Student Riots

[ArrowsFA1]

...the coalition's hands are tied re penalising banker's bonuses
No they're not. They're the government. They are fully able to act regarding bankers bonuses, and they already have just this month, although as this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/24/curb-the-banks-government-propped-them-up) points out Osborne claimed credit for the very policies his government tried to squash.

[ArrowsFA1]

The only way to get folk spending is tax cuts and we can't have them until Labour's debts have been reduced...
I know that John Prescott has said (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11049538) Labour needs to tackle its debt, but that's not really any concern of anyone but the Labour Party.

Of much greater concern is that the CBI (http://www.cbi.org.uk)'s departing director general has said (http://realbusiness.co.uk/leadership/cbis_sir_richard_lambert_slams_the_coalition) that the current government has “taken a series of policy initiatives for political reasons, apparently careless of the damage that they might do to business and to job creation. It's not enough just to slam on the spending brakes. Measures that cut spending but killed demand would actually make matters worse."

[Dave B]

The only way to get folk spending is tax cuts and we can't have them until Labour's debts have been reduced, so massive cuts to public spending have to come first.

Not at all. The biggest barrier to consumer spending is lack of confidence: people are worrying about their own job security, and whether they'll see their pay shrink in real terms if they're still employed.

It's a vicious circle, the fear of a double-dip recession is real (as I write this, 68% of respondents to a poll in your trusted Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350317/UK-economy-shrinks-0-5--sparking-fresh-fears-double-dip-recession.html)forecast one) and will supress spending - supressed spending makes a double-dip recession more likely.

Few people are saying that cuts are unnecessary, but it's the scale and the speed of them which is going to destroy the economy.

[Retro Formula 1]

Of course you are right Dave and cuts for cuts sake is a destructive policy.

The government is in a no win situation. Whatever cuts they make witll be unpopular with that part of the population and they have to make cuts across all the population. They will be universally dammed because we will all feel hard done by and any condemnation against what hurts us personally will be grabbed with both hands, arms, legs feet and teeth as possible.

Every action they take will be analysed in hindsight and a myriad of different conclusions produced to suit opinion.

However, spending has to be curtailed and cuts must be made. All these experts were living it up when Labour spent us into this mess and nobody remembered that these things go in cycles. What was it? The end of Boom and Bust. No more recessions, just stable economic growth? Remember those words?

So I suggest we tighten our belts and appreciate it's going to be rough but in a couple of years, we will have rode out the worst and hopefully, those experts will have learned the lesson this time.... although somehow I doubt it.

[Daniel]

The only way to get folk spending is tax cuts and we can't have them until Labour's debts have been reduced, so massive cuts to public spending have to come first.

Who was it that posted the link that showed that public debt when Labour left govt was better than when they'd come in? :laugh:

[ArrowsFA1]

The government is in a no win situation. Whatever cuts they make witll be unpopular with that part of the population and they have to make cuts across all the population.
I think most people recognise cuts have to be made but:
1. The idea that Labour were and are the cause of the UK's economic problems is a tabloid headline of an explanation.
2. "We're all in this together" doesn't stand up when some clearly are not as yet and may never be.
3. Government promises over a number of issues have to date proved to be empty which makes trust an issue.
4. Short term pain, long term gain is as meaningful as no more boom or bust.

[Daniel]

1. The idea that Labour were and are the cause of the UK's economic problems is a tabloid headline of an explanation.

Personally I believe that everyday people share some of the blame too. People thought they were getting rich when the prices of their houses were just going up and up and up and thought they couldn't lose when buying property so kept on buying at ever increasing prices and were happy borrowing silly at sily LTV's (loan to value). Sure the banks were bad for lending stupid money but what about the morons who borrowed it who should have known better?

[Dave B]

All these experts were living it up when Labour spent us into this mess and nobody remembered that these things go in cycles. What was it? The end of Boom and Bust. No more recessions, just stable economic growth? Remember those words?
But don't forget that, when it suited them, the Conservatives backed Labour's policies. In 2007 - when it appeared there might be a General Election in the wake of Brown becoming PM - George Osborne pledged to match Labour's spending for at least two years.

He's Chancellor now, so let's remember his words back then:


The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year.

The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false."


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

So as shadow chancellor he either failed to understand the economy or he was lying. He can't blame Labour for doing what he admits he would have done himself.

[Bolton Midnight]

Yes. It's overly simplistic and deeply flawed. It fails to take into account, just for starters, the revenue brought to the exchequer by those notional employees when they spend their wages - the 20% VAT for example. The economy is a bit more complicated than I think you understand.

So on that basis why not give the unemployed 2k a month, and let them spend it, after all it'll be good for the economy.

[Bolton Midnight]

We both agree that the scrappage scheme paid for itself by the amount of VAT raised on the sale of new cars, yes?

No, my old Dingleberry, it was a smoke and mirrors stunt that on the surface hasn't cost anything, when you scratch the surface, it explains the mentality of a Government that spent, spent, spent until the country was basically bankrupt.

At the moment, we owe a slither less than one Trillion pounds and if you take into account things like the pension liability bombshell (oh yes, we haven't even really considered that yet), then the figure is eye wateringly large. But even without this, for the first time since the early severnties, debt has passed 50% of our GDP and even with all the cuts so far, it's increasing.



But it didn't, the cost to administrate it is not be counted.

Agreed, anyone in business (so that totally rules out anyone in the public sector as they seem to think money grows on trees) knows you can not spend your way out of debt.

State pensions are a massive time bomb, even the public sector has not a clue how that is going to be funded. It needs to be massively cut - slash and burn only way to sort out the oversized state that Labour created.

[Bolton Midnight]

Not at all. The biggest barrier to consumer spending is lack of confidence: people are worrying about their own job security, and whether they'll see their pay shrink in real terms if they're still employed.

