"Tory scum, here we come"

First topic message reminder :

I was at the DEMO in Manchester 29th September, my thread title was the chant from around 80,000 people, 40,000 inside the park and 40,000 OUTSIDE. We were kettled so we could not get into the park. IMHO the police were on instructions from the Tory gov't so people would not see 'THE TIDE TURNNG' against this VILE NASTY gov't.   People came from Aberdeen to Somerset and everywhere else in between and we were WELCOMED by the people who live in Manchester and some even joined in the march. There were BANNERS flying high from every Union within the UK; one which really caught my eye was from the N.U.S. from HALLAM SHEFFIELD, Cleggy's seat. (Just in case some on here may not know what NUS stands for it's 'National Union of Students'.)  It's been three & a half years and they have not forgot what the Prostitute party did to them with their signed photo pledge.
 
I myself want to thank the Unite Union here in Glasgow, Jack, Angela, Jackie, Sandra and everyone else on the coach from John Smith House to Manchester, this was my first DEMO and there are plenty more to come. I hear there is one in October and I will be there by hook or by crook because it gave me hope that at last the people in the UK 'HAVE AWAKENED FROM THEIR SLEEP'. There are some posters on here who have thought "would they wake in time?" My answer is a very loud "YES they have". They may have stopped us from getting into the park but we did not miss the Tories outside their conference. They heard us and we made sure with loud hailers, Brass Bands. whistles, rattles and of course our VOICES. They heard us FINE and no doubt Cameron will be worried today, but that is no one else's fault but ours. We were quiet for too long, so I am wondering if there will be more TOILET PAPER used today at their conference??:yeahthat:

"People change, and there's always hope. Otherwise we'd all be tories, dead, or both.."

Good point Penderyn, perish the thought, "dead and a Tory" No heaven in that case.

oftenwrong wrote:We can only hope that the majority will speak with a single voice in May 2015, Redflag.

I would think that is a given OW the people of the UKhave had tolearn a veryhard lesson over the last 3 yearsone they will NEVER EVER forget, in case they do I WILL REMIND THEM EVERY G.E.:yeahthat: 

oftenwrong wrote:We can only hope that the majority will speak with a single voice in May 2015, Redflag.

I had a bit of a chuckle about this. I know exactly what you mean but if you think about it how can they do otherwise. If they speak with multiple voices then they are not the majority but a disparate set of minorities.  

Redflag wrote:I would think that is a given OW the people of the UKhave had tolearn a veryhard lesson over the last 3 yearsone they will NEVER EVER forget, in case they do I WILL REMIND THEM EVERY G.E.:yeahthat: 

It has been my observation that the electorate have a very short memory.   My guess is that the LibDems are in for a fairly long spell in purgatory   and that the Conservative vote will collapse under UKIPs assault.   This will allow the Labour party a landslide for 5 years of fiscal stupidity   (they will spend money they don't have causing a balance of payments fiasco - crisis, what crisis?  ) and then in 2020 it will be back to usual. The alternative is that Labour will get in with a large majority and it will be impossible to tell where the Tories left off   and they began  . In either case Farage will have imploded  and the LibDems will be back to the 60s with 4 MPs  .

Of course I could be wrong. Labour could get in  , behave responsibly  and we all live in european nirvana    

 "Of course I could be wrong."

Naaaaaaaaa!!!! Bell you've put too much "thought" into it to be "wrong" and definately without a shadow of a doubt you are not often wrong (my friend)   You are Bell.

"This will allow the Labour party a landslide for 5 years of fiscal stupidity"

So you predict another Global banking crisis. In that case Bell and again blame Labour for it?

Bellatori wrote:-
I think about things and do not automatically worship at the altar of left wing dogma

 

Bellatori also wrote:-
crisis, what crisis?

 
I suspect that a real thinker wouldn’t need to parrot a lie from ‘The Sun’. What James Callaghan actually said on 10 January 1979 was: "I promise if you look at it from the outside, I don't think other people in the world would share the view that there is mounting chaos."

Mel wrote:"This will allow the Labour party a landslide for 5 years of fiscal stupidity"

So you predict another Global banking crisis. In that case Bell and again blame Labour for it?

No  Where did I say that   I was suggesting  a balance of payments crisis because of uncontrolled spending and another ignominious crawl to the IMF. I think that Ed needs to look at the interview with James Callaghan as he stepped off the plane when returning from parts warm and foreign  It is all very well to have a view for a better tomorrow but it is also necessary to pay for it. I have a list of things I would like that would make my life better but the old bank account won't stretch to them.

We can save money. Do we really need HS2? Rumour has it that Labour will vote for it next week whilst scuppering it next year. How up front is that?  
Do we need trident? Why do we need nuclear weapons? Why did Labour not scrap them when they had the opportunity?

