleased that he has agreed. He is, of course, already a member of the SIB, and he will take over as chairman when Sir Andrew Large steps down. Two new deputy Governors of the Bank will be appointed in due course. I have today written to Sir Andrew Large with further details of my proposals. I have placed a copy of this letter, together with my earlier letter to the Governor on monetary policy, in the Library of the House. I am confident that the new arrangements, taken together, will significantly enhance the credibility of UK monetary policy and improve the workings of the financial markets. The arrangements mean lower long-term interest rates and higher growth and investment. Since my announcement a fortnight ago, long-term interest rates have fallen already, reflecting the positive reaction to the new monetary framework. The reforms are founded on sound economic principle, and are part of a long-term policy for long-term prosperity. They provide the building blocks for a new economic strategy for monetary and financial stability, aimed at enhancing longer-term growth and prosperity. I am confident that their success will be reflected in a stronger and more robust economy for the long-term. I commend the statement to the House.
Doesn't it make you want to piss yourself laughing?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2012 11:08:11 GMT
;D What, you won't answer my questions while trying to maintain a coherent position because you don't think I'd understand your answers? Brilliant that, mate! Nice dodge! I've already tackled this fiscal drift previously. I'm well aware that Labour spent money (investment rather than day to day running costs ) to try to improve the shitty state of our public services after 18 years of Tory neglect and that this is why we had a deficit pre 2007-08. The size of it, relative to other countries, is because other countries didn't have to play catch up to the extent that we did to get anything approaching a 21st century healthcare service. But even after spending that money, the deficit was nothing like it is now (and both Labour and Tories were happy to halve it over the 2007-2011 spending period). Also our debt, despite that health and education investment, was 6% of GDP lower than when Labour came to power in 2007. And now both are much much higher. What could have done that do you think? "Still ignoring these 4 points I see and still trying to claim the Labour years of following Tory spending plans to 2001 as some kind of Brown magic. "Dealt with them before and dealt with them again here. One simple question you may wish to try if you can't manage all the others. How does 13 years of utter utter wank minus four which you approve of still equal 13 years of utter utter wank? Should be easy that one surely? "Let’s get the view of the National Audit Office to see how much these pesky banks cost that changed everything in 2007. They claim that the most likely scenario is that there will be no overall loss on the main guarantees, namely, the Asset Protection, Special Liquidity or Credit Guarantee Schemes (the Treasury had originally estimated on the information available in 2009 that the total cost of this support might be between £20 billion and £50 billion)
The amount of cash currently borrowed by the Government to support UK banks has risen by £7 billion since December 2009 to a total of £124 billion. The eventual cost or return to the taxpayer as a result of the Treasury’s support of the banks is dependent on the Treasury’s successfully disposing of its shares in RBS and Lloyd’s and recouping its loans to the banking sector. Meanwhile, the Government is paying £5 billion a year (£10 billion so far) in interest on the Government borrowing required to finance the purchase of shares and loans to banks. So far, this has been offset by the fees and interest received by the Treasury from the supported banks, but these are likely to fall in future.
So in short, the £5 billion a year was being offset and not contributing to the spending that was going up and up and up – no more so than in 2008 and 2009 - as tax receipts were falling. So this banking bailout you claim killed us, isn’t even as costly as a solitary year on paying the PFIs back.
Nothing new here of course - all posted and explained before but its better for you to ignore the majority of the credible findings and babble on about 9 or 13 years of wank instead and moaning about not having coherent answers on pointless questions that have been answered before."The above is quite frightening in its lack of awareness but does, I suppose, support the article this thread was based originally around! Should I really be surprised that you think the banking bailout costs us less than a single year of PFI payments?! £124bn in cash handed to the banks in approximately one year. That's roughly 15 years of PFI payments in one go right there! Now lets's add in the cost of the recession that the financial collapse caused. Taken from a paper submitted to the Independent Banking Commission by an economics professor at Sussex Uni: " The costs of the crisis are not simply the costs to the Treasury important those these may be. These are indeed only a pinprick compared to the costs for all of us due to the losses of output caused by the recession and in subsequent years caused by the financial crisis. Output [GDP ] is still some 4% below the previous peak in 2008, and during the years since the crisis [2008-2011] output would have grown by around 2.5% per annum but for the crisis. Output is scarcely growing at all during 2011 and will also grow well below its trend rate in the following years [2012 and 2013]. I have estimated taking into account the losses of output that would have occurred since 2008 without the financial crisis caused by the reckless lending of the banks, and projecting the losses forward until the end of 2012, that the total cost to the economy - all of us - is around 11 to 13% of GDP".11-13% of GDP wiped off as a result of the financial crisis, bailouts and associated recession . Compare that to the recession under Major of approx 2.5%. Perhaps now you may see why the debt and deficit rose to the levels they did, but probably not. Those pesky banks eh Now tell me how you think higher taxes and shittier public services are a great set of cards when you want lower taxes and shittier public services. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2012 12:40:05 GMT
In reply to your post of Brown's 20 May 1997 speech, you might want to have a read of this: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2009.02034.x/fullBear in mind it was written pretty much just after the 2007-08 crisis so a little out of date now. It's very long and does go on about paradigms a lot, but a very good assessment imo. A good critique of economic policy around and before the financial crisis and the history of where that economic policy came from. It also shows how both Labour and Tory were essentially beholden to right wing monetarist policies (whatever they are ) as a result of the new consensus from the 70s onwards, before both adopted a 'New Keynesian' approach. Lots about light touch regulation, the massive impact of the financial crisis and not a whole lot about reckless overspending! Perhaps he's just biased like Robert Peston ;D, although there's a fair degree of stick towards Labour too so I'd say it was pretty balanced. Edit: oops, forgot to highlight this part of their conclusion: "Although the Conservative Party is promising a bold new approach to economic management, its economic policies are cut from the same ideational cloth as those of the Labour Party".I did tell you Labour basically followed rightwing economic policy .