It's a vicious circle, the fear of a double-dip recession is real (as I write this, 68% of respondents to a poll in your trusted Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350317/UK-economy-shrinks-0-5--sparking-fresh-fears-double-dip-recession.html)forecast one) and will supress spending - supressed spending makes a double-dip recession more likely.

Few people are saying that cuts are unnecessary, but it's the scale and the speed of them which is going to destroy the economy.

Agree that the media have played a significant part in all this, if you tell folk enough times that we're in recession then yep we will be pretty soon.

[Bolton Midnight]

Who was it that posted the link that showed that public debt when Labour left govt was better than when they'd come in? :laugh:

I'd lay off the wacky backy if I were you

[Malbec]

If they were oh so essential how did the NHS manage pre 1997 without them?

Poorly. How do you think the Bristol Royal Infirmary scandal, Shipman and Alder Hey happened? There simply was no nationwide quality control system and the free-economy system within the NHS was in its infancy.

[ArrowsFA1]

Britain's debt at the outset of the economic crisis was the second-lowest in the G7 and lower than it was under the Conservatives in 1997 and says neither of the parties in the coalition government called for lower spending at the time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/06/ed-miliband-tories-deceit-labour-deficit

Perhaps Bolton Midnight will be able to prove that this is incorrect.

[Dave B]

Agreed, anyone in business (so that totally rules out anyone in the public sector as they seem to think money grows on trees) knows you can not spend your way out of debt.
That's demonstrably not always true. Sensible investment can stimulate growth, and in times of recession it can sometimes be cheaper to make that investment as labour is usually cheaper.


State pensions are a massive time bomb, even the public sector has not a clue how that is going to be funded. It needs to be massively cut - slash and burn only way to sort out the oversized state that Labour created.
If you "slashing and burning" at this rate you'll spend a fortune in redunancy payments; and at a time when the private sector are not picking up the slack at anything like the rate which Osborne predicted, you'll also end up spending a fortune in benefits to the unemployed you create.

The original Conservative plans centred on natural wastage: not replacing those who retire or leave, and not renewing temporary contracts as they come to a planned end. This would have been sensible. Instead they're swinging the axe and pinning all their hopes on the private sector which, thus far, has not taken up the challenge. It's the politics of desperation.

[Malbec]

My problem with the radical changes being introduced are that before the election we were explicitely promised that there would be no such re-organisation of the NHS, and yet the plans were unveiled within weeks of the coalition being formed.

This means that either (a) the plans were cobbled together without much thought or care, or (b) the Conservatives told a blatent lie.

Worse, the bill has only just been published but the changes are being pushed though before it's been properly debated - let alone voted on. In my local PCT the changeover is so far advanced that even if the bill were to be defeated the process is pretty much irreversable. This stinks of idealogical change rather than being driven by the needs of the patient.

GPs have two choices. Either manage their own commissioning, thereby spending less time with patients; or pay a private management company to do the same job as the PCT they replaced but at a profit.

Expect to hear the tabloids' staple phrase "postcode lottery" replace the other staple of "government interference" over the next few years.

I think it is odd that the Tories claimed they wouldn't have any large top-down reorganisations but the nature of their reforms are broadly in line with what the Tories proposed back during the time of the junior doctors demonstration back in 2007 or so.

I think its clear that Andrew Lansley had been working on the reforms for a long while without the leadership being fully informed as to its nature and extent given how well thought out it is (in extent at least). It certainly wasn't cobbled together between the election and July last year when it was published.

That in my mind raises questions about the level of communications inside the Tory party but thats a seperate matter entirely.

In terms of postcode lotteries part of the reforms are designed to ensure that treatment pathways across Britain become more uniform although I'm sure some degree of inequality will persist.

[Bolton Midnight]

Poorly. How do you think the Bristol Royal Infirmary scandal, Shipman and Alder Hey happened? There simply was no nationwide quality control system and the free-economy system within the NHS was in its infancy.

Shipman was busiest under Labour government etc

Hospitals far worse under Labour than pre 97

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/heal-our-hospitals/6680330/Shamed-the-top-hospitals-with-the-worst-death-rates.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231818/Good-hospitals-failing-safety-standards-high-mortality-rates.html?ITO=1490

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11696735

[Malbec]

If you "slashing and burning" at this rate you'll spend a fortune in redunancy payments; and at a time when the private sector are not picking up the slack at anything like the rate which Osborne predicted, you'll also end up spending a fortune in benefits to the unemployed you create.

Yup, and GDP growth during the last quarter of 2010 before the government cuts are really going to kick in was -0.5%. Even corrected for the poor weather it was -0.1%, and this is despite a weak pound boosting exports.

I think its pretty clear we can expect the private sector NOT to fill the gap left by government cutbacks.

And on top an increasing number of financial institutions are preparing for a hard landing in China when their credit bubble bursts later this year which could worsen the economic climate even more.

A double-dip recession is getting more and more likely.

[Malbec]

Shipman was busiest under Labour government etc

Hospitals far worse under Labour than pre 97

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/heal-our-hospitals/6680330/Shamed-the-top-hospitals-with-the-worst-death-rates.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231818/Good-hospitals-failing-safety-standards-high-mortality-rates.html?ITO=1490

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11696735

Shipman was caught in 98. He was probably killing since he graduated from medical school, most of which was under the Tory government, though he would have done the same under any government. He was not caught because the means weren't there to assess and catch him quickly enough. That is no longer the case.

Your links really are poor, there is no attempt at comparison with any other time period. Meanwhile waiting lists have been slashed and mortality rates for most major diseases have improved albeit slightly. On just about any quality measure the NHS improved under Labour, and this is coming from someone who absolutely hated the Bliar government.

[ArrowsFA1]

Back in 1983 a government report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/your_nhs/85952.stm) "blamed inefficient management and structures within the NHS for the cash problems".

Little changes. Public services get kicked around like a political football. Every new government blames the previous government for its failings, promise to rectify all the faults, and introduce sweeping 'new' changes that take years to implement (if only partially) by which time there's a new government and the whole process starts again.

