|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 10:45:50 GMT
At last, a little bit more sensible approach, Squareball, decent post until the silly rant at the end. If you could only cut out the daft analogies we might have a decent discussion. No I don't think that about the Tories. And I actually think that is a mental block the rightwingers on here just can't get past. They assume I hate the Tories or think everything they ever did is bad simply because I find it fairly easy to show that the criticisms they apply to New Labour's period of office either don't stand up when you look at the figures or don't take into account the requirement for investment in public services or can be equally applied to previous Tory administrations but aren't. For example, where have I said anything about great regulation of the financial sector? There was no effective regulation. As a get out mcf argues that Brown's idiosyncratic approach to regulating was the problem, whereas most people (including that reference I quoted above which provided a very good analysis of Labour's economic policy both pre and post financial crisis) accepts that it was the continuation of a right wing light touch approach to regulation that helped cause the problems. Yet this always seems to get lost in the red mist that appears to descend among you rightwingers - it's Sifuluke he hates the Tories. And don't read between the lines - I'll say it here: I don't think we can never spend too much on public services at all. I want to see them improve, I want us to raise taxes to fund them like they sensibly do in places like Germany and Denmark. I think that's difficult in a conservative country like the UK (England especially). Which is why I keep asking you rightwingers how you would fund a decent publicly owned NHS and education system etc, which the majority of the public wants, while still believing that taxes can remain low. It's nonsense I'm afraid. But getting back to the point, the debt figures pre 2007 are really nothing out of the ordinary. And that money went on the above services which even the Tories admitted needed investment. Can you really not see that? So if you've got shit public services (and finally, as you've said above, we seem to be agreeing that we want better ones, although I'm still not sure about mcf, he flip flops about on this from one post to the next ), how do you improve them to a 21st century level of expectation and save money for a downturn, the size of which you can't predict, at the same time? (Remember also that both Labour and Tory bought into the belief that things would carry on as before. You might think this is daft in hindsight. But it's a fact that this was the prevailing consensus back in 2007 and is the reason for the projected spending plans for the next four years). "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)."Yes, light touch regulation was to blame. This, again, was bought into by both parties ie they were both wrong! Is that so hard to stomach or must you just blame Labour? Note also, how with every passing week or so a new story unfolds about banking malpractice. Currently it's Barclays fixing the Libor! Deregulation never works and always leads to people trying to get away with what they can. You may never believe that Labour were going to curb their spending but that was what Darling was planning, believe it or not. Mcf posted the link which said he thought "we had reached the limit of what we should be spending" [by 2007 I think] and the Tories endorsed their next four yearly plan. No-one will convince you otherwise if you're not willing to believe it but those are the facts of what was planned at the time on both sides. "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?"Oh dear, and there was me thinking you acknowledged the need to improve public services earlier. Maybe I was wrong. Do you not think they needed improving now? "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."Bit of a daft analogy because none of those Dickensian things would return regardless of how drastically things were cut. There's legislation against most of them! However, are you noticing the food queues in Greece, the fact that the suicide rate has rocketed, the soup kitchens etc etc. You might want to keep an eye on Spain too. Of course, things aren't as bad over here, because, guess what, we didn't get into the kind of debt the Greeks did despite such a reckless overspending decade ! But you should bear in mind that we've only had about 15% of the planned cuts so far...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 11:27:14 GMT
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 Oh ah it's a fantastic video ;D soundcloud.com/modern-wave-studio/dance-track-dedicated-to-leek ;D
|
|
|
Post by rhodesy on Jun 29, 2012 11:47:55 GMT
Rosie i think you hold me in way, way too high regard. Might have been talking about Mum.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 29, 2012 11:54:09 GMT
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!
It didn’t reduce our debt level. From 2001 it increased every single year and left us with public services that are unsustainable. That is why the hospitals are in trouble. That is why Labour where even saying that they would have to cut the deficit – they answered their own questions – and that was even before the recession landed. That got badly caught out because Brown had no idea what was going on in the insane belief that he had solved boom and bust.
Did you find a government that borrowed for 6-7 years and increased the debt, some 8-9 years after a recession (where the economy was improving) in recent times by the way? You keep saying it was nothing out of the ordinary so did you find one?
The Tories did reduce the debt level.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 12:37:34 GMT
Sifu,
The problem with our public sector is that it's a political gaming ball.