|
|
|
Post by rhodesy on Jun 26, 2012 20:15:11 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 ) Not everyone can have an M.phil and have earned enough to retire at 40... What university did you go to then big bollocks? Why would I need to think for myself when I'm told how the world works by my parents? You've already been absolutely bazingered on 27 pages by my Dad, listening to him based upon this thread is clearly very wise. I wound you up to the point where you private messaged me sucking yourself off and telling me how much money you have. But somehow you thought you won? "Bit disappointing to see a lad nearing his 20's who's not able to think for himself yet!". Literally no one my age gives a fuck about politics, literally could not give a fuck. And if you were like your are now at 16 years old, I feel genuinely sorry for you. Oh well you're "fucking loaded" now (I can quote too ). So embarrassing that you sent a 16 year old a message boasting about yourself, truly embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 27, 2012 12:08:11 GMT
It was ‘investment’ (I’d call it welfare) that should have been taxed for – as clarified in the IFS report: By 2007–08, government revenues were 38.7% of national income – approximately the same level they had been in 2000–01. However, over this same period, spending had grown consistently as a share of national income – from 36.8% of national income in 2000–01 to 41.1% by 2007–08. The failure to match this higher spending with commensurately higher tax revenues unwound the improvement in the public finances seen during Labour’s first term.Of course, you said it was insane to tell the truth as what electorate would vote for a party that would raise taxes – far easier to burden future generations. I’m always fascinated with this investment argument (and it’s usually the reason why national finances are not seen like a household) as I’m not sure we ever get a return that ever outweighs the initial investment. If it did, where is it? ‘No where’ seems to be the answer as we’ve already considered estimates where we get a £1 back for every £2+ we spend. Now, you and the Labour apologists might call that investment but I certainly don’t. On a similar vein, there has been a recent paper from the LSE about how private sector jobs (in the manufacturing area) are crowded out by public sector jobs. The kind of jobs that the IFS says 8% more than their equivalents – remember a few pages back where its as high as 18% in Wales. PFIs are back in the news too I see. I need to check out the source but the Telegraph as it £65 billion for 103 NHS PFI deals at a value of £11.4 billion. Some investment that. The above is quite frightening in its lack of awareness but does, I suppose, support the article this thread was based originally around! Should I really be surprised that you think the banking bailout costs us less than a single year of PFI payments?! £124bn in cash handed to the banks in approximately one year. That's roughly 15 years of PFI payments in one go right there!We are getting fees from the banks that cover the interest payments on that borrowed money and now have a stake in a number of banks. Any losses will depend on what we sell that stake for. Did you read the NAO updates? 11-13% of GDP wiped off as a result of the financial crisis, bailouts and associated recession . Compare that to the recession under Major of approx 2.5%. Perhaps now you may see why the debt and deficit rose to the levels they did, but probably not.Yes, the deep recession will take us well beyond any of the debt levels we have seen since post war times but the % of public net debt (excluding financial interventions) had already ballooned way beyond the figures that even Thatcher inherited before Labour had walked out of the door in 2010. It was even higher than what Thatcher inherited in 2009 where it had broken the 50% mark. The recession didn’t even have to truly bite and we were in deep shit because the overspend and borrowing during the good times. No matter what you say, the figures will always prove you wrong. Good article that but I take more of a ‘don’t blame the policy, blame the policy management’ philosophy from it. This is part of their conclusion. The financial crisis has exposed a number of blind spots in New Labour's paradigm, including a lack of attention to financial stability and concerns over the ability of existing instruments to deliver asset price stability. The political bargain at the heart of New Labour's economic policy, which exchanged fiscal discipline for the promise of balanced economic growth and steadily rising investment in public services, has also been profoundly shaken as a result of the crisis. However, in contrast to the late 1970s, electoral politics is unlikely to pave the way for a radically new approach to economic policy in the near future. Although the Conservative Party is promising a bold new approach to economic management, its economic policies are cut from the same ideational cloth as those of the Labour Party.A few comments that interest me in though: The credit crunch, the effects of which have been amplified by the bursting of the UK's decade-old house price bubble, has taken a severe toll on the economy.Very much attributed to taking housing out of the price index as far as I’m aware and they knew it could be an issue.... It did not define rising house prices or other asset prices as indicators of macroeconomic problems, although the possibility that there was in fact a house price ‘bubble’ was clearly in the backs of the minds of monetary policy-makers. One New Keynesian member of the MPC, Stephen Nickell, put forward his own technical analysis to lay the ‘bubble’ issue to rest (Nickell, 2005). He argued that rising household indebtedness was matched by rising household assets; in other words, household portfolios were expanding in a potentially sustainable fashion.Basically, the reforms that Brown said in 1997 that were badly needed helped fuck it up. New Labour has been even more reluctant to align itself with a particular economic theory, making it difficult to pin down the ideas behind its policies, despite some heroic efforts (for example, Dolowitz, 2004). This is partly because New Labour did not aim to achieve a clear break with the past, as, by 1997, the economy was faring well. It is also because of convergence in academic macroeconomics (Woodford, 2009), which, combined with the increasing complexity of the subject, makes it harder to identify distinct schools nowadays than it was in 1979.Kind of backs up ‘whatever that means’ – it’s too ‘broad strokes’ to pass it off as rightwing policy = bad. PS ...by 1997, the economy was faring well ..... I enjoyed that bit
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2012 13:12:01 GMT
