Green shoots?

[trousers]

You're missing the point Whitey. Osbourne is continuing with Brown's mismanagment, outdoing him even. We aren't recovering, its getting worse. Despite an improving economy and relatively low unemployment the budget deficit is widening, not narrowing.

 

So, what's the solution? (other than trying to squeeze more tax out of "the rich" than New Labour ever aspired to)

 

Edited 22 October, 2014 by trousers

[CB Saint]

You cant wish away Tory economic incompetence by saying whatabout Brown 4.5 years after he left office. Fact is the current debt mountain is now 50% higher (£1.402trn compared with £945bn) than when the Tories took power.

 

Under this Government, after 4.5 years of false promises, 'austerity in order to get us back on track' government borrowing this year is 6% higher than it was last year. The deficit is growing and the government is offering tax cuts to the wealthy. Its criminal stupidity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11117335/Just-how-big-is-Britains-debt-mountain.html

 

That is a poor statistic to beat up the Tories with. Yes it is factually correct, however they were present with an ongoing budget deficit of circa £150bn pa, so short of them stopping spending altogether the debt mountain was always going up - no government of any colour would have been able to prevent that. If fact I believe that Labour were advocating that the deficit should not be reduced to the extent it has been which would have resulted in an even larger debt mountain.

 

Yes the tories have had the reins for 4.5 years, but unfortunately the UK economy is a supertanker and cannot be turned on a six pence, I seem to recall an old economics teacher telling me that it usually took ten years before the full effect economic policy change was felt.

 

What scares me is that we are still spending £100bn pa more that we take in. £100,000,000,000. How the hell are we ever going to sort that out? Quite frankly I'm not sure any person alive is up to that task, however I am absolutely certain the two Eds aren't.

[trousers]

Where has the money gone?

 

[saintbletch]

Super writing, bletch.

 

Thanks, papster. I think I've been reading too much Orwell.

 

That's one way of looking at it.

 

 

Oh, it's not meant to be taken literally trousers. It's just a fairy story.

 

It couldn't happen in the real world.

 

Under this Government, after 4.5 years of false promises, 'austerity in order to get us back on track' government borrowing this year is 6% higher than it was last year. The deficit is growing and the government is offering tax cuts to the wealthy. Its criminal stupidity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...-mountain.html

.

.

.

You're missing the point Whitey. Osbourne is continuing with Brown's mismanagment, outdoing him even. We aren't recovering, its getting worse. Despite an improving economy and relatively low unemployment the budget deficit is widening, not narrowing.

 

That about sums it up, right there.

[buctootim]

So, what's the solution? (other than trying to squeeze more tax out of "the rich" than New Labour ever aspired to)

 

 

 

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/02/27/corporate-tax-receipts-are-falling-but-were-not-getting-growth-as-a-result-so-why-keep-cutting-corporate-tax-rates/

[trousers]

Osbourne is continuing with Brown's mismanagment, outdoing him even.

 

Which of Brown's 2010 manifesto policies would have caused the national debt to have risen at a slower rate than it has under the Tories?

Edited 22 October, 2014 by trousers

[trousers]

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/02/27/corporate-tax-receipts-are-falling-but-were-not-getting-growth-as-a-result-so-why-keep-cutting-corporate-tax-rates/

 

Blimey....that's almost as low as it was under the heady days of Blair and Brown....

[buctootim]

Which of Brown's 2010 manifesto policies would have caused the national debt to have risen at a slower rate than it has under the Tories?

 

I dont remember the manifesto, but probably none. The fact that Brown recklessly ran a deficit during a boom when he should have been paying down debt is not a get out of jail card for Osbourne to do the same. Its a nil sum game - "Osbourne / Cameron are failing", "yes but whatabout Brown".

[trousers]

The fact that Brown recklessly ran a deficit during a boom when he should have been paying down debt is not a get out of jail card for Osbourne to do the same.

 

Is Osborne still running at a deficit because he wants to or because it's impossible to reduce 13 years of deficit at the drop of a hat?

 

I thought people were moaning at Osborne in the first couple of years of this parliament for trying to reduce the deficit too quickly. Now he's being criticised for not doing it quickly enough....?

[buctootim]

Is Osborne still running at a deficit because he wants to or because it's impossible to reduce 13 years of deficit at the drop of a hat?

 

I thought people were moaning at Osborne in the first couple of years of this parliament for trying to reduce the deficit too quickly. Now he's being criticised for not doing it quickly enough....?