That's 80 billion for a start.  That is why I say we get the Tories or the tories. I always thought that the LibDems were the left of centre party but hey.... what did I know!?

Ivan wrote:

Bellatori wrote:-
I think about things and do not automatically worship at the altar of left wing dogma

 

Bellatori also wrote:-
crisis, what crisis?

 
I suspect that a real thinker wouldn’t need to parrot a lie from ‘The Sun’. What James Callaghan actually said on 10 January 1979 was: "I promise if you look at it from the outside, I don't think other people in the world would share the view that there is mounting chaos."

What enraged the situation was Callaghan’s response. He had returned from an overseas trip, only to play down the devastation that was searing Britain. The Sun spun his comments, publishing the famous, “Crisis, what crisis?” headline; whilst Callaghan did not say those specific words, the feeling arose that Callaghan was severely out of touch with Britain.

A good summary of Callaghan's performance and well referenced is "Jim Callaghan: A Successful Prime Minister?"

I have a list of things I would like that would make my life better but the old bank account won't stretch to them.


Nice point - I, too, have such a list - it would include vulnerable and poor people not starving or freezing in the winter, children across the board getting an education that will enable them to contribute to society in the future and earn a decent living, decent housing for all, not just a privileged minority.

As a country and a society. I would say if we can't afford these things we are bankrupt indeed.

That's why I will be voting Labour - the party that has consistently invested in the things that I think are important in a civilised society.

boatlady wrote:...such a list - it would include vulnerable and poor people not starving or freezing in the winter, children across the board getting an education that will enable them to contribute to society in the future and earn a decent living, decent housing for all, ...

Very commendable. I agree entirely BUT how are we going to pay for these things. Everyone wants more. At some point we have to make the hard decisions. As I said above IMHO Trident and HS2 can go but we are still living beyond our means. Can Labour make the tough decisions? I have often wondered if the electorate vote in the Tories to do the dirty work and the hard choices and then vote in Labour to try and ameliorate the mess. What I never expected was that the LibDems would commit political suicide and support Cameron.

" What I never expected was that the LibDems would commit political suicide and support Cameron."
 

And neither did they, until the chance of power came their way. To be fair, however, Clegg and his grubby unprincipled rabble would have gladly signed up with the National Front for that once-in-a-century opportunity to bask in the glow of political influence and the perks which go with it.

One hopes that when the price is exacted on them it will be such as to leave them struggling in the wilderness for another hundred years...

Phil Hornby wrote:" What I never expected was that the LibDems would commit political suicide and support Cameron."
 

And neither did they, until the chance of power came their way. To be fair, however, Clegg and his grubby unprincipled rabble would have gladly signed up with the National Front for that once-in-a-century opportunity to bask in the glow of political influence and the perks which go with it.

One hopes that when the price is exacted on them it will be such as to leave them struggling in the wilderness for another hundred years...

Let's hope they go the way of the National Front! Brassnecked shitehawks!

Bellatori wrote:

boatlady wrote:...such a list - it would include vulnerable and poor people not starving or freezing in the winter, children across the board getting an education that will enable them to contribute to society in the future and earn a decent living, decent housing for all, ...

Very commendable. I agree entirely BUT how are we going to pay for these things. Everyone wants more. At some point we have to make the hard decisions. As I said above IMHO Trident and HS2 can go but we are still living beyond our means. Can Labour make the tough decisions?  I have often wondered if the electorate vote in the Tories to do the dirty work and the hard choices and then vote in Labour to try and ameliorate the mess. What I never expected was that the LibDems would commit political suicide and support Cameron.

Collect the taxes owed by thieving businesses, for a start. But, no - the bankers' parties all support the bankers and the other rich, alas.

"Collect the taxes owed by thieving businesses, for a start. But, no - the bankers' parties all support the bankers and the other rich, alas.."

Hear, hear!!!

There is not one significant aspect of my fortunate independent life which has been made worse by Cameron's Government and , daily, I express gratitude for it.

That is not to say , however, that I don't sympathise deeply with the tens of thousands - or millions - whose existences have been made truly miserable by the Coalition. All of those unfortunate people should remember one thing : without the Lib Dems, none of Cameron's cruel policies would have been possible.

 MAKE THEM PAY DEARLY...   

Bell wrote  "I was suggesting  a balance of payments crisis because of uncontrolled spending and another ignominious crawl to the IMF."

You have to look deeper than that Bell. I have explained Brown's position as Chancellor many times, ages before you came on board.
Now again just for you.

Brown was left with the only means of revenue, the invisible earnings, banks, Insurance etc which came about by Thatcher's de-regulation of the banking sector in the UK to replace the loss of revenue derived from industry that she either sold off or decimated.
Brown realised the dangers ahead of a Global banking crisis. He tried time and time again to obtain international banking regulation without success due to the power of banks over governments.
Banks welcome de-regulation and shun any kind of regulation.

