Politics

[Park Life 71]

The BBC's the least of our worries.

 

Agreed. NOt sure how we got into the BBC.

[spongebob toonpants 4134]

Danny smashed for 6 again

 

Not really I just don't have time to pick through Matts point. Which really isn't a point, more of a rant based on the idea that the Tories have ignored all sound economic advise to put into place a nefarious plan to dismantle this countries public sector at the detriment of the country as a whole....which is of course as ridiculous as it sounds.

 

Like it or not a downgrade would have been a disaster because:

 

A. The countries exchange rate would have been smashed meaning we would have had to pay back much more on our EUR and USD denominated debt

B. The rate we borrow at would make interest cost a real burden on future spending

 

Who cares if you can get a bond out if you are paying a 1000+bp spread on it?

 

Of course the accumulated minds of Toontastic have got it right and the government working on the advice of some of the countries finest economists have it all wrong.

 

Clearly a conspiracy against the north *scousetastic*

 

 

Tories have not ignored sound economic advice, they have acted on one facet of it. You can't claim all the world's top economists say one thing because clearly there is massive division amongst economists themselves. There have been plenty of voices warning not to cut too deep too soon, but you have chosen to ignore the existence of these voices. I assume they received their qualifications after replying to an ad in the back of Razzle and therefore do not meet your standards. Only time will tell whether the course of action is the right one.

 

I don't argue that government was bloated, that those in power were as smarmy and arrogant as the horrible bunch under Major in 1992, that considerable savings can be made across the board and that the UK needs considerable deficit reduction. Labour would have had to accept a retrenchment of state boundaries as part of a natural shift in political and economic reality, just as Cameron had to paint himself as a 'moderate conservative'. I simply don't agree that we should be swinging the axe left right and centre so quickly. The government have decided to act while still in the honeymoon period because it will prove less politically damaging first and foremost. I don't agree with the severity of what they are doing but it is their right as the government to act in this way. However I feel they are being duplicitous and making cuts beyond the levels truly necessary in order to satiate the small state zeal of many party members under the guise of unavoidable budgetary repair. The govt misleading the country is nothing new (the last lot did plenty of it) but I don't think that's any excuse just to accept it at face value.

 

Going to AA would not end the nation, but it is a very serious event and we should be taking all reasonable measures to avoid it. However it should not be used as the ultimate trump card for every government intervention. Investors look at fundamentals as well as the label and will have priced the risks in accordgly already. However you must also recognise that economic growth prospects are as central to the ratings assigned to the UK as deficit repair. If we cut too far and growth is halted, we'll lose on both counts.

 

I wasn't aware that the UK had significant issue in anything other than sterling, but would love to see the composition.

 

And now onto a rant.

 

What annoys me is so much of the country now thinks its OK that we can just slashing at education. It's the one thing that I personally believe should not be messed with. It is more important than any other function of the state. Education is pivotal to economic growth. I reject that it must suffer as everyone else should. BSF was not perfect and it may have been laden with red tape (what large financings, state or private are straightforward?) but the process was improving and ultimately, it delivered new schools which can teach the right skills in a modern environment. This government has accepted that teaching kids in blocks of shoddy prefabs is OK. It's not. Nor is this a northern issue- BSF has already benefited many inner-city Labour heartlands. It is hitting Tory regions and has quite rightly provoked a response from MPs in that area. Now we are likely to see the effective privatisation of university education via an arms-length funding vehicle charging commercial rates. I'm not fussed that the Food Standards Agency has closed. I am more concerned that cameron has barely made a dint on Brown's sizable arseprint in the No 10 hotseat and already we're seeing education under fire and seemingly, a lot of people think that it is OK and hark back to 'their day' when their school was a bit ramshackle and it didn't do them any harm. Well if we want to teach 20-th century skills we'll have a 20th century economy.