'was one of the largest in the developed world and that Labour was planning to halve it from 2007 to 2011'. Were they fuckers like! More point scoring Labour shite. They didn't have a clue how to halve it. They didn't have the balls to increase taxation and knew that they'd be royally fucked if they increased taxes. Labour were never going to cut public sector staffing numbers, pay, pensions or welfare. Have you seen those 'Free beer tomorrow' signs in pubs? I bet you go in the next day don't you? We know that Labour had a 'light touch' approach to regulation. So what? I expect the same 'the Tories would have done the same' argument horseshit. Well, hard luck, the Tories weren't in power and can't be blamed for and even lighter regulation under Labour. Same with PFI: the Tories introduce it - Labour take the piss. Just think, according to Blair's comments yesterday the entire Labour hospital, school and road rebuilding program wouldn't have happened under PFI so which way do you want it? All of a sudden, after another Labour government, it's 30 years of dysfunctional capitalism that's to blame. Oh I see, let's include the previous 17 years in the blame for the current crisis. The dysfunctional capitalism happened under Labour. They couldn't resist grabbing money from every angle whether it be light touch regulation, PFI, stealth taxation or borrowing. We are capitalists so get used to it and stop voting in shitty governments that can't manage a capitalist economy. Your selective out-of-context statistical analysis is becoming rather boring now. It's easy for anyone to see that the economy under Labour continued with the Tory trends until around 2002 and then good 'Old Labour' came back to haunt us. Rising GDP and tax receipts (on an economy based on debt) resulted in rising BORROWING AS A % OF GDP (a bit dangerous that don't you think?) and with PFI as a little extra debt we were well on the rocky road. And then, comedians like you actually believe shit like 'Labour was planning to halve it from 2007 to 2011'. All Labour did in their 13 year tenure was to borrow success from the future. We'll all be paying for Labour's debt based economy for a long time because they were too chicken shit to use increased taxation to fund their spending. As for Osbourne matching Labour's spending. I don't believe he ever believed he would which was political and vote grabbing crap. He knew that Labour's public sector giveaways weren't affordable and that the Tories would face opposition from all angles when making cuts. And that's how the cycle goes. Labour waste too much of our money on grabbing public sector and welfare votes, fuck us up, get voted out and then watch the Tories get a kicking whilst smirking from their deck chairs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2012 15:13:35 GMT
No-one's disputing that public spending went up 2001 to 2007 but it went on investing in healthcare and education for the most part, to try to address the shitty public services Labour inherited after 18 years of neglect. You might be right that for every pound spent we didn't manage to get an equivalent pound back but what we did get were improvements in both those public sectors. Clearly, you as a Tory, as you have openly stated, want to pay less tax and have shitty public services, presumably because you can afford to go private, pay for private education and don't give a flying fuck about those who can't and have to rely on the state for health and education provision. I could be completely wrong but I'm guessing this is why you want to keep your money in your pocket and don't give a fuck about the quality of the public sector. However, the majority of people in this country don't want that. Even your mates in the Tory Party say they don't want that (although their actions speak louder than their words). Even your mates in the Tory Party admitted (and I can find the quote if you want) that investment in the NHS was needed. Admitted this even after 18 years of Tory government . No-one's arguing that this increase in spending for the above reasons didn't increase our debt and deficit during that time period. However you seem to conclude that this increase, any increase maybe?, equals reckless overspending. It doesn't. Debt and deficit levels were nothing out of the ordinary in historic terms, check the figures. They were lower than under previous Tory administrations, yet these are perfectly acceptable levels whereas Labour's were very very bad ;D. It's just blind prejudice, mcf, as the original report this thread is based on states. "National finances are not seen like a household"? A moment ago, it was "a nation is like a business that is like a household". Don't tell me you're one of these folk who "doesn't need to remember anything he's written previously or prove any opinion they have" ;D PFI - much rather have directly funded (taxed) investment, said it many times before. But no-one votes for higher taxes in this country, why do you think both parties always promise not to raise them?! Presumably you're not pleased about Osborne's more than 61 new PFI schemes since coming to power? The original argument about PFI was the impact on our debt because they are off balance sheet - it was pretty small ;D, although you'd never know because the main champion of taking PFI into account never bothered to prove his point, surprise surprise! And now it's too late, cos it's not worth the pointless meanderings. Yes, I'm well aware of the commitment we've made to the banks! £124bn in cash (or 15 years of PFI ;D) in one year, a further £350bn of guarantees, another £80bn was made available only recently if you remember, Osborne was saying what a great move it was to give more money to the banks. We might get it back you're right, but right now we're effectively slashing the public sector to fund these commitments and redress the impact of the financial sector created recession or did you not understand the connection? "Yes, the deep recession will take us well beyond any of the debt levels we have seen since post war times but the % of public net debt (excluding financial interventions) had already ballooned way beyond the figures that even Thatcher inherited before Labour had walked out of the door in 2010. It was even higher than what Thatcher inherited in 2009 where it had broken the 50% mark. The recession didn’t even have to truly bite and we were in deep shit because the overspend and borrowing during the good times.
No matter what you say, the figures will always prove you wrong" Finally you acknowledge the depth of the recession - what was it you said earlier? "I suppose the size of the recession is to blame" or words to that effect in an effort to ridicule its impact. I truly wonder how much of this you actually understand as being connected and having an impact in various areas! Do you really think that an earth-shattering, unprecedented, historically huge 6% increase in debt between 2001 and 2007 (ooh 1% a year, out of control, fellas, out of control, = reckless overspending) which was then dwarfed by the increases post 2008 was caused by anything other than a combination of the massive output losses (11-13% of GDP), welfare increases, higher debt interest payments etc all as a result of the crisis and recession!? That combination of factors (even excluding the financial interventions) is what caused the figures to balloon not reckless overspending . And you just look at the figures post 2008 and see reckless overspending do you? ;D "Good article that but I take more of a ‘don’t blame the policy, blame the policy management’ philosophy from it. This is part of their conclusion."Of course you do because you can't ever see a problem with right wing ideology. However, New Labour and the Tories were cut from the same ideational cloth, as I've said all along. The basic under-pinning thinking was the same. It's not just me saying this to wind you up, mcf! That article makes that point over and over again. This is why the conclusion that the Tories were quite happy to match Labour's 2007-11 spending plans based on the assumption that the deregulated markets would sweetly carry on is correct. And this is why they weren't banging on about reckless overspending back then either. I take it simply ignoring uncomfortable questions is acceptable now then? How does 13 minus four equal 13, mate?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2012 15:35:49 GMT