 

The point is that the deficit is increasing, not reducing despite an expanding economy. Its not that he isnt reducing the deficit quickly enough, its the opposite - we're borrowing more this year than last despite the economy being 3% larger.

[pap]

 

Oh, I see.

 

Would be nice to allocate some of our budget to non-fiction though, wouldn't you say?

[trousers]

The point is that the deficit is increasing

 

I agree that there is currently a blip in the deficit reduction but the overall trend for this parliamentary term is down. (Net borrowing in 2009/10 was £153bn pa; current net borrowing is £99bn pa)

[hutch]

The point is that the deficit is increasing, not reducing despite an expanding economy. Its not that he isnt reducing the deficit quickly enough, its the opposite - we're borrowing more this year than last despite the economy being 3% larger.

Isn't the issue about the rate at which it is increasing. In real terms. In pounds, not as a percentage of Aunty Ethel's bingo winnings.

 

p.s. not grinding any axes, I don't know the answer, I just think that's the real question.

[buctootim]

Isn't the issue about the rate at which it is increasing. In real terms. In pounds, not as a percentage of Aunty Ethel's bingo winnings.

 

p.s. not grinding any axes, I don't know the answer, I just think that's the real question.

 

Whichever way you slice it its bad. Spending is up, tax take is less than budgeted and borrowing is 6% more than last year. We owe more in absolute terms, real terms, as a percentage of GDP and by another other metric you can think of.

[buctootim]

I agree that there is currently a blip in the deficit reduction but the overall trend for this parliamentary term is down. (Net borrowing in 2009/10 was £153bn pa; current net borrowing is £99bn pa)

 

Lets hope its a blip. It wages dont start to grow faster than inflation soon there will be a major structural problem.

[hutch]

Whichever way you slice it its bad. Spending is up, tax take is less than budgeted and borrowing is 6% more than last year. We owe more in absolute terms, real terms, as a percentage of GDP and by another other metric you can think of.

I'm not sure you got my drift BTT. If last year's borrowing was 6.1% up on the year before then surely the trend is improving? Although statistics was always my achilles heel.

[Whitey Grandad]

This government has been an economic shambles. They've demonised the poor, introduced all kinds of means testing (which looks to have failed on many occasions) and taken low paid work out of the economy with their slave labour work schemes. All pain for no gain.

 

As has been pointed out, they've borrowed more than Labour did in thirteen years, during a period of f**king austerity! Where has the money gone?

 

It was all spent by the previous administrations. Now it has to be paid for.

[Whitey Grandad]

The point is that the deficit is increasing, not reducing despite an expanding economy. Its not that he isnt reducing the deficit quickly enough, its the opposite - we're borrowing more this year than last despite the economy being 3% larger.

 

Expanding from a lower base. It's still not back to where it was pre-recession.

[buctootim]

I'm not sure you got my drift BTT. If last year's borrowing was 6.1% up on the year before then surely the trend is improving? Although statistics was always my achilles heel.

 

No because for the previous few years the amount of new borrowing had decreased (although obviously the total amount owed continued to increase). This year that trend has reversed and we are now borrowing more new money this year than last year, despite the economy growing. So things have got worse.

[badgerx16]

It was all spent by the previous administrations.

 

Including bailing out the banks.

[Whitey Grandad]

Including bailing out the banks.

 

'Underwriting', not quite the same thing but yes, they committed that as well.

[CB Saint]

Including bailing out the banks.

 

That contributed to the total debt pile and obviously added some to the interest repayment, however we were carrying a big old deficit during the boom years - that was not the fault of the bankers or the Tories.

 

When I reflect, what irks me about our present state is that there was no attempt to put aside for the bad times when we could - Labour spent everything coming through the door (and some that wasn't) in the false hope the boom and bust had been eradicated. Now I am sure that they wouldn't have been able to put by enough to cover the mess the bankers created, however it wouldn't have been so bad.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just a gentle reminder...

 

This is a coalition government, not a Conservative one.

[pap]

Just a gentle reminder...

 

This is a coalition government, not a Conservative one.

 

Makes no difference, really.

 

I went to a meeting the other day featuring a speaker from Podemos, a newly formed Spanish party that grew out of the "indignados" movement, Spanish people hanging about in squares talking politics. One of their big revelations, which I agree with both here and there, is that we've moved away from a duopoly of power into a neo-liberal monopoly of power which has the ability to swap board members every election.