No matter how much we spend, it needs more. No matter how much we try to make it more efficient through change, we get strikes. If a government spends an extra £100 billion over 10 years in order to fund a rebuild\improvement but then proceeds to cut the funding it's shouted down in horror.
Somehow, and I've no idea how it can be done (without privatisation), the entire public sector needs to move further away from core politics and parties.
And this is my big issue with Labour - they use the public sector and services to drive their political machine. They unionise the workforce and they have a natural and obvious urge to increase public funding with more of an eye on votes than value for money or genuine improvement.
I'd argue that pay, benefits or working hours is behind almost every public sector strike but they always manage to shoehorn a tale around services been affected or taken away even if this isn't actually the case.
If my pay drops by 5% there's no reason why I can't provide the same level of service or delivery. For some reason though, in the public sector, a 5% pay cut will result in armegeddon which everyone knows is bollocks but you can bet your bottom dollar that Labour and the unions will turn it into a crisis.
Labour spin the yarn that the Tories don't care about hospitals, schools, welfare etc but this is simply an easy vote winner. All parties care about these services but certain parties try to spend within their means and try not to get caught in a trap where increased public sector spending becomes the key to reelection.
The key to any future Labour election campaigns or governments is to clearly link increases in public sector spending with direct taxation. Let's see what the voters think then.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 16:12:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 16:51:59 GMT
mcf, no it didn't reduce the debt level you're right. On ukpublicspending it says 42% of GDP in 1997 to 36% of GDP in 2007. No reduction whatsoever! Very, very bad that for a decade of reckless overspending! Awful. And then a rise from 2008 to 2011 of about 23% of GDP. All down to overspending no doubt! I mean nothing else happened that's still affecting banks and countries around the world did it! Nothing at all ;D The debt and deficit levels up to 2007 were nothing out of the ordinary historically. In fact they were some of the lowest they been since before WW1! So out of control that! They would have been if the spending had been reckless surely, or are debt and deficit not actually affected by reckless overspending in mcf world. Personally I'd have thought it would show up in the figures ;D "Did you find a government that borrowed for 6-7 years and increased the debt, some 8-9 years after a recession (where the economy was improving) in recent times by the way? You keep saying it was nothing out of the ordinary so did you find one?"Found a fair few, mate, yep. Fill your boots! stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=36382#Including France and Germany. And ours went down over that ten year period to 2007 ! Bit more complicated than you understand this, ain't it And look at all those massive increases from 2007 to 2010. Quite some coincidence of reckless overspending all around the world presumably?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 17:32:49 GMT
Sifu, The problem with our public sector is that it's a political gaming ball. No matter how much we spend, it needs more. No matter how much we try to make it more efficient through change, we get strikes. If a government spends an extra £100 billion over 10 years in order to fund a rebuild\improvement but then proceeds to cut the funding it's shouted down in horror. Somehow, and I've no idea how it can be done (without privatisation), the entire public sector needs to move further away from core politics and parties. And this is my big issue with Labour - they use the public sector and services to drive their political machine. They unionise the workforce and they have a natural and obvious urge to increase public funding with more of an eye on votes than value for money or genuine improvement. I'd argue that pay, benefits or working hours is behind almost every public sector strike but they always manage to shoehorn a tale around services been affected or taken away even if this isn't actually the case. If my pay drops by 5% there's no reason why I can't provide the same level of service or delivery. For some reason though, in the public sector, a 5% pay cut will result in armegeddon which everyone knows is bollocks but you can bet your bottom dollar that Labour and the unions will turn it into a crisis. Labour spin the yarn that the Tories don't care about hospitals, schools, welfare etc but this is simply an easy vote winner. All parties care about these services but certain parties try to spend within their means and try not to get caught in a trap where increased public sector spending becomes the key to reelection. The key to any future Labour election campaigns or governments is to clearly link increases in public sector spending with direct taxation. Let's see what the voters think then. Good post. Yes I agree to an extent. But added to that, and equally if not more important, taxation is a political gaming ball too. Your funding argument holds water unless we raise taxes to properly fund these organisations. They do this on the continent and everyone grumbles but if you actually ask them they are genuinely proud that they have effective public services even in small towns and villages. This is basically mcf's blindspot on things - he doesn't see investment in terms other than how much money we get back from every pound invested. It's very difficult to measure return on health and education outputs. Things work well in places