[Bolton Midnight]

It has never been anywhere near as bad as it is now in peacetime

What are Labour's solutions then? Easy for them to scoff at the Coalition's attempts to right Labour's wrongs but what do they suggest? Ed Balls is in favour of cuts, Darling said pre election there would need to be cuts bigger than under Maggie.

So not sure why you think the Coalition are doing it all wrong?

[Daniel]

It has never been anywhere near as bad as it is now in peacetime

What are Labour's solutions then? Easy for them to scoff at the Coalition's attempts to right Labour's wrongs but what do they suggest? Ed Balls is in favour of cuts, Darling said pre election there would need to be cuts bigger than under Maggie.

So not sure why you think the Coalition are doing it all wrong?

So now it's not "The coalition is the best" it's "What could labour do better" so when does "OK you were right, Dave Cameron is a moron" come? :)

[Dave B]

It's true that Labour agreed there would have to be cuts, but their plan was to get the economy well and truly back on track first, then to cut the deficit at a slower and more manageable pace. Cutting this savagely and this quickly, before the private sector are placed to pick up the slack, is madness.

[Daniel]

It's true that Labour agreed there would have to be cuts, but their plan was to get the economy well and truly back on track first, then to cut the deficit at a slower and more manageable pace. Cutting this savagely and this quickly, before the private sector are placed to pick up the slack, is madness.

Labour has this crazy idea that if you started firing hundreds of thousands of public sector workers that those workers would stop spending money on houses, cars, electronic goods, food, luxury items and so on and thought that when this money stopped getting spent that it might have an effect on the economy. Funny that!

Effectively we were broke and needed to pay off our debts so we fired ourselves :mark:

[Bolton Midnight]

It's true that Labour agreed there would have to be cuts, but their plan was to get the economy well and truly back on track first, then to cut the deficit at a slower and more manageable pace. Cutting this savagely and this quickly, before the private sector are placed to pick up the slack, is madness.

Was it, I haven't seen a plan from them.


Labour has this crazy idea that if you started firing hundreds of thousands of public sector workers that those workers would stop voting Labour

EFA

[Daniel]

Well of course people who get fired aren't going to vote for you, it's understandable non?

[Bolton Midnight]

so when does "OK you were right, Dave Cameron is a moron" come? :)

I voted for David Davis so ain't a DC fan by a long stretch

[Daniel]

I voted for David Davis so ain't a DC fan by a long stretch

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5309646/MPs-expenses-David-Davies-the-council-estate-lad-who-claimed-5700-for-a-portico.html nice taste in MP's :laugh:

[Bolton Midnight]

Well of course people who get fired aren't going to vote for you, it's understandable non?

So you see the public sector as a selfish and greedy then; putting their own self interests above those of the nation

interesting..........

[Daniel]

So you see the public sector as a selfish and greedy then; putting their own self interests above those of the nation

interesting..........

Unless I'm very mistake I didn't say that. I feel that the public sector needs cuts. But those cuts needed to be gradual rather than harsh. Anyone with half a knowledge of what budgets come where in a period of government will realise that the only reason the Condem's are cutting so much so soon is that they hope to really sweeten up the budget before the next election to lure clueless tards in. If anyone is putting their interests above those of the nation it's the government.

[Bolton Midnight]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5309646/MPs-expenses-David-Davies-the-council-estate-lad-who-claimed-5700-for-a-portico.html nice taste in MP's :laugh:

and your point is what exactly?

Is he in jail with the Labour MPs for fiddling, oh no he isn't.

MP expenses - drop in the ocean a complete non story, esp when compared to Labour's mismanagement of the nation's finances

[Daniel]

and your point is what exactly?

Is he in jail with the Labour MPs for fiddling, oh no he isn't.

MP expenses - drop in the ocean a complete non story, esp when compared to Labour's mismanagement of the nation's finances
So you don't think that Mr and Mrs Smith who bought up 3 or 4 properties in 2006 when prices were skyrocketing on 90% LTV mortgages whilst only leaving 5% equity in their own houses should shouder some of the blame? :laugh:

[BDunnell]

and your point is what exactly?

Is he in jail with the Labour MPs for fiddling, oh no he isn't.

MP expenses - drop in the ocean a complete non story, esp when compared to Labour's mismanagement of the nation's finances

Oh yes, MPs' expenses was a party-political issue, wasn't it?

Can someone who isn't on his ignore list please implore him to leave the current affairs discussions to sentient humans?

[Dave B]

and your point is what exactly?

Is he in jail with the Labour MPs for fiddling, oh no he isn't.

The expenses scandal was an issue for all parties. Look what The Telegraph have on their front page today:



Lord Taylor of Warwick falsely claimed for travel and overnight subsistence, a jury at Southwark Crown Court decided by a majority of 11 to one.

The 58-year-old told the House of Lords members' expenses office that his main residence was in Oxford, when he lived in west London.

Taylor is the first parliamentarian to be tried and found guilty by a jury over the expenses scandal

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8281426/Lord-Taylor-found-guilty-of-fiddling-his-parliamentary-expenses.html

What party is Lord Taylor from? Exactly - they were all at it.

[Bolton Midnight]

So you don't think that Mr and Mrs Smith who bought up 3 or 4 properties in 2006 when prices were skyrocketing on 90% LTV mortgages whilst only leaving 5% equity in their own houses should shouder some of the blame? :laugh:

No let the banks repossess their houses if they aren't paying their mortgages, if they are then where's the problem?

[Bolton Midnight]

they were all at it.

Yep, am well aware of that, drop in the ocean when all said and done

They are underpaid

[ArrowsFA1]

It has never been anywhere near as bad as it is now in peacetime
It might be worth you taking a look at Britain in the 1970s.

What are Labour's solutions then?
Ask Labour. Find out.

So not sure why you think the Coalition are doing it all wrong?
I haven't said they're doing it all wrong.