 

 

Good post, good rant

[Happy Face 29]

The war is against the banking cartels, when the BBC starts informing the layman about the hi jinks and fraud of the banking and financial sector and the daily rape of all across Eruope by the ruling elite, like it used to (It was a shining light in the thatcher era for criticising Govt policy) I would have no qualm about funding it. But now it has become a poodle of the state with hi execs getting paid hundereds of thousands it serves us THE PEOPLE no benefit. I really have no stomach left for twee farm fables or another Pinter retrospective. Fuck it.

 

What you on about?

 

A single BBC reporter has taken a load of the blame for the entire financial collapse for his reporting on the shit-storm that was coming.

 

The finacial press were talking about the bubble crash back in 2006. Keep up.

 

Parky, keep up....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7914421.stm

[Meenzer 15720]

Not sure what your point is...

 

This should pretty much be in your signature to save anyone from having to reply to your posts.

[Meenzer 15720]

The war is against the banking cartels, when the BBC starts informing the layman about the hi jinks and fraud of the banking and financial sector and the daily rape of all across Eruope by the ruling elite, like it used to (It was a shining light in the thatcher era for criticising Govt policy) I would have no qualm about funding it. But now it has become a poodle of the state with hi execs getting paid hundereds of thousands it serves us THE PEOPLE no benefit. I really have no stomach left for twee farm fables or another Pinter retrospective. Fuck it.

 

What you on about?

 

A single BBC reporter has taken a load of the blame for the entire financial collapse for his reporting on the shit-storm that was coming.

 

The finacial press were talking about the bubble crash back in 2006. Keep up.

 

Parky, keep up....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7914421.stm

 

I've tried man. He's never heard of him. Why would he have?

[Park Life 71]

The war is against the banking cartels, when the BBC starts informing the layman about the hi jinks and fraud of the banking and financial sector and the daily rape of all across Eruope by the ruling elite, like it used to (It was a shining light in the thatcher era for criticising Govt policy) I would have no qualm about funding it. But now it has become a poodle of the state with hi execs getting paid hundereds of thousands it serves us THE PEOPLE no benefit. I really have no stomach left for twee farm fables or another Pinter retrospective. Fuck it.

 

What you on about?

 

A single BBC reporter has taken a load of the blame for the entire financial collapse for his reporting on the shit-storm that was coming.

 

The finacial press were talking about the bubble crash back in 2006. Keep up.

 

Parky, keep up....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7914421.stm

 

Good on him.

 

 

BBC rebukes its Middle East correspondent Jeremy Bowen for anti-Israel comments

By Paul Revoir

Last updated at 12:37 AM on 16th April 2009

 

The BBC's Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen faced calls to quit tonight after he was criticised for breaching the broadcaster's rules on accuracy and impartiality in two reports about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

 

An inquiry found that a reference to 'Zionism's innate instinct to push out the frontier' in an article for the BBC's website breached guidelines.

 

In addition, a suggestion that Israel was 'in defiance of everyone's interpretation of international law except its own' was said to have been 'imprecise'.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...l#ixzz0tkgldJFb

Edited July 15, 2010 by Park Life

[Park Life 71]

Danny smashed for 6 again

 

Not really I just don't have time to pick through Matts point. Which really isn't a point, more of a rant based on the idea that the Tories have ignored all sound economic advise to put into place a nefarious plan to dismantle this countries public sector at the detriment of the country as a whole....which is of course as ridiculous as it sounds.

 

Like it or not a downgrade would have been a disaster because:

 

A. The countries exchange rate would have been smashed meaning we would have had to pay back much more on our EUR and USD denominated debt

B. The rate we borrow at would make interest cost a real burden on future spending

 

Who cares if you can get a bond out if you are paying a 1000+bp spread on it?

 

Of course the accumulated minds of Toontastic have got it right and the government working on the advice of some of the countries finest economists have it all wrong.

 

Clearly a conspiracy against the north *scousetastic*

 

 

Tories have not ignored sound economic advice, they have acted on one facet of it. You can't claim all the world's top economists say one thing because clearly there is massive division amongst economists themselves. There have been plenty of voices warning not to cut too deep too soon, but you have chosen to ignore the existence of these voices. I assume they received their qualifications after replying to an ad in the back of Razzle and therefore do not meet your standards. Only time will tell whether the course of action is the right one.