"And then, comedians like you actually believe shit like 'Labour was planning to halve it from 2007 to 2011'." You think the Tories are comedians? Refreshing to say the least! But do your research, Squareball. Both Labour and the Tories were planning 2% increases in public spending in real terms year on year from 2007 to 2011, which given the projected rate of growth at the time would have halved the deficit over that time period. The Tories thought so, they endorsed the plans . You're right in that Labour were in power and employed a right wing philosophy of light touch regulation. The Tories criticised Brown for his heavy-handedness towards the financial sector. They said he was threatening growth, ;D. That's amusing is it not? "30 years of dsyfunctional capitalism" came from Sir Philip Hampton, one of the RBS chiefs, not me. I'd guess he was a capitalist at heart wouldn't you ;D. 30 years takes us back to the early 80s. I suspect he was talking about since the Big Bang in 86. Whose idea was that again? And who went along with it? I'm not taking anything out of context. mcf's IFS report quite clearly says that, even with fiscal drift which he considers equals reckless overspending, public finances were in better shape in 2007 than ten years previously. Better shape, how do you explain that, Squareball? How do you explain a debt at least 4% of GDP lower in 2007 than 10 years earlier despite all that BORROWING for six years!? Could it possibly be that the borrowing and spending were not in fact recklessly out of control despite increasing (and we know where that investment went!)? I can't see how the figures aren't massively higher than in 1997 if we were spending way more than we should have been as you guys contend. "All Labour did in their 13 year tenure was to borrow success from the future. We'll all be paying for Labour's debt based economy for a long time because they were too chicken shit to use increased taxation to fund their spending."We've had a debt based economy for 30 years matey , that's what Hampton meant by dysfunctional capitalism! "As for Osbourne matching Labour's spending. I don't believe he ever believed he would which was political and vote grabbing crap. He knew that Labour's public sector giveaways weren't affordable and that the Tories would face opposition from all angles when making cuts."Well Osbourne thought it was affordable based on projected growth and spending figures at the time so I'm guessing he also thought things would carry sweetly on as before, leaving the markets to find their own happy solution. You can believe it was Tory bullshit if you like.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 27, 2012 16:59:01 GMT
Not everyone can have an M.phil and have earned enough to retire at 40... What university did you go to then big bollocks? Why would I need to think for myself when I'm told how the world works by my parents? You've already been absolutely bazingered on 27 pages by my Dad, listening to him based upon this thread is clearly very wise. I wound you up to the point where you private messaged me sucking yourself off and telling me how much money you have. But somehow you thought you won? "Bit disappointing to see a lad nearing his 20's who's not able to think for himself yet!". Literally no one my age gives a fuck about politics, literally could not give a fuck. And if you were like your are now at 16 years old, I feel genuinely sorry for you. Oh well you're "fucking loaded" now (I can quote too ). So embarrassing that you sent a 16 year old a message boasting about yourself, truly embarrassing. Hey, Sif guess you must be winning the debate.............that is the only explanation for your opponents constantly aggressive and rude posts . Looks that way, iglugluk, looks very much that way! Young Rhodesy's clearly blown a gasket here! The frustrations of not getting any getting too much I guess . Rhodesy, you PM'ed me, remember, ya great balloon!!? ;D And now you're all upset about it! Bizarre. You didn't seem at all bothered at the time we were discussing your Uni choices? It's very obvious you don't give a fuck about politics or have much of a clue about it, but that doesn't stop you saying how much you venerate Margaret Thatcher and how wars fuel the economy! Or are they simply jokes now? So hard to tell when you give a fuck and when you don't ;D. I wouldn't call your dad wise. He's still to explain quite how 13 minus four still equals 13! You and your dad are quite clearly cut from the same "ideational cloth" . Good luck with your efforts to get into Uni. I do hope you learn to think for yourself before you get there! I don't think an answer of "Let me text my dad to tell me how the world works" 'will wash' at your interview . Fucking hell champ ;D thats lame even for you, dragging up a post made 3 days before the post you're trying to link it to and then trying to make out someone who has made what 4 or 5 posts on this thread in the last 3-4 months is being referred to ;D I don't see any anger there by Rhodesy I just see him totally owning you ;D No need to PM me with details of how much money you've got (that has to be the single funniest thing I have ever heard ;D) or details of where you're going for you tea thrilling though it no doubt is for you
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2012 21:11:48 GMT
Good to see this thread going strong. The projected rate of growth of this thread will go on and on and on...... Don't let those bastards drag you down Sif
|
|
|
Post by rhodesy on Jun 27, 2012 23:09:01 GMT
Looks that way, iglugluk, looks very much that way! Young Rhodesy's clearly blown a gasket here! The frustrations of not getting any getting too much I guess . Rhodesy, you PM'ed me, remember, ya great balloon!!? ;D And now you're all upset about it! Bizarre. You didn't seem at all bothered at the time we were discussing your Uni choices? It's very obvious you don't give a fuck about politics or have much of a clue about it, but that doesn't stop you saying how much you venerate Margaret Thatcher and how wars fuel the economy! Or are they simply jokes now? So hard to tell when you give a fuck and when you don't ;D. I wouldn't call your dad wise. He's still to explain quite how 13 minus four still equals 13! You and your dad are quite clearly cut from the same "ideational cloth" . Good luck with your efforts to get into Uni. I do hope you learn to think for yourself before you get there! I don't think an answer of "Let me text my dad to tell me how the world works" 'will wash' at your interview . Fucking hell champ ;D thats lame even for you, dragging up a post made 3 days before the post you're trying to link it to and then trying to make out someone who has made what 4 or 5 posts on this thread in the last 3-4 months is being referred to ;D I don't see any anger there by Rhodesy I just see him totally owning you ;D No need to PM me with details of how much money you've got (that has to be the single funniest thing I have ever