[Daniel]

Yep, am well aware of that, drop in the ocean when all said and done

They are underpaid

Are you a lawyer? If so I think I might need your services in the future. See I think I'm underpaid so I'm going to steal some stuff from work and will need someone to defend me in court.

[Bolton Midnight]

It might be worth you taking a look at Britain in the 1970s.

Ask Labour. Find out.

I haven't said they're doing it all wrong.

70s when Labour last cocked it up you mean, agreed it was bad but the level of debt nowhere near what it is now (even allowing for inflation) but thankfully Maggie sorted it all out, thank god.

Labour are being asked constantly, they haven't a clue.

I don't like the VAT increase I'd like to see tax cuts to get folk spending and big cuts to the cost of the State.

[Bolton Midnight]

Are you a lawyer? If so I think I might need your services in the future. See I think I'm underpaid so I'm going to steal some stuff from work and will need someone to defend me in court.

No I am not, but I can tell you most were not stealing, they were following guidelines.

If you receive anything more than minimum wage then I'd keep my gob shut as you are clearly already overpaid and robbing your employer blind.

[Daniel]

No I am not, but I can tell you most were not stealing, they were following guidelines.
Were they? Where were the guidelines which said "We're happy to pay for your duckhouse" and so on? :laugh:

A good deal of MP's Labour, Conservative and other should find themselves in jail if I'm honest.

[BDunnell]

If you receive anything more than minimum wage then I'd keep my gob shut as you are clearly already overpaid and robbing your employer blind.

Whereas you, of course, smoking with the customers of your health-related business, represent a shining example to us all when it comes to performance at work.

[Daniel]

The original Conservative plans centred on natural wastage: not replacing those who retire or leave, and not renewing temporary contracts as they come to a planned end. This would have been sensible. Instead they're swinging the axe and pinning all their hopes on the private sector which, thus far, has not taken up the challenge. It's the politics of desperation.

I have to say I disagree with this. You just know that it would have ended up that anyone who was retiring would not be replaced and all temporary contracts would come to an end even if the net effect of employing a new person was an efficiency saving....

[Bolton Midnight]

A good deal of MP's Labour, Conservative and other should find themselves in jail if I'm honest.

But they won't, as thankfully the courts are run by knowledgeable people and not clueless types who think £5 for a bog seat is more important than an £8bn State pension deficit

[Daniel]

Whereas you, of course, smoking with the customers of your health-related business, represent a shining example to us all when it comes to performance at work.

Hi 5!

[Daniel]

But they won't, as thankfully the courts are run by knowledgeable people and not clueless types who think £5 for a bog seat is more important than an £8bn State pension deficit

LOL

What I said

Were they? Where were the guidelines which said "We're happy to pay for your duckhouse" and so on? :laugh:

A good deal of MP's Labour, Conservative and other should find themselves in jail if I'm honest.

What he saw

I think anyone who claimed so much as 40p for a packet of gum should go to jail :evil:

All Conservative MP's should find themselves in jail because I vote for labour because I'm lazy and a Labour government best suits me

[ArrowsFA1]

70s when Labour last cocked it up you mean, agreed it was bad but the level of debt nowhere near what it is now (even allowing for inflation) but thankfully Maggie sorted it all out, thank god.
Oh that's right. Our people never have it so good when the Tories are in power :rolleyes:

If you ever take the blue blinkers off you might have a better chance of seeing the full picture.

[Dave B]

No let the banks repossess their houses if they aren't paying their mortgages, if they are then where's the problem?

How easily do you think these banks could then sell the repossed houses in a depressed market where those self-same banks were reluctant to lend?

As you're learning, the economy is a finely balanced ecosystem, not as black and white as you'd like to make out.

[BDunnell]

As you're learning

Really?

[Daniel]

Really?

Dave has always been an optimist.

[Retro Formula 1]

But don't forget that, when it suited them, the Conservatives backed Labour's policies. In 2007 - when it appeared there might be a General Election in the wake of Brown becoming PM - George Osborne pledged to match Labour's spending for at least two years.

He's Chancellor now, so let's remember his words back then:



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

So as shadow chancellor he either failed to understand the economy or he was lying. He can't blame Labour for doing what he admits he would have done himself.

:laugh: You are correct Dave and if you are claiming that Politicians lie to get into Government, then I agree completely. All politician do and it's a national sport picking them up on them and watching them back-track :D The only thing that confuses me is why some people expect them to keep to their word? There will only ever be true democracy when we have a system of Government that reflects the will of the people more closely.

I don't particularly like the Conservatives any more than Labour or the Lib Dumbs. My politics comprises of taking the parts from each party that I deem are the best and making as rational decision as possible about who to vote for and hope they keep to their word some of the time.

So, when I say I believe we need to rationalise and cut the amount we are borrowing, then it's because I believe this is the right thing to do. The Con-Dems will take the pain where Labour would cut some sectors and then borrow to fluff the bed of the demographic that votes for it so we don't actually get anywhere. This bribery went on at an increasing rate right up to the last general election and it was criminal IMHO.

If smart investments can be made to stimulate economic growth and increase jobs then we must do it but overall, we must cut back the rate we are borrowing.

[Malbec]

It's true that Labour agreed there would have to be cuts, but their plan was to get the economy well and truly back on track first, then to cut the deficit at a slower and more manageable pace.

Thats not strictly true. The Department of Health were telling the chief execs of key hospitals to expect a rapid 10% cut in the entire NHS budget if Labour got in and to expect the same from the Tories. I presume this would have been the ballpark figure for spending cuts across the board which is broadly in line with what the Tories have actually done.I think its wrong to claim that the Labour cuts would have been much less or later than the Tory plans whatever they were saying in public.

[Retro Formula 1]

70s when Labour last cocked it up you mean, agreed it was bad but the level of debt nowhere near what it is now (even allowing for inflation) but thankfully Maggie sorted it all out, thank god.