 

I don't argue that government was bloated, that those in power were as smarmy and arrogant as the horrible bunch under Major in 1992, that considerable savings can be made across the board and that the UK needs considerable deficit reduction. Labour would have had to accept a retrenchment of state boundaries as part of a natural shift in political and economic reality, just as Cameron had to paint himself as a 'moderate conservative'. I simply don't agree that we should be swinging the axe left right and centre so quickly. The government have decided to act while still in the honeymoon period because it will prove less politically damaging first and foremost. I don't agree with the severity of what they are doing but it is their right as the government to act in this way. However I feel they are being duplicitous and making cuts beyond the levels truly necessary in order to satiate the small state zeal of many party members under the guise of unavoidable budgetary repair. The govt misleading the country is nothing new (the last lot did plenty of it) but I don't think that's any excuse just to accept it at face value.

 

Going to AA would not end the nation, but it is a very serious event and we should be taking all reasonable measures to avoid it. However it should not be used as the ultimate trump card for every government intervention. Investors look at fundamentals as well as the label and will have priced the risks in accordgly already. However you must also recognise that economic growth prospects are as central to the ratings assigned to the UK as deficit repair. If we cut too far and growth is halted, we'll lose on both counts.

 

I wasn't aware that the UK had significant issue in anything other than sterling, but would love to see the composition.

 

And now onto a rant.

 

What annoys me is so much of the country now thinks its OK that we can just slashing at education. It's the one thing that I personally believe should not be messed with. It is more important than any other function of the state. Education is pivotal to economic growth. I reject that it must suffer as everyone else should. BSF was not perfect and it may have been laden with red tape (what large financings, state or private are straightforward?) but the process was improving and ultimately, it delivered new schools which can teach the right skills in a modern environment. This government has accepted that teaching kids in blocks of shoddy prefabs is OK. It's not. Nor is this a northern issue- BSF has already benefited many inner-city Labour heartlands. It is hitting Tory regions and has quite rightly provoked a response from MPs in that area. Now we are likely to see the effective privatisation of university education via an arms-length funding vehicle charging commercial rates. I'm not fussed that the Food Standards Agency has closed. I am more concerned that cameron has barely made a dint on Brown's sizable arseprint in the No 10 hotseat and already we're seeing education under fire and seemingly, a lot of people think that it is OK and hark back to 'their day' when their school was a bit ramshackle and it didn't do them any harm. Well if we want to teach 20-th century skills we'll have a 20th century economy.

 

 

Good post, good rant

 

Didn't see that. Good post.

[Happy Face 29]

The latest daily YouGov/Sun poll is notable for the Conservatives hitting a 2010 high of 43 per cent, while the Lib Dems continue to flatline on 15 per cent. The Tories will be relieved that, despite Labour's best efforts, the row over Michael Gove's botched schools list has failed to dent their popularity.

 

With the coalition still in its honeymoon period, perhaps it's unsurprising that the Tories are polling well but unless the Lib Dems' ratings improve, we can expect tensions to grow in the run-up to the conference season. Fears that Nick Clegg's party are the convenient fall guys for George Osborne's cuts are growing by the day.

 

Reporting the poll on Twitter last night, the Sun's politics team chose to run with the line: "what chance a snap election now to dump the Libs?". This may just be mischievous speculation but it ignores the fact that in recent weeks David Cameron has signalled that he views the coalition not as an alliance of convenience, but as a vehicle to realign British politics. There is no chance of Cameron calling an early election.

 

Many expect the coalition to become rapidly unpopular once the cuts begin to bite, although there is some psephological evidence to suggest that this need not be case.

 

Tory MPs point to a recent study by Ben Broadbent and Adrian Paul of Goldman Sachs which looked at the relationship between fiscal tightening and electoral support. The results suggested that, if anything, fiscal rentrenchment increases support for the governing party.

