Politics

[Renton 22002]

Think the new government have played a blinder thus far though.

 

Based upon what?

 

Market sentiment, protecting the countries credit rating therefore interest cost, foreign investment rising (and the resulting ex rate affect), real measures on cutting the deficit without punishing business with an NI hike.

 

The days of short term fixes seems well and truly over.

 

Britain will be a pretty horrible place to live for the next 5 years, unemployment will rise, house prices will fall but GDP will increase and the deficit will fall.

 

All this is essential for the long term financial health of the country. The prospects under the labour plan would have been a total disaster.

 

We are all in this together, better get used to it.

 

How's GDP going to rise with increasing unemployment? How's the deficit going to be cut with no consumer confidence, falling house prices, and falling tax revenues? As we are part of a global, and in particular, European, recession, how are we going to be attractive investment for for foreign investors, and how can we increase exports? What happens if a death spiral results from politically motivated austerity measures?

 

Market sentiment is that double dip is unlikely now even during the austerity period, there will be growth however weak year on year.

 

Exchange rates being an indicator of foreign investment in the UK (particularly sovereign debt) are in positive territory, all this means we have to pay back less on foreign denominated loans.

 

A death spiral is not particularly likely unless the whole system packs in (in which case you might as well get the tinned food in). much less likely than the prospect of a UK downgrade under the old ideals that would have lead to spiraling interest costs and repayments due to the total destruction of the exchange rate.

 

Increasing unemployment will be mainly from the public sector, with the private sector is expected to grow and take up some of the slack.

 

I keep hearing about the private sector being the answer to all our problems. Well, they didn't even in the good years, so why should that change now under worse economic conditions and continuing reluctance of banks to give companies credit? The knock on effect of all these public sector cut backs onto the private sector is going to be huge as well. The private sector will be as fucked as the public sector.

 

No-one knows how much, if any, growth we will experience during the most savage austerity cuts in decades. If you look at the lower condidence level estimates, it is not inconceivable that a death spiral could result, surely it's not worth taking the risk, and having a more measured adjustment in public fincance and taxation instead? Either way of course it's the North that will be hardest hit, I'm sure you will be alright mate. All in it together my arse.

[Danny CL 0]

Think the new government have played a blinder thus far though.

 

Based upon what?

 

Market sentiment, protecting the countries credit rating therefore interest cost, foreign investment rising (and the resulting ex rate affect), real measures on cutting the deficit without punishing business with an NI hike.

 

The days of short term fixes seems well and truly over.

 

Britain will be a pretty horrible place to live for the next 5 years, unemployment will rise, house prices will fall but GDP will increase and the deficit will fall.

 

All this is essential for the long term financial health of the country. The prospects under the labour plan would have been a total disaster.

 

We are all in this together, better get used to it.

 

How's GDP going to rise with increasing unemployment? How's the deficit going to be cut with no consumer confidence, falling house prices, and falling tax revenues? As we are part of a global, and in particular, European, recession, how are we going to be attractive investment for for foreign investors, and how can we increase exports? What happens if a death spiral results from politically motivated austerity measures?

 

Market sentiment is that double dip is unlikely now even during the austerity period, there will be growth however weak year on year.

 

Exchange rates being an indicator of foreign investment in the UK (particularly sovereign debt) are in positive territory, all this means we have to pay back less on foreign denominated loans.

 

A death spiral is not particularly likely unless the whole system packs in (in which case you might as well get the tinned food in). much less likely than the prospect of a UK downgrade under the old ideals that would have lead to spiraling interest costs and repayments due to the total destruction of the exchange rate.

 

Increasing unemployment will be mainly from the public sector, with the private sector is expected to grow and take up some of the slack.

 

I keep hearing about the private sector being the answer to all our problems. Well, they didn't even in the good years, so why should that change now under worse economic conditions and continuing reluctance of banks to give companies credit? The knock on effect of all these public sector cut backs onto the private sector is going to be huge as well. The private sector will be as fucked as the public sector.