Labour are being asked constantly, they haven't a clue.

I don't like the VAT increase I'd like to see tax cuts to get folk spending and big cuts to the cost of the State.

I suppose it depends on how you measure these things.

My preferred comparrison is against GDP and the amount of debt we have now is equilivant to about 1970.

[ArrowsFA1]

My preferred comparrison is against GDP and the amount of debt we have now is equilivant to about 1970.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Z_3bgQQpLBE/TL_tYYSpP6I/AAAAAAAAAE4/6_NAPKhXUmg/s400/debt-gdp.jpg

[Mark]

Sometimes it takes a graph such as that to put things into perspective!

[Retro Formula 1]

Sometimes it takes a graph such as that to put things into perspective!

It really does Mark if people know what it means.

During WW2, the UK built up huge levels of debt when compared to the income the nation was generating what with everyone being involved with war. The Women of this country did a sterling job keeping the basic manufacturing base ticking over but effectivly, the country wasn't working.

When the WW2 ended, Manufacturing and production started in earnest. Massive investment and rebuilding infrastructure took place and very quickly, the GDP to Debt ratio changed and within 25 years, was below where we are today.

Where it becomes interesting is since the early 70's. GDP has rocketed and in relation, debt went down until 1991 where we had a recession and GDP fell and the burden of debt rose before plateauing and dropping during recovery. Classic boom and bust.

However, look what's happened since the turn of the millinium...

Not just a decade of very positive GDP growth but the more we're making, the more we borrow? Now, come on, what's that all about? You would only do this if you knew there would never be another recession. Even then, I would suggest you use the massive influx of money being generated by the country to remove our national debt.

Just look where we are now!!! Our debt in the last 10 years compared to our GDP has DOUBLED!

Please, if someone can explain why this is a good idea, I'm all ears. This has got to stop and yes, people are going to hurt because we are in a totally false economic situation. We have to rationalise what we have out there, cut it back to a manageable amount and then rebuild. Not keep constructing on an unsustainable platform and chucking more debt at the problem.

[Daniel]

Completely agree skc. I worked for a company very much in the mortgage industry and people were falling over themselves to get into loads of debt. Like I say though, this is not a party issue, its what people themselves have done to the economy.

[ArrowsFA1]

However, look what's happened since the turn of the millinium...

Not just a decade of very positive GDP growth but the more we're making, the more we borrow?

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/net-borrowing.jpg

The dramatic increase in borrowing coincided with the banking crisis. This was not a deliberate decision by the government to plunge the country into more and more debt for the hell of it; it was a response to was is considered by many to be the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

[Mark]

Indeed, whatever government in power it was completely necessary to borrow a lot of money to get us out of the hole we (and the banks) had dug for ourselves. Then of course any government would have had to claw that back. The problem is when you hear "All Labours fault", when if the tories were in power they would have had to have done the same - no choice.

Yes, of course better regulation could have avoided this problem, but we've still seen downturns in countries which didn't indulge in the lending spree, you can't insulate yourself from global shocks as much as many would like to think

[Retro Formula 1]

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/net-borrowing.jpg

The dramatic increase in borrowing coincided with the banking crisis. This was not a deliberate decision by the government to plunge the country into more and more debt for the hell of it; it was a response to was is considered by many to be the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

This has been a terrible financial period which is not the fault of Labour. Nobody but an idiot would suggest it was (Enter BM stage left :) )

The crisis was caused by poor regulation of the financial industry especially in the US. Stupid lending and criminal trading meant fund managers were fantastically rewarded for shifting worthless stock. Well, I say criminal trading but actually it was legal because people like Gordon Brown removed controls that were in place. Basically, he thought he was their chum and pandered to their self serving requirements.

Yes, we can blame the bankers for being greedy but isn't that a bit like blaming a fox for eating chickens. No you don't? You build a fence which, funnily enough, was actually in place until Farmer Brown lifted up the wire to let the fox in.

[Retro Formula 1]

Indeed, whatever government in power it was completely necessary to borrow a lot of money to get us out of the hole we (and the banks) had dug for ourselves. Then of course any government would have had to claw that back. The problem is when you hear "All Labours fault", when if the tories were in power they would have had to have done the same - no choice.

Yes, of course better regulation could have avoided this problem, but we've still seen downturns in countries which didn't indulge in the lending spree, you can't insulate yourself from global shocks as much as many would like to think

As I said, Gordon removed that legislation. That's what pisses me off. It wasn't all him because Maggie done half the damage after the Labour Government of the 70's managed to put some restrictions on and sort out Heaths Inflation cock-up. However, it was Gordon that removed the last check and said banks could lend as much as they want and when you've lured everyone in and need to make some more money, you can then put up interest rates to fleece people.

This is quite a fair history.

http://www.variant.org.uk/9texts/RobinRamsay.html

So, the removal of control is a big issue and that in recent years is all Gordons fault and we have a over inflated Public sector which will also have to be addressed.

[ArrowsFA1]

Yes, we can blame the bankers for being greedy but isn't that a bit like blaming a fox for eating chickens. No you don't? You build a fence which, funnily enough, was actually in place until Farmer Brown lifted up the wire to let the fox in.
I assume you're referring to this:
...splitting financial regulation between the Treasury, the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England meant there was inadequate surveillance of the stability of the financial system. (link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/5423578/Gordon-Browns-financial-regulation-system-made-downturn-worse.html))
Is there an argument to say that in 1997, when the above was put in place, the regulations were appropriate for the time and Chancellor Brown could not have foreseen what followed a decade later? After all bankers, like F1 teams, will always do what they can to find a way around regulations!!

[Mark]

We also had the housing bubble, where property was massively overvalued and based on the amount people could borrow rather than any realistic worth. We'll be feeling the effects of that for decades to come.

[Bolton Midnight]

If you ever take the blue blinkers off you might have a better chance of seeing the full picture.