like Germany, Denmark, Sweden etc because they are properly funded by all for the benefit of all. We do neither. We don't fund things publicly and we try to provide public services run for profit by the private sector, it's daft imo. The private sector doesn't give a shit about providing a good or responsible service, it only cares about profits (see the banks). It's no coincidence that recently a study of care homes found that poor service was twice as likely to be found in the privately run ones than the NHS ones. No fucking shit! I think we need a much more honest debate about tax and the public sector and other aspects of government. I'd start this with education. It's pretty plain on here (and this isn't a dig at anyone, although Rhodesy's fiery temperament may go off once again ) that most people on the Oatcake don't give a fuck about the very thing which actually directly affects their very lives - politics! They don't understand, they don't care and they don't care that they don't understand. I'd try to improve this by introducing politics as a core subject in school. Why not? We already have RE which is chocolate teapot time imo! Of course not everyone would be interested but that applies to all subjects and you might get a more enlightened populace with at least the basic understandings of left, right, Starkiller etc! You might find that people are no longer so easy to dupe and have more interest in what goes on? That's got to be a good thing hasn't it? I think that's a bit cynical about Labour and public funding. I'm not sure it is all about votes although I'm not naive enough to suggest that I'd guess most people in the public sector are not more sympathetic towards Labour than Tory. But you have to remember that the public sector is just one fifth of the workforce, and probably less than that of the electorate so it can't all be public sector workers who vote for them. I think generally they do want to improve public services. This is traditionally where they spend money. Traditionally the Tories don't and cut taxes. As mcf compassionately says re Tory funding of the NHS and tax cuts, "some people went private and some had fags and ale." There's been a public sector pay freeze for years without armageddon though. It's not necessarily pay cuts and freezes which are the problem, it's the redundancies and job losses which are most likely to affect public services, I'd say. I'm torn between whether the Tories do actually care about hospitals and schools to be honest. I'd like to think they do but the NHS reforms make me wonder. If you look at their historic spending patterns I wonder too! Look at the spending patterns for healthcare, education, welfare and transport on ukpublicspending and compare them under Labour and Tory (% GDP remember ). Now you might argue that this is spending within their means which is why it went down under the Tories on nearly all those fronts. Fair enough. I'd also state that this is why education, healthcare etc deteriorated and needed investment after 18 years of Tory rule (even the Tories accept this). So how do you achieve both without raising taxes? Good post though, mate, genuinely.
|
|
|
Post by iconoclastimatic on Jul 1, 2012 19:45:42 GMT
I think there is a difference between education and intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jul 2, 2012 7:08:02 GMT
I thought we were talking about the UK given all your ‘historically speaking’ stance!? So you didn’t find any past UK governments that borrowed for 6-7 years and increased the debt, some 8-9 years after a recession (where the economy was improving)?
You didn’t need to go to all that trouble on the OECD figures.....the IFS have already compared the performance of the UK to other countries on those figures
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.
The only reason why the 10 years from 1997 to 2007 is an improvement is because of those early years from Tory spending plans.....and you want to use that period to show how great Labour were. ;D
You really want it all ways up don’t you....you don’t want to factor in the 90s recession...you don’t want to think about Labour following Tory spending plans....you ignore all the comments about overspending, fiscal drift, rapid increase in spending....yet it’s all about the global recession now. Amazing.
Good job we have the IFS, these economic performance nerds etc...what would we have done without telling us the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2012 12:19:57 GMT
;D Nice dodge, mcf, nice dodge. Bit like all my questions you simply won't even attempt to answer! Funnily enough, yes there is plenty of evidence of UK governments doing just what you criticise New Labour for, including, wait for it, John Major ;D and Neville Chamberlain (another Tory in case you need to check ). Btw, Labour's Ramsey Macdonald reduced the debt in your highly specific set of circumstances as did Margaret Thatcher. But, leaving that amusing interlude to one side, probably to be immediately completely forgotten all about, the fact that previous debt levels were at well over 100% of GDP right up until 1961, does highlight what I said re historic debt and deficit levels being nothing out of the ordinary don't you think? That was the point in case you didn't get it! While we're on the subject - what do you think about your Rhodesy's claim that "wars fuel the economy"? Debt at 238% of GDP in 1947. Given that you consider a debt reduction of 6% of GDP from 42 to 36 over a ten year period "very very bad", I take it you think your lad is spot on the money with that bazingering! No doubt I'm missing some context there - the war maybe? Despite the fact that it's the war that we're claiming fuels the economy, that'll probably be the context I'm ignoring! "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.