What was Brown to do? First get this country back in order, not just for the rich but for the poor and needy. That cost money and of course you are correct the borrowing was high. (bear in mind that borrowing NOW under Tories, is the same or higher)
That borrowing was used and put to good use to build schools, hospitals, assist people with children with tax credits, enhance the NHS, Police and so much more, that Tories had ignored.

His intention was to do everything possible for the people of this country and to repay that debt by year 2015. He would have achieved this but for the American sub prime market, which would not have created a Global effect had it not been for Bush allowing Lehmans to go under. The fear factor of that happening was so great that it created panic in the markets and hence the Global Crisis.
You could say that Brown gambled, but ran out of time not expecting the storm to hit so soon before he had repaid the debt.

Finally All countries run on borrowings and a deficit and after the war the debt was larger and paid off with revenue from our prolific industrial base that we have no more.

Mel wrote:... That borrowing was used and put to good use ...

Which illustrates MY point   I am not disagreeing with you on the basics but it is that term borrow... National Debt (an invention of the Dutch in the 18th century I believe) is actually not a problem BUT the balance of payments is. Whilst we fund what we spend on the basis of a balance of payments deficit we are simply making our debt crisis worse.. The National Debt is rather like a mortgage. One expects that inflation will slowly eat it away. If inflation runs at 2->3% AND the balance of payments remains fairly neutral then we can expect to at least maintain what we have. What is happening at the moment is that we are running up a large current account deficit which we will have to pay back. That means CUTS. It is unavoidable as the growth rate and inflation are both so low that simply trying to grow our way out of debt is not sufficient AND will not satisfy our creditors. Give me one good reason why people should extend credit to this country if we are not prepared to repay it? I might chose to gift my children but I see no reason why China or Japan or.... should simply gift the UK.

To repeat what I said earlier, if you have not got the income you cannot afford the expenditure. So, according to me HS2 and Trident go... what else? Ask the hard questions. What can we actually afford. All of the welfare state? All of the NHS? A publicly owned transport system? I don't have the answer to these as I am not an economist but I do know that what happened in Greece was no fun and it is what will happen if we end up at the mercy of the IMF.

Bellatori. I’ll start with things on which we agree, because that won’t take long. We should stop being a nuclear power. Only an insane government would ever use nuclear weapons, and who are we aiming them at these days? China? The country which is going to finance our nuclear power industry?
 
HS2, not sure, but probably a bad idea. I travelled from Strasbourg to Paris about a decade ago and it took four hours. I repeated the journey in June this year, on a TGV which reached speeds of 320 kph (200 mph), and it took two and a quarter hours. That’s a big difference, but if HS2 would only save between 20 and 30 minutes, it doesn’t sound like much of a return for the stupendous cost. Your remark that “rumour has it that Labour will vote for it next week whilst scuppering it next year” sounds extremely vague – is it based on any evidence, or have you been reading the tea leaves?
 
 

What is it about Labour that women are less than keen on?

 
LOL. Among men, the Tories led Labour by 10% at the 2010 election, but among women they led by just 4%. The situation has since grown worse for the Tories. An Ipsos MORI poll published on 14 September 2011 found that support for the Tories among women had fallen to 29%, compared to 38% among men. A New Statesman/ICD poll published on 4 October 2011 found that just 35% of women "would consider" voting for the Tories at the next election and that 65% would not. According to this, women are “turning away from the Tories in droves”:-
 
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/10/tories-problem-women-polling  
 

This will allow the Labour party a landslide for 5 years of fiscal stupidity……  Labour could get in.... behave responsibly

 
One minute you’re suggesting that Labour should be worried about its support, then you’re predicting a Labour landslide!
 
 
I think you’ve been reading too many tabloids if you’re peddling the lie about “fiscal stupidity”. For most of those 13 Labour years, our debt as a percentage of GDP was lower than what Labour inherited in 1997. It was the bankers who “behaved irresponsibly”, not the government which had to bail them out. Perhaps you’d like to read these articles:-
 
http://www.richardgraham.me/politics/great-tory-lie-national-debt/
 
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2013/08/19/the-mess-we-inherited-some-facts-with-which-to-fight-the-tory-big-lies/
 

I have often wondered if the electorate vote in the Tories to do the dirty work and the hard choices and then vote in Labour to try and ameliorate the mess.