heard ;D) or details of where you're going for you tea thrilling though it no doubt is for you Not everyone can have an M.phil and have earned enough to retire at 40... What university did you go to then big bollocks? Why would I need to think for myself when I'm told how the world works by my parents? You've already been absolutely bazingered on 27 pages by my Dad, listening to him based upon this thread is clearly very wise. I wound you up to the point where you private messaged me sucking yourself off and telling me how much money you have. But somehow you thought you won? "Bit disappointing to see a lad nearing his 20's who's not able to think for himself yet!". Literally no one my age gives a fuck about politics, literally could not give a fuck. And if you were like your are now at 16 years old, I feel genuinely sorry for you. Oh well you're "fucking loaded" now (I can quote too ). So embarrassing that you sent a 16 year old a message boasting about yourself, truly embarrassing. Hey, Sif guess you must be winning the debate.............that is the only explanation for your opponents constantly aggressive and rude posts . Looks that way, iglugluk, looks very much that way! Young Rhodesy's clearly blown a gasket here! The frustrations of not getting any getting too much I guess . Rhodesy, you PM'ed me, remember, ya great balloon!!? ;D And now you're all upset about it! Bizarre. You didn't seem at all bothered at the time we were discussing your Uni choices? It's very obvious you don't give a fuck about politics or have much of a clue about it, but that doesn't stop you saying how much you venerate Margaret Thatcher and how wars fuel the economy! Or are they simply jokes now? So hard to tell when you give a fuck and when you don't ;D. I wouldn't call your dad wise. He's still to explain quite how 13 minus four still equals 13! You and your dad are quite clearly cut from the same "ideational cloth" . Good luck with your efforts to get into Uni. I do hope you learn to think for yourself before you get there! I don't think an answer of "Let me text my dad to tell me how the world works" 'will wash' at your interview . Hahaha, there was no anger directed to him at all. To clarify, I'm not accusing him of grooming me. ;D The original PM I sent was.. "Subject- Your Question... It was to wind up you commies, naturally. PS, I am better than you " Not quite sure how that warranted a couple of paragraphs of you licking your own arsehole to a 16 year old... It's funny how personal and angry you get over me yet you still try and make me out to be stupid. "The frustrations of not getting any getting too much I guess ".... Hahahaha, how funny, I'm the childish one though really don't worry Luke.. I don't need to worry about an interview for university, I'm not going to Oxbridge. We can't all be as smart as you and retire at 40 Luke. Oh well, maybe one day I can be like you... "A champagne socialist they call people like me, look it up". Oh by the way, before anyone thinks that he's bullshitting... "Plus I've got 11 O-levels, 4 A-levels, a B.Sc., an M.Phil and no longer actually have to work for a living. I'm 43." And if anyone else needs any convincing of how amazing he and his life is... "I'm happily married, two great kids, two great cats, three great goldfish (scraping the barrel now ) You don't have to believe me, but it's all true". And if anyone else needs convincing that he isn't a complete and utter muppet, he sent this to a 16 year old... "I'm also not a virgin ". How very funny... But honestly.. I'm just a stupid 16/17 year old.. I know nothing whatsoever. Oh well, I know enough to completely bazinger you. (To clarify I did not call Durham a red brick, just checked... I said.. "Any red brick to be honest, I'm a sucker for tradition and heritage. Manchester would be ideal really, Durham would also be a cool place to go, we shall see." It would be a heavy inference to assume I thought Durham was a red brick.. But heavy inferences and distorting facts and figures appears to be no issue for you does it Luke.
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Jun 27, 2012 23:13:09 GMT
Shut the fuck up Rhodesy
|
|
|
Post by frasier99 on Jun 28, 2012 6:30:11 GMT
Warning to Beardy... stay off here. merry go rounds will only make you sick
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 28, 2012 6:38:23 GMT
Warning to Beardy... stay off here. merry go rounds will only make you sick PSiffle what do you know I bet you haven't even got a goldfish ;)t
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 8:07:29 GMT
public finances were in better shape in 2007 than ten years previously. Better shape, how do you explain that, Squareball? How do you explain a debt at least 4% of GDP lower in 2007 than 10 years earlier despite all that BORROWING for six years!? Oh for fucks sake Sifu. You can't help yourself can you. Yet again there's no context around your stats. In 1997 the debt as a % of GDP was on a downward trend. The downward trend continued for 4-5 years (as Labour pretty much rode the inherited economy) before it began to rise again. So, for the 25th fucking time, debt as a % of GDP began to rise. Was this because we were in recession and had to borrow to maintain services? No. GDP and tax receipts were also rising which, when considered against rising debt as a % of GDP, makes your 1997\2007 argument futile. Labour use your way of 'thinking' when comparing economic stats when Thatcher came into power. Ooooh look how bad X and Y was in 1981 under those Tory bastards. Labour completely ignore the fact that when Thatcher inherited X and Y the trend was in the wrong direction. Nothing like using a snapshot stat to try and argue your point hey? Here's a terrible mass genocide analogy for you. Under the Tories the number of stupid people killed by the state in 1997 was 1000 but on a downward trend as they'd decided to end this terrible practice. Labour got into power and continued with the Tory practice until 2002 when only 250 people were killed annually. Then, Labour got nasty. They decided to kill more people again and by the time we reached 2007 they were killing 900 people a year. People like you then think it's really clever to brag about the fact that Labour were only killing 900 people a year in 2007 against the Tory stat of 1000 in 1997.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 28, 2012 9:13:29 GMT