The only reason why the 10 years from 1997 to 2007 is an improvement is because of those early years from Tory spending plans.....and you want to use that period to show how great Labour were."So you finally acknowledge that there was an improvement ;D, yet the debt is also at the same time "very very bad". You really are all over the place in your desperation to hate anything to do with the Labour government, mcf! I'm happy with that IFS report. It quite clearly states, even taking into account the deficit which is the bit you cling to so desperately, that the public finances were in better shape than a decade earlier! How could they be after so much reckless overspending? I've never said "how great Labour were" but thanks for proving my point about how you rightwingers assume I love Labour and hate the Tories. All I do is point out the enormous holes in your arguments, which are copious to be honest. I think your basic problem is you just don't understand any of this in anything like a joined up, coherent way. For example, so far you've said you'd prefer lower taxes and shittier public services; you've then argued that having higher taxes and shittier public services is part of a great set of cards (presumably because this was done under a Tory govt and you simply can't bring yourself to consider that Major's govt was in fact pretty shit - like most political analysts do) and then go on to say that spending money on the NHS was not wrong nor not required in complete contradiction of your original position! And then you go and post the following "You really want it all ways up don’t you....you don’t want to factor in the 90s recession...you don’t want to think about Labour following Tory spending plans....you ignore all the comments about overspending, fiscal drift, rapid increase in spending....yet it’s all about the global recession now. Amazing."And the above is just a few posts after writing this: " 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."And this from someone who thinks I don't want to consider the early 90s recession but chooses to ignore the impact of the one caused by the financial crisis in any assessment of Labour's figures and has even tried to ridicule its size and impact! So, a decade of reckless overspending results in a decrease of 6% of GDP in debt. Or, in mcf world, we'll forget about the first four years of New Labour because they were ok despite being part of 13 years of utter utter wank, they are actually wank and ok at one and the same time ;D. So, 9 years of utter wank now. Then debt went up by 6% of GDP to a level nothing out of the ordinary, (as we have seen: eg over 100% in 1961), over the following six years as part of an overall decrease during Labour's term of office pre financial crisis. (Labour's term of office is now reducing to 2001-2010, unless we're taking into account any regulatory changes in 1997, then it's back up to 13 again!) Debt and deficit levels ballooned after the financial crisis - but this is apparently nothing to do with the size and depth of the recession anymore cos it's "amazing" that someone should consider a 16% of GDP increase in the two years until Labour's exit in any way indicative of anything more impactful than a period of spending three times as long which only added 6% of GDP to debt ;D Truly, all over the place! Go on, bleat about context again!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2012 12:23:03 GMT
I think there is a difference between education and intelligence. Very true. The fact that some folk could only get an education at ex-polytechnics is indicative of their level of intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jul 2, 2012 13:50:15 GMT
John Major went through a recession so how on earth could he meet the criteria? The deficit was reducing by 1994 (although debt still went up to 1996)
Well done Thatcher too.
I don’t consider a reduction of 6% of GDP from 42 to 36 to be ‘very, very bad’
I consider an increase from 30.9 to 37.2 (2000 to 2007) to be ‘very, very bad’ once they had stopped with the Tory spending plans and they started throwing money away.
There is no point answering your other questions as they are just pathetic attempts to divert time away from the key issues.
Let’s stick to the facts eh!