 

No-one knows how much, if any, growth we will experience during the most savage austerity cuts in decades. If you look at the lower condidence level estimates, it is not inconceivable that a death spiral could result, surely it's not worth taking the risk, and having a more measured adjustment in public fincance and taxation instead? Either way of course it's the North that will be hardest hit, I'm sure you will be alright mate. All in it together my arse.

 

Oh well.

 

There was private sector growth in the good times, however it was artificially inflated by a huge bubble of unsustainable consumer debt and spending. The situation has to normalise.

 

I agree on sensible bank lending, that has to be increased but hopefully as the crises begins to fade that process will occur.

 

Either way something had to be done to go on pumping money in to a bloated public sector for little material gain and making it easier to stay at home than go out and get a job had to stop.

[Renton 22002]

Think the new government have played a blinder thus far though.

 

Based upon what?

 

Market sentiment, protecting the countries credit rating therefore interest cost, foreign investment rising (and the resulting ex rate affect), real measures on cutting the deficit without punishing business with an NI hike.

 

The days of short term fixes seems well and truly over.

 

Britain will be a pretty horrible place to live for the next 5 years, unemployment will rise, house prices will fall but GDP will increase and the deficit will fall.

 

All this is essential for the long term financial health of the country. The prospects under the labour plan would have been a total disaster.

 

We are all in this together, better get used to it.

 

How's GDP going to rise with increasing unemployment? How's the deficit going to be cut with no consumer confidence, falling house prices, and falling tax revenues? As we are part of a global, and in particular, European, recession, how are we going to be attractive investment for for foreign investors, and how can we increase exports? What happens if a death spiral results from politically motivated austerity measures?

 

Market sentiment is that double dip is unlikely now even during the austerity period, there will be growth however weak year on year.

 

Exchange rates being an indicator of foreign investment in the UK (particularly sovereign debt) are in positive territory, all this means we have to pay back less on foreign denominated loans.

 

A death spiral is not particularly likely unless the whole system packs in (in which case you might as well get the tinned food in). much less likely than the prospect of a UK downgrade under the old ideals that would have lead to spiraling interest costs and repayments due to the total destruction of the exchange rate.

 

Increasing unemployment will be mainly from the public sector, with the private sector is expected to grow and take up some of the slack.

 

I keep hearing about the private sector being the answer to all our problems. Well, they didn't even in the good years, so why should that change now under worse economic conditions and continuing reluctance of banks to give companies credit? The knock on effect of all these public sector cut backs onto the private sector is going to be huge as well. The private sector will be as fucked as the public sector.

 

No-one knows how much, if any, growth we will experience during the most savage austerity cuts in decades. If you look at the lower condidence level estimates, it is not inconceivable that a death spiral could result, surely it's not worth taking the risk, and having a more measured adjustment in public fincance and taxation instead? Either way of course it's the North that will be hardest hit, I'm sure you will be alright mate. All in it together my arse.

 

Oh well.

 

There was private sector growth in the good times, however it was artificially inflated by a huge bubble of unsustainable consumer debt and spending. The situation has to normalise.

 

I agree on sensible bank lending, that has to be increased but hopefully as the crises begins to fade that process will occur.

 

Either way something had to be done to go on pumping money in to a bloated public sector for little material gain and making it easier to stay at home than go out and get a job had to stop.

 

Except it wasn't a case of pumping money into a 'bloated public sector'. It was the cost of preventing a global crash becoming a depression, and the inevitable consequent recession, that caused the deficit. Tory policy at the time would have been catastrophic. Can't be arsed to go through this again actually, it never seems to sink in whose fault this mess is.

[Danny CL 0]

Except it wasn't a case of pumping money into a 'bloated public sector'. It was the cost of preventing a global crash becoming a depression, and the inevitable consequent recession, that caused the deficit. Tory policy at the time would have been catastrophic. Can't be arsed to go through this again actually, it never seems to sink in whose fault this mess is.

 

This overspend has been going on for years. Even in the good times. The public sector was bloated long before the credit crisis.