However you seem to conclude that this increase, any increase maybe?, equals reckless overspending. It doesn't. Debt and deficit levels were nothing out of the ordinary in historic terms, check the figures. No I’m not. It wasn’t as if the money was spent on things that would create us more money though is it? That is what investment is. (We looked at an article on this topic from someone who worked for Brown in the Treasury but I think you ignored that as well) Go and find the governments that increase the deficits year on year on year, some 8/9 years after a recession then? Whether it’s acceptable or not also depends on circumstances. It’s not blind prejudice, it’s analysis. The only problem being that you don’t want to apply it because it makes New Labour look like the utter car crash that it was. That is why when we are compared with other countries, the IFS show how badly positioned our country was. That is why many of these credible sources say that this was a major part of the problem. At least my stance matches the analysis of the credible sources that you were insistent on showing. Your stance is basically making excuses as to why they were so shit and applying no context whatsoever. Clearly, you as a Tory, as you have openly stated, want to pay less tax and have shitty public services, presumably because you can afford to go private, pay for private education and don't give a flying fuck about those who can't and have to rely on the state for health and education provision. I could be completely wrong but I'm guessing this is why you want to keep your money in your pocket and don't give a fuck about the quality of the public sector. However, the majority of people in this country don't want that. Even your mates in the Tory Party say they don't want that (although their actions speak louder than their words). Even your mates in the Tory Party admitted (and I can find the quote if you want) that investment in the NHS was needed. Admitted this even after 18 years of Tory government I’ve answered this before. I don’t mind. What I want the country to vote for is a party that offers financially viable choices. I’m not saying that spending money on the NHS was wrong or not required either...merely that it had to be paid for. We haven’t been able to afford some of the things that we want for some time yet Labour bombed on regardless and now even argue against the most minor of cuts. "National finances are not seen like a household"? A moment ago, it was "a nation is like a business that is like a household". Some people don’t, I do. Don’t be a tit as its fairly obvious that I haven’t gone back on what I said. In general terms on PFI, as I’ve said before, I have no issue with the PFI idea as long as they are well negotiated and taken account of. This whole comparison around PFI and the banking bailouts show where the blind spots truly lie. If the impact of the debt from PFI is pretty small, then the actual banking bailouts are even less. Again, did you read the NAO comments? We are not having to slash public services to fund the banking bailouts – the interest has so far been paid out of fees by the banks. Finally you acknowledge the depth of the recession - what was it you said earlier? "I suppose the size of the recession is to blame" or words to that effect in an effort to ridicule its impact. I truly wonder how much of this you actually understand as being connected and having an impact in various areas! Do you really think that an earth-shattering, unprecedented, historically huge 6% increase in debt between 2001 and 2007 (ooh 1% a year, out of control, fellas, out of control, = reckless overspending) which was then dwarfed by the increases post 2008 was caused by anything other than a combination of the massive output losses (11-13% of GDP), welfare increases, higher debt interest payments etc all as a result of the crisis and recession!? That combination of factors (even excluding the financial interventions) is what caused the figures to balloon not reckless overspending . And you just look at the figures post 2008 and see reckless overspending do you? It’s the same old shit – a failure to recognise context and many of the IFS conclusions and ignoring ‘things’ that we’ve already gone through. I look at the figures between 2001 and 2007 and do see reckless overspending (or at least reckless funding of that spending by borrowing rather than taxing) when all was well with the economy – which you admit to because we couldn’t dare tell the electorate that they have to pay for stuff. I see reckless overspending from 2008 with the creation of 300k jobs. I see output loss in GDP today of about 4% when compared to 2008 (where the US and Germany are back to those levels - the US and Germany threw more money at it – the former will hit troubles soon enough and the latter earned that right) because of the global recession and the fact that our banks were in a poor position – those economic performance geeks blame Brown for fucking up the regulation of the banks (and we can see with our own eyes how in 1997 he banged on about reforms and the necessity for the changes that he made). We see how households had broadly borrowed up to the hilt – and it is believed that much of this loss is down to consumer spending households have to re-adjust. New Labour benefited from this build up of debt but still wanked the money away and had to borrow even more. We see that manufacturing couldn’t make up for those losses because many of those jobs had been crowded out by public sector quantity and above average pay – it simply stifles private investment and the profits that follow. Of course you do because you can't ever see a problem with right wing ideology. I’ve never read such a cop out in all my life. Debt based are economies are the way of the world which we are part of. There are good bits and bad bits in most things but it’s irrelevant – you simply have to do the best you can in it. Rather than looking at Hampton’s ‘It’s all shit argument’ I’d prefer looking at the more objective.... Lord Vallance, chairman of the House of Lords economics affairs committee. [Tasked to look into the causes of the Crisis] 'It is clear that in the UK the tripartite authorities of the Bank of England, FSA, and the Treasury failed to maintain financial stability, in part because it was not clear who was in charge in a crisis and because not enough attention was paid to macro-prudential supervision - oversight of the aggregate effect of the actions of individual banks - in the period when 'boom and bust occured' We need to acknowledge that the regulations and their application contributed to the crisis, and made it worse when it came, because among other things, they had a pro-cyclical bias, did not pay enough attention to liquidity, and were wide open to regulatory arbitrage' and... Sir Martin Jacomb. Economics Affairs Commitee. 'The decision to make the Bank of England independent handed most regulatory supervision to the FSA, but the committee found there was an inadequate definition of roles and responsibilities at all three constituent parts of the system It is to be hoped that the government will accept that the tripartite arrangement was a mistake, and that responsibility for the stability of the financial system must be entrusted to an agency with no other role, an agency within the Bank of England which can use its powers to discharge the duty effectively and efficiently. Only then can we be confident that the financial system will be better able to withstand the next financial crisis.' You accept this debt based system though don’t you? Aren’t you arguing for Labour to take on even more debt than the Tories. If it’s so wrong and dysfuntional, why are your promoting it? Why aren't you promoting something more radical like Jack's magic beans? I take it simply ignoring uncomfortable questions is acceptable now then? How does 13 minus four equal 13, mate? Fuck me, how many times do I need to answer it. I’ve already said that 13 - 4 = 9. The 4 came when they followed Tory spending plans, 9 when they did their own thing. Unfortunately, the 9 came at the end and included a recession that they never thought would come because they had solved boom and bust all their very own. That is why, sadly, after 13 years of their government, you can only look at it as a bag of wank. Yep, we may have shiny new hospitals and schools but can’t afford to run them.