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.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2012 9:10:42 GMT
;D Wow! Well done Major, well done Thatcher,well done for ignoring Ramsey Macdonald! Not one eyed at all are you? Also, well done for ignoring your original point! You don't consider a reduction of 6% of GDP in our debt over ten years to be very, very bad? Then why did you post this in reply to my question how bad was the debt pre 2007? "Very, very bad considering that we hadn't had a recession for 15 years and it had being increasing for the last 7 years..ever since they stopped with the Tory spending plans."So, despite the obvious fact that our debt pre 2007 was nothing out of the ordinary historically and just a couple of posts previously saying spending money on the NHS was in fact not wrong nor not needed (and health and education are where the majority of the money went, look it up!) you've now decided that Labour was throwing money away and that's why the debt went up to a whole 6% of GDP lower than the one they inherited to a level not especially high! How does this all fit together in mcf world? Does it make sense even to you? I think you're employing the FYD approach to discussion: don't need to remember anything, don't need to prove anything ;D Perhaps I should add don't need to be in any way consistent with my thinking! "There is no point answering your other questions as they are just pathetic attempts to divert time away from the key issues."My God, that's so childishly limp-wristed. I hope Rhodesy takes after his mum or he's got no chance of getting into Uni. My questions are designed to get you to look into your lack of understanding about this whole discussion and how it all joins together. You know, coherence, context How does the Monty Python song go? "He's running away and buggering off, chickening out and doing a bunk, Brave Sir Robin" or something like that! Perhaps I could ask you to explain the link between deficit and debt since you cling so desperately to this one aspect of your IFS report as if this demonstrates reckless overspending! Go on, grow a pair and have a go. Btw, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen, heard or read the following phrase over the last few days re the latest banking scandal: "they're the ones who got us into this mess in the first place". Perhaps these commentators are all biased like you think Robert Peston is! Would've thought it would've been "Labour's reckless overspending got us into this mess in the first place if you were right, mcf, no? That's your position after all ;D "The way we [the banks] have been doing capitalism was dysfunctional". Really can't think why this senior banker came to this conclusion can you? Perhaps we need a more "objective" conclusion from a parliamentary enquiry? He knows how to look after his mates in the City does Dangerzone Dave, I'll give him that! Maybe he'll surprise me and appoint non Coalition members to the enquiry? Or perhaps he'll simply order a distancing from any conclusions and split along party lines like with the Murdoch findings?! Either way, nowt's gonna happen to his mates until 2019 so job done as far as he's concerned I suppose. Feel free to point out Brown's bigging up of the financial sector too. I'd quite agree. It's evidence of the lack of adequate regulation and free market approach he carried on with as I've said all along. I think we need RMB72 to come along with his catchphrase. Go on, RMB72, you know you want to... "I blame the........." See if you can do it! Bet you don't manage it!
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jul 3, 2012 13:09:08 GMT
Ramsey wasn’t the answer though was he. Neither was Thatcher or Major. The only name you came up with was a prime minister for 3 years that over lapped the war? So you couldn’t find anybody that consistently ran sizeable deficits in growth times and for years and years after a recession?
Then why did you post this in reply to my question how bad was the debt pre 2007?
..because the economic position that had been found in the early 2000s had been squandered. When the Tories spending plans had been followed the debt had decreased by around 11% in 5 years. It then went back up 6% in a similar number of years when Labour stated to do their own thing....and this doesn’t include PFI.
If the debt had simply gradually reduced from 42% to 36% then I’m quite sure that it wouldn’t have been accompanied with one of one of the largest structural budget deficits in the developed world. As it was, the government bedded in one good and proper where through 2000-2009, spending went from 36% to 44% of GDP.
Again, this comes back to a point that we have been over many times before – if you really want to give Brown credit for following Tory spending plans as the only part where he decreased the debt then be my guest....no wonder it doesn’t look as bad in ‘sifulukeworld’. They didn’t want to be known as the tax and spend party and so became the borrow and spend party.
If there were any weaknesses in the regulation of the banks then Brown had every opportunity to fix them...and he tried didn’t he? Didn’t he make a speech to the House of Commons talking about reform and changes that he would make immediately. It wasn’t light touch, it was an out and out fuck up of intended regulation. The tripartite system and the exclusion of asset price from monetary targeting set the scene for the bubble that he borrowed off. There were plenty of warning signs and they were all ignored.
The whole concept of solving boom and bust is idiotic in itself, never mind any one of another things that can go wrong in the world.
New Labour were entitled to spend the money on whatever they wanted as they were in government – all they had to do was a) pay for it and b) do it wisely ie not spend £50million on something that was merely £11m in value.
My position is the increased spending, the deficit, the increasing debt, the fuck of the regulation....I have you to thank as I had forgotten how shit they actually were...very useful to read the conclusions and terminology of the ‘credible sources’ that you told me to seek. Thanks.