 

The crisis was no fault of labour, that is clear but the inability to get their house in order during the good times has certainly made the situation much worse for us.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Danny CL

[Renton 22002]

Except it wasn't a case of pumping money into a 'bloated public sector'. It was the cost of preventing a global crash becoming a depression, and the inevitable consequent recession, that caused the deficit. Tory policy at the time would have been catastrophic. Can't be arsed to go through this again actually, it never seems to sink in whose fault this mess is.

 

This overspend has been going on for years. Even in the good times. The public sector was bloated long before the credit crisis.

 

The crisis was no fault of labour, that is clear but the inability to get their house in order during the good times has certainly made the situation much worse for us.

 

That's just simply not true. The rise under the public sector under Labour was quite modest, and we got the returns in the form of improved services ( I expect you'll disagree but then you can't probably remember the 1980s). Look at any graph of our debt and you will see it was well controlled until the crash when it went sky high over the course of months. It doesn't matter how many times this is said though, you'll just continue ignoring the facts.

[Danny CL 0]

Except it wasn't a case of pumping money into a 'bloated public sector'. It was the cost of preventing a global crash becoming a depression, and the inevitable consequent recession, that caused the deficit. Tory policy at the time would have been catastrophic. Can't be arsed to go through this again actually, it never seems to sink in whose fault this mess is.

 

This overspend has been going on for years. Even in the good times. The public sector was bloated long before the credit crisis.

 

The crisis was no fault of labour, that is clear but the inability to get their house in order during the good times has certainly made the situation much worse for us.

 

That's just simply not true. The rise under the public sector under Labour was quite modest, and we got the returns in the form of improved services ( I expect you'll disagree but then you can't probably remember the 1980s). Look at any graph of our debt and you will see it was well controlled until the crash when it went sky high over the course of months. It doesn't matter how many times this is said though, you'll just continue ignoring the facts.

 

Surely in the biggest boom ever we should have been putting money aside for a rainy day rather than sustaining debt in the first place. Maybe in a recession proof asset....say gold (oops) but I suppose there is no need, there will be no more boom and bust...oops)

 

This graph sums it up quite nicely for me:

 

 

Ignoring the facts?

[Renton 22002]

Except it wasn't a case of pumping money into a 'bloated public sector'. It was the cost of preventing a global crash becoming a depression, and the inevitable consequent recession, that caused the deficit. Tory policy at the time would have been catastrophic. Can't be arsed to go through this again actually, it never seems to sink in whose fault this mess is.

 

This overspend has been going on for years. Even in the good times. The public sector was bloated long before the credit crisis.

 

The crisis was no fault of labour, that is clear but the inability to get their house in order during the good times has certainly made the situation much worse for us.

 

That's just simply not true. The rise under the public sector under Labour was quite modest, and we got the returns in the form of improved services ( I expect you'll disagree but then you can't probably remember the 1980s). Look at any graph of our debt and you will see it was well controlled until the crash when it went sky high over the course of months. It doesn't matter how many times this is said though, you'll just continue ignoring the facts.

 

Surely in the biggest boom ever we should have been putting money aside for a rainy day rather than sustaining debt in the first place. Maybe in a recession proof asset....say gold (oops) but I suppose there is no need, there will be no more boom and bust...oops)

 

This graph sums it up quite nicely for me:

 

 

Ignoring the facts?

 

That's adjusted for inflation rather than economic growth though isn't it? There was of course a rise in public spending, for instance healthcare doubled in expenditure, but we still spend less per capita on health than most our neighbours and far less than the US. Obviously you want a return to Thatcher's 80s when service provision was pathetic. That's what most tories want after all.

[spongebob toonpants 4134]

Except it wasn't a case of pumping money into a 'bloated public sector'. It was the cost of preventing a global crash becoming a depression, and the inevitable consequent recession, that caused the deficit. Tory policy at the time would have been catastrophic. Can't be arsed to go through this again actually, it never seems to sink in whose fault this mess is.

 

This overspend has been going on for years. Even in the good times. The public sector was bloated long before the credit crisis.