Like this you mean?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8280051/PFI-must-we-sack-teachers-to-pay-for-320-plug-sockets.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8279753/Gordon-Browns-poisoned-PFI-legacy.html




So, the removal of control is a big issue and that in recent years is all Gordons fault and we have a over inflated Public sector which will also have to be addressed.

Correct. The coalition is trying to address the massive over spend / over staffing within the Public Sector, but nobody wants to tackle the pension deficit, which is absolutely huge, staggeringly huge in fact, you'd have to be a complete idiot to have let it get so out of hand.

[ArrowsFA1]

Like this you mean?
No

So exactly which controls did Gordon Brown remove, and apparently in so doing give the finance industry licence to go nuts and cause the worst financial crisis since the 1930s? Did he have responsibility for US mortgages issued to subprime borrowers?

[Bolton Midnight]

No

So exactly which controls did Gordon Brown remove, and apparently in so doing give the finance industry licence to go nuts and cause the worst financial crisis since the 1930s? Did he have responsibility for US mortgages issued to subprime borrowers?

Mr Brown's decision to remove banking supervision from the Bank of England and hand it to the FSA

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286920/Osborne-strip-FSA-powers-set-financial-watchdog-inside-Bank-Of-England.html#ixzz1C9kuGs47

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4624033/A-sorry-parade-of-bankers-cant-put-things-right.html

[ArrowsFA1]

Right. The changes referred to in post #561 (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?140605-Student-Riots&p=881748#post881748) which did not remove any financial controls, regulation or supervision but which split the same between the Treasury, the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England in 1997.

[Retro Formula 1]

I assume you're referring to this: (link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/5423578/Gordon-Browns-financial-regulation-system-made-downturn-worse.html))
Is there an argument to say that in 1997, when the above was put in place, the regulations were appropriate for the time and Chancellor Brown could not have foreseen what followed a decade later? After all bankers, like F1 teams, will always do what they can to find a way around regulations!!


Blimey, that was a coincidence. Talk about good timing.

Yes, this was one of the main reasons for the failure. The Finance community wooed Brown, massaging his ego and secured this licence to print money. It means they can practically self regulate.

I have the advantage of not being aligned to any political party so am not clouded when making an opinion. This was a terrible decision and one that did not need an economics expert to see the implications.

Labour put the regulations in place after Heath's stupidity and the Conservatives were lambasted for removing some of them. I dare say they didn't expect one of their own to do the dirty. Not even the Major or Thatcher Governments attempted that so I can only conclude that Brown was hopelessly incompetent and didn't have a clue what he was doing.

[Bolton Midnight]

Yes, this was one of the main reasons for the failure. The Finance community wooed Brown, massaging his ego and secured this licence to print money. It means they can practically self regulate.

I have the advantage of not being aligned to any political party so am not clouded when making an opinion. This was a terrible decision and one that did not need an economics expert to see the implications.

Labour put the regulations in place after Heath's stupidity and the Conservatives were lambasted for removing some of them. I dare say they didn't expect one of their own to do the dirty. Not even the Major or Thatcher Governments attempted that so I can only conclude that Brown was hopelessly incompetent and didn't have a clue what he was doing.

Yep

Quite a few did foresee this all unfolding and tried to warn Labour. Vince Cable was one AFAIK, think Ken Clarke did too.

Brown the world saver was in fact the worst Chancellor ever.

But the bank bailout, bankers bonuses etc is a drop in the ocean compared with the billions Labour spunked away on the public sector (buying votes). The bailout will be paid back with interest so that really isn't of any great concern.

I'm more concerned about the high rate of taxation and what is subsequently done with my money. Labour taxed us all to the hilt (and the Coalition don't seem to be in any rush to turn that round - no doubt because of the huge debts Labour created).

[ArrowsFA1]

Yes, this was one of the main reasons for the failure.
It was just one of many reasons IMHO. For one thing, as I mentioned earlier, the Brown changes were implemented in 1997. It's all very easy to say it was the wrong thing to do with hindsight but at the time was there much criticism of the changes from the opposition, or many alternatives offered, or any idea of what was going to occur a decade later?

More importantly is the fact that this was a financial crisis of global, not national, proportions. What the crisis is showing us is just how interlinked the world economy is and how comparatively powerless national governments are when it comes to controlling such events.

[Bolton Midnight]

If Labour had not spent so much it would have reserves for this rainy day, but Blair/Brown/Balls spunked them all away. Not to mention the whole gold selling farce (this in itself is far bigger than the bank bailout).

I was just poor house keeping on an epic scale. Just as was trying to spend your way out of recession/debt proved to be.

[ArrowsFA1]

Not to mention the whole gold selling farce (this in itself is far bigger than the bank bailout).
You think that the loss of £2bn (link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1655001.ece)) is "far bigger" than the £850bn (Dec 2009 figure - link (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html)) required to bailout the banks?

[Retro Formula 1]

It was just one of many reasons IMHO. For one thing, as I mentioned earlier, the Brown changes were implemented in 1997. It's all very easy to say it was the wrong thing to do with hindsight but at the time was there much criticism of the changes from the opposition, or many alternatives offered, or any idea of what was going to occur a decade later?

More importantly is the fact that this was a financial crisis of global, not national, proportions. What the crisis is showing us is just how interlinked the world economy is and how comparatively powerless national governments are when it comes to controlling such events.

It was a Global crisis but we were ill equipped to deal with it, especially compared to many of our European neighbours.

If we're being objective, Bolton Midnight makes some valid points regarding the amount of money that was wasted by creating a bloated public sector. It makes me so angry that a Government and a Leader with dubious mandate could fritter away not just money on maintaining power but lives with it's deplorable scant regard for it's armed forces.

If I were a Labour supporter, I think I would be ashamed of their performance rather than trying to defend them and their behaviour.

[Bolton Midnight]

You think that the loss of £2bn (link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1655001.ece)) is "far bigger" than the £850bn (Dec 2009 figure - link (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html)) required to bailout the banks?