I wouldn’t worry about Cameron too much yet, focus on the apologies of New, New Labour on immigration and the fuck of regulation to go with Darling and Blair’s ‘we spent too much’ admission and then you might get an idea of what actually happened in the 00s first.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jul 3, 2012 15:41:37 GMT
Anyone think that the completely unregulated / irresponsible behaviour of the banks ( possibly even illegal and if it's not it should be ! ) might have had something to do with the European ( yes that does include us too ) and the USA's financial fuck-up ?
no need to answer this question is rhetorical !!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2012 21:21:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2012 8:56:09 GMT
I knew you couldn't do it! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2012 10:27:51 GMT
What, mcf?! Thatcher did exactly that! Let me guess, you don't need to remember this?! Re the debt, I doubt whether anyone other than someone desperate to find something to hate Labour for would consider a 6% of GDP reduction in debt over ten years very very bad. Nor would anyone other than the above consider a debt of 36% of GDP in 2007 at all alarming! Labour's "doing their own thing" was trying to improve public services which you've variously described as "throwing money away" and "neither not needed nor wrong"! It's not my wanting to give Brown credit for the first four years of New Labour at all, I just use that to highlight the inadequacy of so many of your conclusions (13 years of wank for example, when you yourself have talked up the first four!) and the routinely contradictory nature of your thinking on spending on public services and taxation (see above). I just don't think you understand it to any depth or can put it together in a coherent way. You're right they didn't want to be known as the tax and spend party because "no-one would have moaned at them, least of all the Tories, if they had been open about taxation" would they? And, since the UK populace has bought into the myth that we can have all the quality public services we want without funding them through taxation, simply by cutting out inefficiency, are you surprised? I'm afraid it was very much light touch regulation my one-eyed friend. Here's a quote from Ed Balls from as recently as 2006: "Nothing should be done to put at risk a light touch, risk-based regulatory regime". They bought into this free market rightwing approach big time, mate, although nothing will convince you otherwise if you can't accept that rightwing economic philosophy could possibly result in anything bad happening! You've already accepted it's a rightwing approach and all you're doing now is seeking to find idiosyncracies within that approach with which to blame New Labour. But guess what? I blame New Labour too, for carrying on believing that this deregulation would not result in precisely the kind of casino lending and rate fixing the banks indulged in to the ultimate detriment of us all. Edit: this from today's PMQs. Play the clip lower down and watch Ed Balls as he tries to pretend he wasn't part of exactly the same belief system at the time! Open your eyes, mcf, or re-read that paradigm article again, New Labour and the Tories were cut from the same ideational cloth, I did tell you! www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18702653Re your quote about only spending what you can afford after your embarrassing flip flopping about on whether spending is good, bad, wrong or needed! Here's an interesting article on funding the NHS. From the IFS, possibly one of your credible sources, although I suspect this may be waning since they produced a report to show public finances had improved in the decade leading up to the financial crisis. Reckless overspending, snigger! www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/04/nhs-20-billion-pounds-2020Then consider this from the OECD. Look at the likes of those countries which ran budget surpluses (pre 2007 obviously!), Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Holland, etc and see how much tax they pay and how good their services are. Then see how much we pay. Then tell me how to fund our public services? Or are you going to shit out of this question too? www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/27/41498733.pdfFinally, have a gander at this. You'd think with all that tax these people pay they'd be well fucked off. I'm sure you would, mcf! After all, you want to pay less tax and have shittier public services, right? Perhaps it's those properly funded public services, a more equitable society, a belief in society (Thatch ), caring about the wellbeing of others instead of how much money they've got in their pockets etc. which make them feel more content about their country. Can't explain it otherwise, can you? www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/4323513/British-youths-are-most-alienated-in-Europe-new-happiness-league-table-claims.html#You never bothered to answer (again ;D) how debt and deficit actually inter-relate. I'd be grateful if you would. You're not going to run scared from a question which is directly about this discussion as well are you? It might show you how important the deficit is in affecting our debt for better or worse and why your desperation to cling to that one aspect of the IFS report you quoted looks so weak in context .