 

The crisis was no fault of labour, that is clear but the inability to get their house in order during the good times has certainly made the situation much worse for us.

 

The Tories were promising to match Labour spending commitments unitl 2008, you ignorant cockney cunt

[Danny CL 0]

Except it wasn't a case of pumping money into a 'bloated public sector'. It was the cost of preventing a global crash becoming a depression, and the inevitable consequent recession, that caused the deficit. Tory policy at the time would have been catastrophic. Can't be arsed to go through this again actually, it never seems to sink in whose fault this mess is.

 

This overspend has been going on for years. Even in the good times. The public sector was bloated long before the credit crisis.

 

The crisis was no fault of labour, that is clear but the inability to get their house in order during the good times has certainly made the situation much worse for us.

 

That's just simply not true. The rise under the public sector under Labour was quite modest, and we got the returns in the form of improved services ( I expect you'll disagree but then you can't probably remember the 1980s). Look at any graph of our debt and you will see it was well controlled until the crash when it went sky high over the course of months. It doesn't matter how many times this is said though, you'll just continue ignoring the facts.

 

Surely in the biggest boom ever we should have been putting money aside for a rainy day rather than sustaining debt in the first place. Maybe in a recession proof asset....say gold (oops) but I suppose there is no need, there will be no more boom and bust...oops)

 

This graph sums it up quite nicely for me:

 

 

Ignoring the facts?

 

That's adjusted for inflation rather than economic growth though isn't it? There was of course a rise in public spending, for instance healthcare doubled in expenditure, but we still spend less per capita on health than most our neighbours and far less than the US. Obviously you want a return to Thatcher's 80s when service provision was pathetic. That's what most tories want after all.

 

These figues are adjusted for inflation what more do you want.

 

I dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

[Guest alex]

They were also calling for less financial regulation prior to the banking crisis.

[NJS 4411]

I dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

 

Tory philosophy in one sentence

Edited July 14, 2010 by NJS

[Renton 22002]

These figues are adjusted for inflation what more do you want.

 

I dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

 

Adjustment for economic growth. As the economy grows (which it did massively under NL), of course we spend more on public services. Inflation is not the same as growth is it?

[Danny CL 0]

this is not really the discussion is it. The question is what is best going forward because I think everybody agrees we are in a world of trouble.

 

That trouble occurred under the previous regime.

 

No one can dispute this surely??

[Renton 22002]

[b0I[/b] dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

 

Tory philosophy in one sentence

 

Seconded. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he's undoubtedly a typical southern tory cunt.

[Danny CL 0]

These figues are adjusted for inflation what more do you want.

 

I dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

 

Adjustment for economic growth. As the economy grows (which it did massively under NL), of course we spend more on public services. Inflation is not the same as growth is it?

 

Cant you see that growth was artificially boosted by overspending? Therefore adjusting for that growth is a totally artificial thing to do. If your quality of life is adjusted by how much you've f**ked onto a credit card the graph would be pretty flat, don't you agree?

Edited July 14, 2010 by Danny CL

[spongebob toonpants 4134]

These figues are adjusted for inflation what more do you want.

 

I dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

 

Adjustment for economic growth. As the economy grows (which it did massively under NL), of course we spend more on public services. Inflation is not the same as growth is it?

 

Cant you see that growth was artificially caused by overspending? There fore adjusting for that growth is a totally artificial thing to do. If your quality of life is adjusted by how much you've f**ked onto a credit card the graph would be pretty flat, don't you agree?

 

 

Marvelous - about 5 minutes in and your comparing one of the biggest economies of the world to somebody using a credit card/

[Guest alex]

[Danny CL 0]

These figues are adjusted for inflation what more do you want.

 

I dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

 

Adjustment for economic growth. As the economy grows (which it did massively under NL), of course we spend more on public services. Inflation is not the same as growth is it?

 

Cant you see that growth was artificially caused by overspending? There fore adjusting for that growth is a totally artificial thing to do. If your quality of life is adjusted by how much you've f**ked onto a credit card the graph would be pretty flat, don't you agree?