 

As Broadbent and Paul write: "The three governments that have executed the most high-profile expenditure-based deficit reductions -- Ireland in 1987, Sweden in 1994 and Canada in 1994 -- were all re-elected."

 

But I'm still confident that the rise in VAT to 20 per cent from next year will hit the government hard. As in the case of the abolition of the 10p tax rate, it's the sort of measure people only notice once it's implemented. For political as well as economic reasons, George Osborne would be wise to call off this regressive tax rise.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-stag...ories-honeymoon

 

Who'd have thought, Goldman Sach's pushing governments to tighten spending as drastically as possible, not to ensure social welfare, but for purely political reasons.

[Danny CL 0]

I would just like to state for the record that I said all analysts would agree that growth has been artificially bolstered by an increase in public spending under labour. Not that they all agree in a way out of this mess.

 

Continue.

[Happy Face 29]

I would just like to state for the record that I said all analysts would agree that growth has been artificially bolstered by an increase in public spending under labour. Not that they all agree in a way out of this mess.

 

Just to be clear, you are saying GDP has been artificially inflated thanks to the UKs increased spending?

[Park Life 71]

The latest daily YouGov/Sun poll is notable for the Conservatives hitting a 2010 high of 43 per cent, while the Lib Dems continue to flatline on 15 per cent. The Tories will be relieved that, despite Labour's best efforts, the row over Michael Gove's botched schools list has failed to dent their popularity.

 

With the coalition still in its honeymoon period, perhaps it's unsurprising that the Tories are polling well but unless the Lib Dems' ratings improve, we can expect tensions to grow in the run-up to the conference season. Fears that Nick Clegg's party are the convenient fall guys for George Osborne's cuts are growing by the day.

 

Reporting the poll on Twitter last night, the Sun's politics team chose to run with the line: "what chance a snap election now to dump the Libs?". This may just be mischievous speculation but it ignores the fact that in recent weeks David Cameron has signalled that he views the coalition not as an alliance of convenience, but as a vehicle to realign British politics. There is no chance of Cameron calling an early election.

 

Many expect the coalition to become rapidly unpopular once the cuts begin to bite, although there is some psephological evidence to suggest that this need not be case.

 

Tory MPs point to a recent study by Ben Broadbent and Adrian Paul of Goldman Sachs which looked at the relationship between fiscal tightening and electoral support. The results suggested that, if anything, fiscal rentrenchment increases support for the governing party.

 

As Broadbent and Paul write: "The three governments that have executed the most high-profile expenditure-based deficit reductions -- Ireland in 1987, Sweden in 1994 and Canada in 1994 -- were all re-elected."

 

But I'm still confident that the rise in VAT to 20 per cent from next year will hit the government hard. As in the case of the abolition of the 10p tax rate, it's the sort of measure people only notice once it's implemented. For political as well as economic reasons, George Osborne would be wise to call off this regressive tax rise.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-stag...ories-honeymoon

 

Who'd have thought, Goldman Sach's pushing governments to tighten spending as drastically as possible, not to ensure social welfare, but for purely political reasons.

 

This whole thing is bollocks our state borrowing is in line with or lower than our EU counterparts and as such will never really be an issue beyond some of the sensible tightning that IMO needs to happen (as all the EU are doing). Govt are citicised via the media for public spending the public catch on in their idiocy with scant facts and have a go at the Govt...Another Govt increases spending the media fan the flames and the sheep are again guided to vote and complain...It's a never ending cycle with no winners and continuing flip flop policy changes every few years.

 

We need a constitution with a protected raft of policy that ALL GOVT when in power should persue and be judged on. Till we get that it will continue to be a game between the markets and national needs that plays out wastefully over and over again. Countries need to protect the things they have built up in the public sector from the profit motive of the private sector and there shouldn't be any shame or blame in this. On the other hand wealth creators should also be given help and policy change where needed as they are the cash cows. But untill there is Eu wide agreement on this, the confusion continues.