 

Now I'm not sure whether anyone else has caught the recurring theme of the last thirty years, but the observant will have noted that much of it has been about a transfer of ownership from public to private hands. That is effectively a transfer of power. Sure, we've got regulators that are supposed to keep the newly formed private companies in check, but in practice, is that happening? We were told that competition would lower prices for all, and perhaps for a time that was true. These days, you've the likes of Ed Miliband promising price freezes for energy, rail companies that have virtual monopolies in their core areas and a wholly uncertain future for the NHS.

 

It's a sad state of affairs when UKIP is the only party that has a chance of breaking the two party system , especially as they're just as on-board with the neo-liberal gangbang and supporters of controversial supra-national initiatives like TTIP.

[Whitey Grandad]

Makes no difference, really.

 

I went to a meeting the other day featuring a speaker from Podemos, a newly formed Spanish party that grew out of the "indignados" movement, Spanish people hanging about in squares talking politics. One of their big revelations, which I agree with both here and there, is that we've moved away from a duopoly of power into a neo-liberal monopoly of power which has the ability to swap board members every election.

 

Now I'm not sure whether anyone else has caught the recurring theme of the last thirty years, but the observant will have noted that much of it has been about a transfer of ownership from public to private hands. That is effectively a transfer of power. Sure, we've got regulators that are supposed to keep the newly formed private companies in check, but in practice, is that happening? We were told that competition would lower prices for all, and perhaps for a time that was true. These days, you've the likes of Ed Miliband promising price freezes for energy, rail companies that have virtual monopolies in their core areas and a wholly uncertain future for the NHS.

 

It's a sad state of affairs when UKIP is the only party that has a chance of breaking the two party system , especially as they're just as on-board with the neo-liberal gangbang and supporters of controversial supra-national initiatives like TTIP.

 

It's a moot point the extent to which the intentions of the Conservative section of the government have been restrained by the LibDems.

[pap]

It's a moot point the extent to which the intentions of the Conservative section of the government have been restrained by the LibDems.

 

Really?

 

I thought the Lib Dems were busy being human shields for the Conservatives' "bandit government" agenda.

[Whitey Grandad]

Really?

 

I thought the Lib Dems were busy being human shields for the Conservatives' "bandit government" agenda.

 

It all depends on your standpoint.

 

 

We're back where we started, aren't we?

[trousers]

For those who like to talk down the Tory attempts at recovering the economy, it could be a lot worse....

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9349002/italys-in-terminal-decline-and-no-one-has-the-guts-to-stop-it/

[buctootim]

For those who like to talk down the Tory attempts at recovering the economy, it could be a lot worse....

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9349002/italys-in-terminal-decline-and-no-one-has-the-guts-to-stop-it/

 

Nicholas Farrell is an absolute knob, dont put any store by what he writes. He thinks Mussolini's decision to join Hitler in WW2 was a "brilliant decision" (450,000 Italians dead) and that "at least the Fascists got things done".

[trousers]

Nicholas Farrell is an absolute knob, dont put any store by what he writes. He thinks Mussolini's decision to join Hitler in WW2 was a "brilliant decision" (450,000 Italians dead) and that "at least the Fascists got things done".

Fair enough. So which bits about Italy's economy did he get wrong?

Edited 23 October, 2014 by trousers

[buctootim]

Fair enough. So which bits about Italy's economy did he get wrong!

 

Oh Italy is a basket case for sure, I just wouldn't trust him to tell me that!

[Johnny Bognor]

[bridge too far]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29771754

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29771470

Edited 26 October, 2014 by bridge too far

[buctootim]

 

I hadnt realised until now that Brown's deficit was smaller than that of Lamont / Clarke until the financial crisis. Thanks.

[Whitey Grandad]

I hadnt realised until now that Brown's deficit was smaller than that of Lamont / Clarke until the financial crisis. Thanks.

 

You have to be careful with the figures, absolute, a percentage of GDP, adjusted for inflation...

[Johnny Bognor]

I hadnt realised until now that Brown's deficit was smaller than that of Lamont / Clarke until the financial crisis. Thanks.

 

The Lamont/Clarke deficit was run during and after the early 1990's recession, which is to be expected.

 

Clown ran a large deficit for 6 years before the financial crisis (during the boom years), when the "Prudent" one (PMSL) should have put some aside for a rainy day. But then he did think he invented "no more boom and bust". Unfortunately, the deluded one and his gullible followers fell for it.

[Wade Garrett]

I am struggling to understand how a Prime Minister can be blamed for bankers either side of the pond performing like backstreet bookies.

[Whitey Grandad]

I am struggling to understand how a Prime Minister can be blamed for bankers either side of the pond performing like backstreet bookies.