One is a loss one is a loan. One will be repaid with massive profits the other has just gone for ever.

[Retro Formula 1]

You think that the loss of £2bn (link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1655001.ece)) is "far bigger" than the £850bn (Dec 2009 figure - link (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html)) required to bailout the banks?

Can we not agree that £2bn is a huge amount of money to fritter away through incompetance.

The bank bailout is one thing and hopefully we will get most of the money back but the banking crisis was not of Labours making (even if some of thir actions made the situation worse as we have discussed).

But the Gold fiasco was .... was..... was.... AHHHHHHH!!!!!!

[Bolton Midnight]

If I were a Labour supporter, I think I would be ashamed of their performance rather than trying to defend them and their behaviour.

It does demonstrate the level of brainwashing in your 'average' Labour supporter though. I am a staunch Tory but when they do things wrong imho I say as much. I do not agree with the VAT increase for example at a time when we need to get folk spending adding yet more taxation to pay for the Olympics is stupid.

I want them to get tougher on Unions for example, not talk about it but do it, at least 50% for strike action seems only sensible, how can the minority call a strike?

Massive pay cuts for public sector workers (25% across the board for any non essential worker earning more than min wage). If they don't like that then fine they are free to walk (no redundancy required).

Get tough with Brussels instead of allowing them to dictate whether our prisoners can vote or not.

Scrap GCSEs and A Levels as they have become worthless, go back to the 60s and 70s papers in terms of difficulty levels, A* for only the top 5 percent.

Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, put the same soldiers on border control.

Build more motorways and super prisons (and make prisoners earn their keep).

[Daniel]

It does demonstrate the level of brainwashing in your 'average' Labour supporter though. I am a staunch Tory but when they do things wrong imho I say as much. I do not agree with the VAT increase for example at a time when we need to get folk spending adding yet more taxation to pay for the Olympics is stupid.

I want them to get tougher on Unions for example, not talk about it but do it, at least 50% for strike action seems only sensible, how can the minority call a strike?

Massive pay cuts for public sector workers (25% across the board for any non essential worker earning more than min wage). If they don't like that then fine they are free to walk (no redundancy required).

Get tough with Brussels instead of allowing them to dictate whether our prisoners can vote or not.

Scrap GCSEs and A Levels as they have become worthless, go back to the 60s and 70s papers in terms of difficulty levels, A* for only the top 5 percent.

Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, put the same soldiers on border control.

Build more motorways and super prisons (and make prisoners earn their keep).

Did you see V for Vendetta a few months ago as well?

[AndySpeed]

I am a staunch Tory but when they do things wrong imho I say as much.

I do wonder with you, as much as anyone else, if it is a case of born a tory, always a tory? So many people don't form their own educated opinions and don't ever think to change their colours when genuinely better policies are formed. This isn't particularly relevant right now, as the Tories are moving in the right direction, but could you ever become Labor BM?


Build more motorways and super prisons (and make prisoners earn their keep).

Disagree a little with this. I live within earshot of the M6 and it's not great hearing it all of the time. Yes, upgrade some existing roads in need of it (A11, A17) but I disagree with building more new motorways. In fact I disagree with most greenfield developments and increases in population, but that's for another thread alltogether.

[Bolton Midnight]

Did you see V for Vendetta a few months ago as well?

What are you babbling on about now? You need help, sort yourself out FFS.

[Bolton Midnight]

I do wonder with you, as much as anyone else, if it is a case of born a tory, always a tory? So many people don't form their own educated opinions and don't ever think to change their colours when genuinely better policies are formed. This isn't particularly relevant right now, as the Tories are moving in the right direction, but could you ever become Labor BM?


Disagree a little with this. I live within earshot of the M6 and it's not great hearing it all of the time. Yes, upgrade some existing roads in need of it (A11, A17) but I disagree with building more new motorways. In fact I disagree with most greenfield developments and increases in population, but that's for another thread alltogether.

Im my yoof I was very much a socialist (but granted is was probably more a kick against more privileged upbringing than anything else).

But I grew up and realised that socialism and communism never work, whereas capitalism works (although of course greed was the ultimate cause of this recession be it greed for wealth in the banker's case or greed for power and control in Labour's case).

I thought the Lib Dem's idea of taking everyone under10k out of income tax a brilliant idea as long as it wasn't paid for by a house tax, so can see the validity in other political parties thinkings.

I did think that Labour were going to help reduce the gap between the haves and have nots (which is always a good thing) when they came in but instead they actually widened it. Ditto reduced social mobility which again is a good thing just because someone lives on a sink estate should not stop them attending Uni if they are bright enough.

With a good lob I could have got a stone onto the M6 from where I lived, noise wasn't an issue. Well until it stopped and then and only then did you notice it.

[Retro Formula 1]

I do wonder with you, as much as anyone else, if it is a case of born a tory, always a tory? So many people don't form their own educated opinions and don't ever think to change their colours when genuinely better policies are formed. This isn't particularly relevant right now, as the Tories are moving in the right direction, but could you ever become Labor BM?

It's only a matter of time, just as with ioan and Ferrari :D

[ArrowsFA1]

Can we not agree that £2bn is a huge amount of money to fritter away through incompetance.
Of course, but to claim that the £2bn loss is "far bigger" than the £850bn needed to bail out the banks is plainly absurd. It's not simply about the money, but the impact on us.

[Hazell B]

I do wonder with you, as much as anyone else, if it is a case of born a tory, always a tory?

I was a staunch Tory, but changed my mind before the last election. Some people see policy for what it is and vote accordingly.

[ioan]

Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, put the same soldiers on border control.

To guard you against seagulls?!

[Daniel]

To guard you against seagulls?!

Nah. From foreigners like me!

[Retro Formula 1]

Of course, but to claim that the £2bn loss is "far bigger" than the £850bn needed to bail out the banks is plainly absurd. It's not simply about the money, but the impact on us.