[Danny CL 0]

I would just like to state for the record that I said all analysts would agree that growth has been artificially bolstered by an increase in public spending under labour. Not that they all agree in a way out of this mess.

 

Just to be clear, you are saying GDP has been artificially inflated thanks to the UKs increased spending?

 

Yes.

[Happy Face 29]

I would just like to state for the record that I said all analysts would agree that growth has been artificially bolstered by an increase in public spending under labour. Not that they all agree in a way out of this mess.

 

Just to be clear, you are saying GDP has been artificially inflated thanks to the UKs increased spending?

 

Yes.

 

So was it UK spending that pushed up the US, German, Italian, French GDPs and those of every other major economy?

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi...USA:ITA:FRA:DEU

[Danny CL 0]

I would just like to state for the record that I said all analysts would agree that growth has been artificially bolstered by an increase in public spending under labour. Not that they all agree in a way out of this mess.

 

Just to be clear, you are saying GDP has been artificially inflated thanks to the UKs increased spending?

 

Yes.

 

So was it UK spending that pushed up the US, German, Italian, French GDPs and those of every other major economy?

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi...USA:ITA:FRA:DEU

 

No

[Park Life 71]

I would scrap housing benefit for anybody who hasn't paid UK tax for at least 5 years.

 

 

bit harsh on those who cant work because of say, disability Parky!

 

I obviously retract that with regard to genuine handicap. Apologies.

[Happy Face 29]

I would just like to state for the record that I said all analysts would agree that growth has been artificially bolstered by an increase in public spending under labour. Not that they all agree in a way out of this mess.

 

Just to be clear, you are saying GDP has been artificially inflated thanks to the UKs increased spending?

 

Yes.

 

So was it UK spending that pushed up the US, German, Italian, French GDPs and those of every other major economy?

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi...USA:ITA:FRA:DEU

 

No

 

What caused other economies to double GDP at exactly the same time/rate as the UK doubled GDP then?

 

Have they all made the same mistake of increased spending?

[Danny CL 0]

I would just like to state for the record that I said all analysts would agree that growth has been artificially bolstered by an increase in public spending under labour. Not that they all agree in a way out of this mess.

 

Just to be clear, you are saying GDP has been artificially inflated thanks to the UKs increased spending?

 

Yes.

 

So was it UK spending that pushed up the US, German, Italian, French GDPs and those of every other major economy?

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi...USA:ITA:FRA:DEU

 

No

 

What caused other economies to double GDP at exactly the same time/rate as the UK doubled GDP then?

 

Have they all made the same mistake of increased spending?

 

I should imagine there are a different reasons for each.

 

Although I expect the underlying common denominator would be the availability of cheap debt.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Danny CL

[Renton 22001]

I would just like to state for the record that I said all analysts would agree that growth has been artificially bolstered by an increase in public spending under labour. Not that they all agree in a way out of this mess.

 

Just to be clear, you are saying GDP has been artificially inflated thanks to the UKs increased spending?

 

Yes.

 

So was it UK spending that pushed up the US, German, Italian, French GDPs and those of every other major economy?

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi...USA:ITA:FRA:DEU

 

No

 

What caused other economies to double GDP at exactly the same time/rate as the UK doubled GDP then?

 

Have they all made the same mistake of increased spending?

 

I should imagine there are a different reasons for each.

 

Although I expect the underlying common denominator would be the availability of cheap debt.

 

Not that we were in a global growth cycle then? Fucking Hell.

[Danny CL 0]

I would just like to state for the record that I said all analysts would agree that growth has been artificially bolstered by an increase in public spending under labour. Not that they all agree in a way out of this mess.

 

Just to be clear, you are saying GDP has been artificially inflated thanks to the UKs increased spending?

 

Yes.

 

So was it UK spending that pushed up the US, German, Italian, French GDPs and those of every other major economy?