|
|
|
Post by frasier99 on Jun 28, 2012 9:27:16 GMT
Warning to Beardy... stay off here. merry go rounds will only make you sick PSiffle what do you know I bet you haven't even got a goldfish ;)t what ??? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 17:28:51 GMT
Good to see this thread going strong. The projected rate of growth of this thread will go on and on and on...... Don't let those bastards drag you down Sif Bit harsh, RMB72, mate, calling the rightwingers on here bastards . You keeping up with the roundabout developments your way? Thought it was all going to kick off at one point, it even made the national papers ;D.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 17:52:55 GMT
public finances were in better shape in 2007 than ten years previously. Better shape, how do you explain that, Squareball? How do you explain a debt at least 4% of GDP lower in 2007 than 10 years earlier despite all that BORROWING for six years!? Oh for fucks sake Sifu. You can't help yourself can you. Yet again there's no context around your stats. In 1997 the debt as a % of GDP was on a downward trend. The downward trend continued for 4-5 years (as Labour pretty much rode the inherited economy) before it began to rise again. So, for the 25th fucking time, debt as a % of GDP began to rise. Was this because we were in recession and had to borrow to maintain services? No. GDP and tax receipts were also rising which, when considered against rising debt as a % of GDP, makes your 1997\2007 argument futile. Labour use your way of 'thinking' when comparing economic stats when Thatcher came into power. Ooooh look how bad X and Y was in 1981 under those Tory bastards. Labour completely ignore the fact that when Thatcher inherited X and Y the trend was in the wrong direction. Nothing like using a snapshot stat to try and argue your point hey? Here's a terrible mass genocide analogy for you. Under the Tories the number of stupid people killed by the state in 1997 was 1000 but on a downward trend as they'd decided to end this terrible practice. Labour got into power and continued with the Tory practice until 2002 when only 250 people were killed annually. Then, Labour got nasty. They decided to kill more people again and by the time we reached 2007 they were killing 900 people a year. People like you then think it's really clever to brag about the fact that Labour were only killing 900 people a year in 2007 against the Tory stat of 1000 in 1997. Seriously, what the fuck are you on about? Is that genocide argument genuinely the best you can do? It's got to be one of the most fatuous pieces of political comment I think I've ever seen, almost as bad as suggesting we've all got one tit and one bollock ;D. I can't quite believe I'm going to comment on it but anyway, I especially love the way you simply accept the fact that the Tories were killing 1000 people pre 1997. But seriously, what on earth has that got to do with spending and debt? I hate to say it, but it's a tad more complicated than your risible analogy! There's every context I'm afraid, a lot more than you guys ever manage to come up with. To spell it out again for you: the majority of people in our country want a decent publicly funded NHS and education system. After 18 years of Tory rule the public services were in a woeful state - even the Tories recognised investment was needed. No surprises so far I trust. So this is where money went. Now, even after spending that money and improving services (oh yes they did!) our debt was smaller than the one they inherited. Yes, it went up from 2001 because of the above spending THAT WAS NEEDED ;D. But even by 2007 it was nothing out of the ordinary, look at the figures. What's so hard to understand, seriously? If you can explain to me how that equals reckless overspending, I'm all ears. Personally I think getting a debt down by 6% of GDP over ten years is "not too shabby" ;D. The context of our debt and deficit pre 2007 compared to other countries is probably that they weren't faced with having to rebuild neglected public services. So despite having to do that (which explains where the money went (for the most part)) all you guys ever see is this rise in debt from 2001 to 2007. You just look at that rise, forget what it was for and why, forget the debt figures previously and conclude reckless overspending. The finances were in better shape, simple as that. Painful for you, but true. Squareball, a question for you. Please answer. We've had recessions for just 8 out of the last 37 years. In other words, 29 years of non-recession. We've had debt (borrowings) for all of those years, we've had deficits for all but 7 of those years. Your logic appears to be that increasing a debt at all outside of a recession is symptomatic of poor government regardless of whether there's any need to improve public services. How do you explain the above stats?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 19:03:27 GMT
Mcf, your IFS report calls the money spent on the public services investment! I guess to you investment is only investment if you make money directly out of it, not something like improving healthcare or education, right? An utter 13 oops 9 year car crash which reduced our debt level despite investing in public services compared to one which increased our debt level, raised taxes and public services got worse. You're great at this analysis lark, mate! You keep going on about lack of context, yet you blame our post 2008 debt on Labour's spending! And act almost as if the financial crisis and associated 30s style recession is irrelevant. Perhaps you can't see the step change in the figures there, who knows. Or just don't understand where it comes from. Or just can't bear to separate out having better public finances in 2007 "I’ve answered this before. I don’t mind. What I want the country to vote for is a party that offers financially viable choices. I’m not saying that spending money on the NHS was wrong or not required either...merely that it had to be paid for. We haven’t been able to afford some of the things that we want for some time yet Labour bombed on regardless and now even argue against the most minor of cuts."Yes, me too. But in contrast you want lower taxes and shittier public services - you openly said so! How does that equal what you said above? You're all over the place again! And do please explain to me why we've never actually cleared all our public debt before spending money? Could it be because some level of debt is actually affordable, sustainable, call it what you want. Could that be it do you think? Do you think that's why Major's debt was considered "none too shabby" by you and middle ranking elsewhere (IFS?) which makes Labour's lower debt ten years later what exactly? Very very bad? Only in the mind of one who hates Labour and loves the Tories! You never did get round to explaining how "a nation is like a business that is like a household"! I'd give up on this too, mate, just like the 13 years is now 9. Go on, give it a go. Apply some simplistic nonsense to it! Ok, if you think giving £124bn in cash in one year is not very impactful then I despair! That was about one fifth of annual govt spending again! Come on, mcf, get with it! But I'm aware that the cash we gave the banks is a small portion of the overall impact of the whole financial crisis and recession. I've explained already where the remaining hole in our finances comes from. 11-13% of GDP loss ring any bells? PFI debt is just FYD's trivial (and pointless ;D) obsession. The reason we're slashing public services is because of the massive recession caused by the financial crisis which also required a shitload of govt money to keep the banks solvent and the combined impact all this had on our debt and deficit. "It’s the same old shit – a failure to recognise context and many of the IFS conclusions and ignoring ‘things’ that we’ve already gone through.
I look at the figures between 2001 and 2007 and do see reckless overspending (or at least reckless funding of that spending by borrowing rather than taxing) when all was well with the economy – which you admit to because we couldn’t dare tell the electorate that they have to pay for stuff.