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jul 5, 2012 8:46:49 GMT
Since your so big on the Telegraph..... blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100016459/lets-give-polly-toynbee-the-britain-she-wants/...and I've already said that I'm happy with a higher tax, more public services policy. Just a preference for lower taxes and lesser public services. Ok, so your story now goes.... Thatcher ran deficits!!!! (Yes, she picked up a rather large one but ended up lowering the debt as you admit so I really have no idea why you would bring this up) Let me keep arguing over these first 3-4 years of following Tory spending plans because I can pass off Brown sending the budget surplus to yawning deficits and the doubling of the debt when he left, or 6% increase plus PFI debt to 2007 as ‘not wank’ or ‘nothing unusual’ (despite being unable to find anyone that did the same) How really it’s the fault of a populace who let themselves be fooled by a government into not taxing them. How the right wing approach just simply has to be wrong, (Totally ignore the fact that a Tory government can take a right wing approach and lower the debt) ....it couldn’t possibly be straightforward incompetence and mismanagement. Showing a clip of Ed Balls doing nothing other than nodding his head to prove ‘it was a fuck up’ . I was thinking of looking at facts that the UK’s financial services sector employs more than a million people and is a leading exporter that had a trade surplus of £36bn in 2010. By God, I wish I had known that before this debate, you would pull out a clip of a man nodding to prove how fucked up and useless this model and industry has been. Nodding and muttering would you believe...my word. ...and now after 28 pages you decide I don’t know what deficits and debts are – its that poly edewkation you see!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2012 18:07:36 GMT
That telegraph article is a neat summation of your entire approach to political and economic understanding, mcf! We'll highlight just income tax at 3.76% with a maximum top rate of 15% and then quietly acknowledge that the overall tax burden is high, but neglect to tell our readers that it's close to 50% of GDP! Or that despite this 'appalling' level of taxation they came top of the happiness table! I've often accused you of some classic doublethink but I honestly didn't think I'd ever see it in writing from your own good self! Your happy with higher taxes and good public services but also would prefer lower taxes and shitty services? Is this cos you personally are wealthy enough that you don't need to give a shit about those who aren't but don't want to actually admit that cos it's obvious it makes you look like a selfish cnut?! Re Thatcher - I guess you've forgotten already but the point you made (just a couple of posts ago!) was that Labour ran deficits through the good times and you asked who else had done this? Thatch? Not as big I agree, but that'll be why investment in the NHS and education were so desperately needed after 18 years of neglect! Some people had fags and ale, some people had public school educations and others had to make do with leaky schools and sharing textbooks I suppose? "Let me keep arguing over these first 3-4 years of following Tory spending plans because I can pass off Brown sending the budget surplus to yawning deficits and the doubling of the debt when he left, or 6% increase plus PFI debt to 2007 as ‘not wank’ or ‘nothing unusual’ (despite being unable to find anyone that did the same)"What are you on about? Have you already forgotten the OECD link to other governments that I posted above! And now Brown's doubling of the debt (ignoring the context of the financial crisis and 30s style recession, hilariously enough!) added to a rather desperate isolation of just six years in a term of office where the debt ended up lower compared to the fantastic performance of the previous government! So very, very bad that, very, very bad! "How really it’s the fault of a populace who let themselves be fooled by a government into not taxing them."Are you arguing differently? Since when was an open policy of higher taxation a vote winner in this country?! "How the right wing approach just simply has to be wrong, (Totally ignore the fact that a Tory government can take a right wing approach and lower the debt) ....it couldn’t possibly be straightforward incompetence and mismanagement."Where have I ever said that!? You sound a bit sulky now, mcf! But it does prove what I said a little while back about how you assume I hate the Tories simply because it's easy to pick holes in what you think is accurate analysis. Any government, left or right could lower a debt if it stopped spending money and allowed our public services to go into decline. Try watching the NHS over the next few years! And the debt did reduce right up to the financial crisis and recession. No idea why you can't just accept this and have to cut off the first four years all the time! They didn't have to follow Tory spending plans, they chose to (just like Osborne did with Labour's remember!) in order to reduce the debt to more manageable levels before investing in public services. I don't make this up you know, it's all there on ukpublicspending for you! Perhaps you might get round to answering why our debt never gets down to zero before we spend anything. Is this what you want? If not, what level of debt do you consider acceptable while maintaining these public services you're sometimes in favour of and sometimes against? "Showing a clip of Ed Balls doing nothing other than nodding his head to prove ‘it was a fuck up’ . I was thinking of looking at facts that the UK’s financial services sector employs more than a million people and is a leading exporter that had a trade surplus of £36bn in 2010. By God, I wish I had known that before this debate, you would pull out a clip of a man nodding to prove how fucked up and useless this model and industry has been. Nodding and muttering would you believe...my word".The point you missed was just how much Balls was in step with right wing free market policy back in 2006 and there he is hypocritically nodding along with Miliband as he points out exactly the same in respect of Cameron's free market doctrine! Ie they both adopted the same laissez faire right wing approach as I have said all along! "...and now after 28 pages you decide I don’t know what deficits and debts are – its that poly edewkation you see!" ;D Nope, just hoping you might show me how they link together so we can understand how deficit impacts on debt! Why so reluctant, you're sounding more like FYD with every post!. You'll be accusing me of baiting you next .