 

There was too much emphasis on banking and not enough on other aspects of the economy. Blair and Brown were enthralled by the City bankers and overlooked everything else. Basically they didn't think that anything could ever go wrong and that we ought to be putting away something in reserve for when things went belly up.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

The Lamont/Clarke deficit was run during and after the early 1990's recession, which is to be expected.

 

Clown ran a large deficit for 6 years before the financial crisis (during the boom years), when the "Prudent" one (PMSL) should have put some aside for a rainy day. But then he did think he invented "no more boom and bust". Unfortunately, the deluded one and his gullible followers fell for it.

 

Repost for your benefit:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

 

 

"A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said. He pledged two years of 2% increases. The final year total would be reviewed."

 

And Whitey G, the Tories started banking deregulation in 1986. Nigel Lawson has argued that the seeds of the financial crisis began with the "big bang" deregulation of the City in 1986:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)#Consequences

 

Yes New Labour continued it but if you think a Conservative government would not have done the same in order to stay "competitive" with similar reforms in the US, then you are living in dreamland.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

The most frustrating thing about all of this is that Labour gets blamed for the financial crisis when the reality is that both of the main parties were lost in a neo-liberal bubble of deregulation. No one foresaw what was about to happen.

 

And Labour only moved to the right because the public wouldn't elect them otherwise!

[trousers]

The most frustrating thing about all of this is that Labour gets blamed for the financial crisis

 

Would it have been equally "frustrating" if the Tories had been in power and subsequently blamed for it?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Would it have been equally "frustrating" if the Tories had been in power and subsequently blamed for it?

I suppose what I mean is that it is frustrating to hear rightwingers use deregulation of the banks as a stick to beat Labour with, when not only would their party have done the same, but such an approach is central to their political instincts.

 

Ultimately I would like Labour (or another party if necessary) to be electable as a centre left party, but for that to happen the public needs to realise that the problem wasn't Labour in itself, it was Labour in a period when it had abandoned its principles and been taken over by neo liberals.

Edited 26 October, 2014 by Ex Lion Tamer

[Whitey Grandad]

The most frustrating thing about all of this is that Labour gets blamed for the financial crisis when the reality is that both of the main parties were lost in a neo-liberal bubble of deregulation. No one foresaw what was about to happen.

 

And Labour only moved to the right because the public wouldn't elect them otherwise!

 

Are you saying it's the public's fault for voting them in?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Are you saying it's the public's fault for voting them in?

Well as I said earlier, they were faced with the choice of two neo liberal parties, which isn't much of a choice. But equally, Labour was trying to occupy the centre ground, and where that centre ground sits is set by public attitudes. Labour knew the press and the public would jump on any hint that it was "anti business", and adjusted its policies / leaders accordingly.

 

So yes, we all have to share some responsibility for what happened.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Are you saying it's the public's fault for voting them in?

Perhaps the real mistake was electing Margaret Thatcher, who set the political weather for the next 25 years

Edited 26 October, 2014 by Ex Lion Tamer

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I presume you were campaigning against banking deregulation back in 1986 Whitey?

[Whitey Grandad]

I presume you were campaigning against banking deregulation back in 1986 Whitey?

 

I have never been happy with the obsession with the City as a means of generating wealth. Any money that they make is creamed off from the real economy. Sure, they provide a very important function but the rewards were far too high and encouraged recklessness.

[buctootim]

So, what's the solution? (other than trying to squeeze more tax out of "the rich" than New Labour ever aspired to)

 

 

...

Edited 27 October, 2014 by buctootim
doh, US figures

[pap]

Green snorts?

 

[video=youtube;V4iXjaoZA-E]

 

(Maybe that's where all the cash has gone )

[trousers]

Thread closed. Thanks to everyone for their participation. I'll start another one up in 5 years or so once Labour have buggered things up again.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/16/imf-chief-hails-uk-economic-recovery

 

“The UK is leading in a very eloquent and convincing way in the European Union.

 

“A few countries, only a few, are driving growth: America and the UK. From a global perspective we see growth that’s too low, too fragile.”

 

Speaking about prospects for 2015, Lagarde said she expected it to be a good year for the US, which is experiencing strong growth. She offered a strong endorsement for the British chancellor, adding: “And the UK, where clearly growth is improving, the deficit has been reduced, and where the unemployment is going down.

 

“Certainly from a global perspective this is exactly the sort of result that we would like to see … More growth, less unemployment, a growth that is more inclusive, that is better shared, and a growth that is also sustainable and more balanced.”

Edited 16 January, 2015 by trousers