I see reckless overspending from 2008 with the creation of 300k jobs."Yep, thanks for finally admitting it. You see reckless overspending where the public finances are in better shape. You say I'm ignoring things yet you just won't answer my questions, presumably because you can't! I'll try again: why wasn't the debt much much higher after a decade of reckless overspending than a historically low 36% of GDP pre financial crisis? Shouldn't it have been much much higher if it was so unaffordable and reckless? Please answer (again)! You see recklessness in 300k jobs yet you've previously admitted you've absolutely no idea (surprise surprise) what this actually cost (other than, what was it?, a very very large proportion ;D). Laughable, really is, mate. I find it amazing that on the one hand we are "all part of a debt based economy, it's the way of the world" and yet earlier even a perfectly manageable 6% of GDP rise in our debt is "very very bad". There's just no coherence here at all. I think someone at the very heart of the banking system which was "the key transmission mechanism remember" would have a pretty good insight into what went wrong, no? But you prefer the LibDem Lord Vallance for his objectivity ;D. But no-one's arguing that rightwing deregulation and free market laissez-faire approach to banking was anything other than responsible for the financial crisis. I happily accept that the regulations were wide open to regulatory arbitrage (ie light touch), said it all along. But you're wriggling to blame Brown as some sort of idiosyncratic non free marketeer as if he operated independently from any sort of ideology! He was well into it! Hallelujah, 9 years and counting. Finally. Like blood from a stone this! if you were sensible enough to accept your own IFS report we could even go from 2007 onwards and see what that throws up. You might have some decent points there provided you can quantify the 300k jobs impact! Your basic argument boils down to one thing and one thing only, a belief that if I point out any uncomfortable bits of evidence, there's no "context". That's all it ever is. Over and over again. Your IFS report which shows finances in better shape after ten whole years - no context. The fact that both New Labour and Tory followed broadly rightwing economic ideology - lack of context. You've basically got no coherent answers, hence your reluctance to answer directly my questions, apart from that one word - context. It's like your get out of jail free card and hope for the best! I look forward to the next "bazingering" .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 21:14:15 GMT
Good to see this thread going strong. The projected rate of growth of this thread will go on and on and on...... Don't let those bastards drag you down Sif Bit harsh, RMB72, mate, calling the rightwingers on here bastards . You keeping up with the roundabout developments your way? Thought it was all going to kick off at one point, it even made the national papers ;D. Ah the roundabout....a bit like this thread. It's gone now and Leek can move forward. I bet you can't wait for the next brand of Labour party, to spend money we aint got ;D. I see house repossession's are at a all time high....even at record low rates. Thank god I bought my house in the Tory years ...I hope you did as well
|
|
|
Post by rhodesy on Jun 28, 2012 22:32:37 GMT
Blimey, you rightwingers have got your knickers right in a twist today haven't you ;D At least you're acknowledging that you actually PM'ed me, Rhodesy, it's a start! You certainly don't sound at all angry or hacked off about anything, Rhodesy, that doesn't come across at all in your post, no sirree! I must admit when you initially PM'ed me, I did think it a little odd. I wondered whether you were just going to subsequently post stuff on here so I thought I'd be very "economical with the actualite" (Look it up, Alex. I'm afraid it is a political reference and I know you know very little about politics and give even less of a fuck, despite pretending otherwise and regularly telling us how wars fuel the economy ;D, but give it a go. You might learn something. Or you could just ask your dad! It was all part of Major's great set of cards). So imagine my surprise when first your dad mentioned me "grooming" you through PMs (nicely ignoring the fact that you initiated the conversation - why does that latest piece of incorrectness not surprise me in the slightest ) and now here you are quoting what I said precisely as I'd previously suspected! Two things - one: it's a good job I was circumspect about what I said and two: it's the kind of thing you expect from rightwingers when they start losing the argument. I'd hoped you were better than that and initially I was quite impressed, but it appears, sadly, that I was wrong. Like father like son, eh. Cut from the same ideational cloth indeed. Good luck with getting into any Uni, red brick or not Think you're going to need to wise up a lot over the next few years if you're going to get anywhere. Hahaha, for someone supposedly (self proclaimed) so intelligent you have a severe lack of humour.. At what point did I accuse you of grooming? ;D My father was clearly joking. "At least you're acknowledging that you actually PM'ed me, Rhodesy, it's a start!". It's a start? What are you suggesting I've lied about? What motive do you think I have? I've never said you initiated it you absolute weirdo. I sent you a sentence (which I have actually quoted...), you sent back a nigh on essay talking yourself up to a 16 year old, like I'd be impressed. ;D "it's the kind of thing you expect from rightwingers when they start losing the argument." I'm not even arguing anything hahaha! What supposed argument am I losing? ;D Typical left winger, so altruistic... If I wanted to boast about the standing of my parents, trust me they would shit all over you. And they both went to ex polytechnics
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 29, 2012 6:22:47 GMT
Rosie i think you hold me in way, way too high regard.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 9:07:03 GMT
Sifu,
The basis of everyone of your replies is that everything was woeful under the Tories and, reading between the lines, we can never spend too much on public services. Services weren't woeful in 1997 and I'll accept that more money needed to be spent but nowhere near the huge vote grabbing amounts that Labour pissed away over 13 years.
The spending and debt was growing to extraordinary levels. Remember that Labour's economy was reliant on borrowing (including personal borrowing) and debt on a scale that we'd never seen before.
Rising GDP (remember Brown boasting about x quarters of consecutive growth) and rising borrowing as a % of GDP with not one bit of it saved for bad times was always going to end in tears.
Labour's even softer touch on the financial sector is now coming home to roost. The shitty FSA didn't have a fucking clue what was going on and I'd bet that a bagful of incidents were 'swept under the carpet' during Labour's tenure to keep the boom booming. Notice again that our lefty\socialist friends are spitting fire at the banks now that their favourite party is out of power (after they've happily spent the proceeds of a decades worth of financial skullduggery).
We're never going to agree on the core arguments as we're repeating the same economic\political pish over and over again. We'll also never know where our economy would have gone without the crash but a crash of some sort was inevitable. We were borrowing too much against a dodgy economy. Unfortunately the Labour party have never been able to curb spending as they're just too bloody nice and, once voted out, maintain core political support by accusing the Tories of being nasty. This is why I'll never believe that Labour were going to reverse their spending policies.
It's nice to see that you've eventually reverted to type by referring to woeful public services and the need to maintain public spending as this is the sort of 'think of the children' bollocks that Labour use when times are hard. Maybe it's a sign that you're running out of excuses?
Remember folks, we can cut public spending, reduce the number of public sector employees, cut public pensions, salaries, bonuses and get the public\private balance back to normal levels without seeing people dead on the street, the return of child chimney sweeps, smallpox, work houses and any other Dickensian scene you can imagine. Whenever you hear this shit you need to understand that it's coming from a whining, whinging, unionised public sector worker whose only real interest is his own wage\pension\retirement date (delete as appropriate) or a Labour party member.
But, as you've mentioned before Sifu, you don't think that we were\are spending too much. Unfortunately for you, the likes of me and the vast majority of the private sector believe that we are and that something has to change.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 10:05:58 GMT
Bit harsh, RMB72, mate, calling the rightwingers on here bastards . You keeping up with the roundabout developments your way? Thought it was all going to kick off at one point, it even made the national papers ;D. Ah the roundabout....a bit like this thread. It's gone now and Leek can move forward. I bet you can't wait for the next brand of Labour party, to spend money we aint got ;D. I see house repossession's are at a all time high....even at record low rates. Thank god I bought my house in the Tory years ...I hope you did as well Leek can certainly move forward...into the 20th century at last Did you see this by the way, comedy gold! Best town in Staffordshire, you say? I can't dispute that, mate
|
|