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jul 6, 2012 7:33:27 GMT
7pm at night and despite his great goldfish and great cats and generally great life how does champ spend his time on the oatcake ;D
Still it was all a joke at the expense of a 16 year old, how desperately sad his life must be to make up this imaginary ideal life, I think we should have a whip round to buy lukey** a goldfish ;D
** although knowing how lukey loves quoting other people back to them with his own out of context twist I should obviously refer to him as self confessed liar lukey ;D
Just a little transfers style summary of the last 28 pages, self confessed liar lukey insists lending banks £120 billion+ wrecked the economy but Labour running a £30 billion a year deficit was sustainable because a Labour “forecast” said they'd reduce it sometime but not just now ;D
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jul 6, 2012 13:17:00 GMT
;D Like a puppet on a string! Just some of that "light-hearted banter" you're so good at, FYD, you know, the stuff which makes you feel like other posters are "just trying to bait me all the time" So much repressed anger for one so "indifferent"! Please don't tell me you're going to launch a shemale prostitute killing spree, I'd hate to feel I'd been in any way responsible for it! In case you are going nuts right now, I'll clarify: just like Rhodesy says, I was clearly joking! I'd have thought you'd be the most relaxed man on here given the time you spend "elsewhere". Take a leaf out of Ken Clarke's book and chillax What a strange fella you are, it's anger if I take the piss out of you on a messageboard but when you spend time on a Friday night sending private messages telling a 16 yr old who has obviously got to you that's you're not a virgin like him, thats taking the piss ;D ;D ;D Other posters WTF it was you, here you go again trying to project comments about you onto the whole board Can't say I've read all the posts but I've missed Rhodesy saying you were joking (he said his dad was clearly joking - are you claiming to be his dad now ;D you're such a liar you just can't help yourself ;D)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2012 8:32:38 GMT
;D Credit where it's due, it's universally acknowledged that you're the Master Baiter of this board, FYD
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jul 9, 2012 13:41:55 GMT
;D Credit where it's due, it's universally acknowledged that you're the Master Baiter of this board, FYD Universally, my your pretensions are spreading from thinking you represent the whole messageboard to the whole universe ;D Unless you're just lying again ;D Just never can tell with you ;D Saturday morning posting ;D how are the great goldfish, cats and children (by the way I assume they're test tube kids you just strike me as that kind of a father ;D - see if you going to call someone a wanker at least try and come up with something original )
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2012 17:39:47 GMT
Stop baiting me
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jul 10, 2012 7:00:03 GMT
Stop baiting me But do you mean that or is it another lie like the cats and goldfish story ;D or the claim that you'd ignore my posts or.....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2012 9:28:32 GMT
Please stop baiting me
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2012 2:39:45 GMT
Perhaps right wing politics is the politics of greed and therefore by necessity the politics of the rich and usually better educated, as better educations are reserved for the rich or very fortunate. Knowing something is wrong, does not make it right, just expedient. Bob Diamond as an example. Id rather be thought of as stupid and honest than rich and a dishonest. Roll on the day that politics is once again taught in our schools then NO ONE will ever agree with Nick again. Lets hope Cameron is a better defender than he is a PM.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2012 12:08:02 GMT
Excellent post, riv, and probably pretty accurate judging by many of the I'm-all-right-jack responses on here. Not sure how you can say that about Bob Diamond though, he's only taking £2m for being corrupt, only a tenth of what he'd have got if he'd not been found out . Dysfunctional capitalism at the heart of banking? Rate fixing since 2005, New Labour emphasising their continuation of light touch regulation? Never. It's all those pesky socialists' fault ;D
|
|