Did I? Don't remember doing that.

[Bolton Midnight]

Of course, but to claim that the £2bn loss is "far bigger" than the £850bn needed to bail out the banks is plainly absurd. It's not simply about the money, but the impact on us.

It's the difference between the words loss and loan.


I was a staunch Tory, but changed my mind before the last election. Some people see policy for what it is and vote accordingly.

Most will vote for what is best for them rather than what is best for the country, hence why Labour created so many new pointless public sector jobs. Exploiting the whole 'turkeys don't vote for Christmas' thing. People should be more far sighted and think what is best for the nation. As JFK said 'think not...........'


To guard you against seagulls?!

Drugs, illegal immigrants, escaping criminals - that sort of stuff, is that alright with you?

[Daniel]

Did I? Don't remember doing that.

Unless you're posting as Bolton MidnightI don't think you did :p


Not to mention the whole gold selling farce (this in itself is far bigger than the bank bailout).

[ioan]

Drugs, illegal immigrants, escaping criminals - that sort of stuff, is that alright with you?

As long as they aren't Olympic level swimmers I doubt you need all the army guarding your shores! ;)
What you have now is more than enough.

[Bolton Midnight]

What you have now is more than enough.

Clearly not

[AndySpeed]

Clearly not

Citation?

[Bolton Midnight]

Are there any illegal immigrants within the UK?
Can you buy heroin within the UK?
Has a wanted criminal ever fled the UK?

If what we have is more than enough then the answer to all of those would have to be a massive NO would it not?

[Daniel]

Are there any illegal immigrants within the UK?
Can you buy heroin within the UK?
Has a wanted criminal ever fled the UK?

If what we have is more than enough then the answer to all of those would have to be a massive NO would it not?
There is no country in the world which could realistically answer no to all those questions.

[Bolton Midnight]

Oh okay then, if it happens everywhere why bother with any attempts to stem the flow, make it a free for all

[Daniel]

Oh okay then, if it happens everywhere why bother with any attempts to stem the flow, make it a free for all

Again you seem to have issues reading people's posts, why is that?

[Bolton Midnight]

No problem reading, maybe a bit understanding if you type one thing but mean another. You seemed to be implying that as it happens in a lot of other countries it was no big deal and not worth trying to stop.

Drugs/druggies are costing us all billions, so why not try and reduce their availability?

[Daniel]

No problem reading, maybe a bit understanding if you type one thing but mean another. You seemed to be implying that as it happens in a lot of other countries it was no big deal and not worth trying to stop.

Did I say that? Can't see where :laugh: What I'm saying is that if you think the UK is poorly run just because a few illegals get in then show me somewhere that does it better?


Drugs/druggies are costing us all billions, so why not try and reduce their availability?

Errrrr, the government does try, but drugs will always be more or less impossible to irradicate.

[Bolton Midnight]

So why didn't you say that, I'm not a mind reader as it looked a lot more like 'so what' than 'we're doing our best'.

Legalising drugs isn't really trying that hard is it, what next legalised car theft, well they can be quite tricky to catch so much easier to make it legal than try and do owt about it eh?

With far more stringent control we could vastly reduce the influx of illegal immigrants, drugs and folk running away. Far more worthwhile than fighting Blair & Bush's illegal war for example. Hell whitewashing coal would be more worthwhile than dying because of Blair & Campbell's dodgy dossier.

[AndySpeed]

Are there any illegal immigrants within the UK?
Can you buy heroin within the UK?
Has a wanted criminal ever fled the UK?

If what we have is more than enough then the answer to all of those would have to be a massive NO would it not?

I was not asking you for absolute proof rather proof that the situation is ridiculously dire as you seem to suggest.

It's all relative. As Daniel has said you cannot answer NO to those questions, but you assess the so-called hazard relative to the risk. You also assess it to what is known - and if you know of somewhere devoid in those areas then feel free to go there and not come back. Because we all live in the real world.

Slow down on the sensationalist hyperbole and try to have a rational conversation that you can back-up with more than opinion please.

[Bolton Midnight]

Perfectly capable of rational debate as long as people type what they actually mean rather than getting all hissy when rumbled.

I think the UK has problems re border controls, drugs in, illegals in, crims fleeing so why not deploy some of our soldiers there rather than fighting a war which is clearly illegal.

Just saying 'well it happens everywhere else' is a defeatist attitude.

The vast majority of UK crimes are somehow drug related, that in itself should warrant more resources being spent on our borders than other political correct causes.

[Daniel]

Perfectly capable of rational debate as long as people type what they actually mean rather than getting all hissy when rumbled.

You've not rumbled anyone. You seem to not like anyone replying to your posts and pointing out any holes in your arguments so you have to go and pick non-existant holes in other peoples posts.

[AndySpeed]

Perfectly capable of rational debate as long as people type what they actually mean rather than getting all hissy when rumbled.

Feel free to point out where I've been 'rumbled' - since I haven't even given you my opinion in those areas yet.

I'm actually critquing your style of debate! It's more of a bombardment of opinion than anything constructive.

You're impossible!

[Bolton Midnight]

You've not rumbled anyone. You seem to not like anyone replying to your posts and pointing out any holes in your arguments so you have to go and pick non-existant holes in other peoples posts.

snowacedaniel

You mean like you just did re my previous post doh, just more dribble

Feel free to try and explain why drugs are not an issue or illegal immigrants or just carry on prattling on.

[Bolton Midnight]

Feel free to point out where I've been 'rumbled' - since I haven't even given you my opinion in those areas yet.

I'm actually critquing your style of debate! It's more of a bombardment of opinion than anything constructive.

You're impossible!

Wasn't meaning you, as has already been shown by the ubber driver himself.

I'm allowed an opinion surely? If it is wrong then feel free to enlighten me. Point out that drug related crime really isn't all that big an issue or that illegal immigrant numbers have fallen after 1997 etc etc but if you can't do that then give my opinion some thought and respect it.