 

 

Marvelous - about 5 minutes in and your comparing one of the biggest economies of the world to somebody using a credit card/

 

The same principles apply. Every analyst you talk to will tell you the same.

[NJS 4411]

These figues are adjusted for inflation what more do you want.

 

I dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

 

Adjustment for economic growth. As the economy grows (which it did massively under NL), of course we spend more on public services. Inflation is not the same as growth is it?

 

Cant you see that growth was artificially caused by overspending? There fore adjusting for that growth is a totally artificial thing to do. If your quality of life is adjusted by how much you've f**ked onto a credit card the graph would be pretty flat, don't you agree?

 

 

Marvelous - about 5 minutes in and your comparing one of the biggest economies of the world to somebody using a credit card/

 

The same principles apply. Every analyst you talk to will tell you the same.

 

Surely you would need to factor in an increased salary analogous to increased tax revenues from a booming economy?

[Danny CL 0]

These figues are adjusted for inflation what more do you want.

 

I dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

 

Adjustment for economic growth. As the economy grows (which it did massively under NL), of course we spend more on public services. Inflation is not the same as growth is it?

 

Cant you see that growth was artificially caused by overspending? There fore adjusting for that growth is a totally artificial thing to do. If your quality of life is adjusted by how much you've f**ked onto a credit card the graph would be pretty flat, don't you agree?

 

 

Marvelous - about 5 minutes in and your comparing one of the biggest economies of the world to somebody using a credit card/

 

The same principles apply. Every analyst you talk to will tell you the same.

 

Surely you would need to factor in an increased salary analogous to increased tax revenues from a booming economy?

 

Not if you are constantly plowing that money directly back into the public sector. Unlying private sector growth would have be much flatter than the economy as a whole.

[spongebob toonpants 4134]

These figues are adjusted for inflation what more do you want.

 

I dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

 

Adjustment for economic growth. As the economy grows (which it did massively under NL), of course we spend more on public services. Inflation is not the same as growth is it?

 

Cant you see that growth was artificially caused by overspending? There fore adjusting for that growth is a totally artificial thing to do. If your quality of life is adjusted by how much you've f**ked onto a credit card the graph would be pretty flat, don't you agree?

 

 

Marvelous - about 5 minutes in and your comparing one of the biggest economies of the world to somebody using a credit card/

 

The same principles apply. Every analyst you talk to will tell you the same.

 

Every analyst you talk to. You really are a dope

You know what, I cant be bothered.

[NJS 4411]

Not if you are constantly plowing that money directly back into the public sector. Unlying private sector growth would have be much flatter than the economy as a whole.

 

You and your ilk refer to the public sector as if its a leperous black hole - you forget it outsources to the private sector as well as employing people who contribute to the economy.

 

Private sector growth is not the be all and end all of a thriving economy - as we are about to find out.

[Renton 22002]

Using credit card analogies on complicated macroeconomic matters is beyond stupid really.

[Danny CL 0]

Without any data / reasoning to backup any any of these empty insults that are getting thrown around your arguments appear pretty flimsy boys I'm afraid.

[Guest Gordon McKeag]

These figues are adjusted for inflation what more do you want.

 

I dont give a monkeys, I dont use public services apart from having my bins collected. I would happily pay for health care if my tax burden was reduced.

 

Adjustment for economic growth. As the economy grows (which it did massively under NL), of course we spend more on public services. Inflation is not the same as growth is it?

 

Cant you see that growth was artificially caused by overspending? There fore adjusting for that growth is a totally artificial thing to do. If your quality of life is adjusted by how much you've f**ked onto a credit card the graph would be pretty flat, don't you agree?

 

 

Marvelous - about 5 minutes in and your comparing one of the biggest economies of the world to somebody using a credit card/

 

The same principles apply. Every analyst you talk to will tell you the same.

Every analyst you talk to. The only time you'll talk to analysts is when they ring up for their Sony Ericsson upgrade.