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi...USA:ITA:FRA:DEU

 

No

 

What caused other economies to double GDP at exactly the same time/rate as the UK doubled GDP then?

 

Have they all made the same mistake of increased spending?

 

I should imagine there are a different reasons for each.

 

Although I expect the underlying common denominator would be the availability of cheap debt.

 

Not that we were in a global growth cycle then? Fucking Hell.

 

I am talking about an artificially high level of growth, why do you think they called it a credit bubble?

 

Honestly, I am willing to discuss this with people who have an understanding of the basics / are willing to learn but jeez. I cant waste any more of my time arguing with people would be willing to say white was black to contradict me.

 

no wonder there's no bloody jobs up there.

[Happy Face 29]

 

So the global credit bubble was beyond the UKs control.

 

And spending as a proprtion of GDP was pretty much kept to exactly the the same level it was when labour took power.

 

Still struggling to see what the UK did wrong that everyone else got right.

[Danny CL 0]

Im not going through it again happy. see the post you responded to last night.

[spongebob toonpants 4134]

[ Honestly, I am willing to discuss this with people who have an understanding of the basics / are willing to learn but jeez. I cant waste any more of my time arguing with people would be willing to say white was black to contradict me.

 

[Renton 22001]

I would just like to state for the record that I said all analysts would agree that growth has been artificially bolstered by an increase in public spending under labour. Not that they all agree in a way out of this mess.

 

Just to be clear, you are saying GDP has been artificially inflated thanks to the UKs increased spending?

 

Yes.

 

So was it UK spending that pushed up the US, German, Italian, French GDPs and those of every other major economy?

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi...USA:ITA:FRA:DEU

 

No

 

What caused other economies to double GDP at exactly the same time/rate as the UK doubled GDP then?

 

Have they all made the same mistake of increased spending?

 

I should imagine there are a different reasons for each.

 

Although I expect the underlying common denominator would be the availability of cheap debt.

 

Not that we were in a global growth cycle then? Fucking Hell.

 

I am talking about an artificially high level of growth, why do you think they called it a credit bubble?

 

Honestly, I am willing to discuss this with people who have an understanding of the basics / are willing to learn but jeez. I cant waste any more of my time arguing with people would be willing to say white was black to contradict me.

 

no wonder there's no bloody jobs up there.

 

Oh well please feel free to educate me. I was under the opinion that economic growth, and consequent rises in GDP, have been the norm for the last century, perhaps longer. I was under the impression that the credit bubble related to toxic debt, not sovereign debt, and was largely out of the government's control. I also recall your party had pledged to match Labour's public expenditure plans, but had no viable alternatives when the crash happened - in fact their policies at the time would have been catastrophic. They were also in favour of increased deregulation in the Banking sector, were they not?

[NJS 4411]

They were also in favour of increased deregulation in the Banking sector, were they not?

 

And as has been said a few times, started the ball rolling with the investment/retail separation abolition.

[Billy Castell 0]

As I understand it, the banks lent loads of money to people who shouldn't have been able to get the loans to make quick money, then those loans went sour and the banks lost a whole shitload of cash. In order to stop all the banks going under, governments had to bail out the baks and take on the bad debts, leaving the banks free to sell more dodgy loans, charge customers for walking into their bank and breathing etc.

 

So then the governments have all these debts they had to take off the banks, which broke the back of countries like Greece who had already been spending way beyond their means because they were in the Euro, and basically getting a free ride off Germany and the strong Eurozone countries. And because of the nature of the debts, and the financial markets, if country A goes down the crapper, other country B will suffer as they have loaned country A money, and country A buys a lot of goods from country B. Finally, we have the market speculators who look at the state of a country's finances and reduce the credit rating because either it can't pay the debts, or they want to make a quick buck.

 

All the while the bank executives and stockbrokers build up their portfolios with lower priced shares, get big bonuses and demand further deregulation, and that other people should pick up the bill for all this debt through higher taxes and lower government spending.

 

All this may be wrong, but thats how it seems to me.