 
Sorry, but I thought you believed in the myth that Labour always causes “the mess”? People vote in the Tories because their tabloids tell them to, because the Tories make promises they have no intention of keeping, at least once for the novelty of a female PM and sometimes for bribes such as cheap shares or council houses – which have disastrous long-term consequences.
 

another ignominious crawl to the IMF

 
It’s strange that few people seem to mention that a Tory government had to seek an IMF loan in 1956, preferring instead to remind of us how a Labour government, struggling with the effects of the quadrupling of the price of oil and the double-digit inflation left behind by the Tories in 1974, asked the IMF for a loan in 1976. At that time, the UK government debt was 47% of GDP and the budget deficit was 7%. By the end of 1977, partly as a result of North Sea oil revenues, there were improvements in the balance of trade, so the UK did not need to draw the full loan from the IMF.
 
The IMF is a flawed organisation, as a little research soon shows:-
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t739-has-the-international-monetary-fund-betrayed-its-founding-principles
 

A good summary of Callaghan's performance and well referenced is 'Jim Callaghan: A Successful Prime Minister?'

 
Hardly “a good summary” by Tom Pettinger, but I’ve read worse. It’s not the job of a PM to talk up an industrial dispute into a crisis, just as Osborne shouldn’t have talked down the economy when it was coming out of recession early in 2010. Pettinger is correct in saying that “Callaghan had picked up the Prime Ministerial baton in the midst of skyrocketing oil prices due to the Yom Kippur War, which was causing cost-push inflation all around the globe”, and that “the Callaghan government can be said to have left the economy and the policy-making machinery in better condition in 1979 than they had found them in 1974”, especially as Callaghan had to govern without a majority.
 
However, I was a working adult in the late 1970s and I know that this is just nonsense: “Waste filled town centres, schools closed, the sick went untreated, and bodies started to pile up as strikes grew in response to the deeply unpopular pay policy employed by the government.” And this was a silly, inaccurate and unsubstantiated conclusion by Pettinger: “It can be seen that Labour tumbled to an inevitable and major defeat and so whatever Callaghan’s choices were, Labour were always going to lose the 1979 election.” Firstly, when someone writes “it can be seen”, without any evidence to back it up, you know they’re floundering. Secondly, there was a by-election in the autumn of 1978 which saw a small swing to Labour, so there was nothing “inevitable” about the party’s subsequent defeat. Thirdly, I don’t call a Tory majority of 43, leaving you with 269 MPs, a “major defeat”; for that you have to look at the three successive general elections when the Tories couldn’t even manage 200 seats.
 

if you have not got the income you cannot afford the expenditure…..we are still living beyond our means. That means CUTS. It is unavoidable

 
I hope you’re not trying to make the erroneous comparison between a household budget and a national one. The way to increase income is through growth, not cuts. Create jobs, get people working, spending and paying tax instead of claiming benefit is the only answer. Austerity doesn’t work and has never worked, it’s just used as an excuse by right-wingers to shrink the state. If the economy is now growing by 0.8%, it’s despite what Osborne has been doing, not because of it.
 
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/austerity-economics-doesnt-work.html
 

What can we actually afford. All of the welfare state? All of the NHS? A publicly owned transport system?

 
Why should a publicly owned transport system be less affordable than a private one? The subsidy which the government gives to the private rail companies is three times that which went to British Rail.
 
We can’t afford not to spend money on the NHS, education and social security. They’re a good investment because they can create a healthy and intelligent workforce. We’re the seventh richest country in the world, and boatlady was spot on when she said that without that investment we really are bankrupt.

A very comprehesive post from Ivan. 

I think the real problem with borrowing (which we must) is that we rely so much and have had to do so since Thatcher's watch on invisible earnings. Manufacturing is the way and the only real way forward. The question is how and when?

Gideon has assisted his wealthy building friends, which in turn has created some jobs albeit many may be cheap Labour, or the dreaded Contract Employment. As well as relying upon tourism and the hotel industry, which is no where near what is needed, it's time to get the greedy banks to assist large and small manufacturing companies to be able to invest with confidence in their productivity levels and expansion.

Unfortunately the only companies that the Tories are interested in are the large huge profit making ones (that many Tories have investments in )which bring in little revenue to the coffers because it's all hived off offshore and allowed to do so. Time to get the banks to lend to small companies who together create wealth. Well those that have survived that is.

If the banks can't be forced to lend then the government should borrow to fund investment. Those that complain about borrowing would leave us standing still in limbo in this slump of productivity.
We should not be assisting the likes of Tesco with tax incentives, their market is assured as we have to eat, instead give all the concessions to needy manufactures and watch the growth boom and the deficit decline.

Today's Independent comments that Gideon Osborne's claimed success from an 0.8% increase in the nation's prosperity overlooks the fact that the average British household has lost £3,500 from his three-year austerity programme.

Ivan wrote:... Your remark that “rumour has it that Labour will vote for it next week whilst scuppering it next year” sounds extremely vague – is it based on any evidence, or have you been reading the tea leaves?...

The BBC, Guardian and Independant obviously read the same tea leaves   
 

Ivan wrote:

What is it about Labour that women are less than keen on?

 
LOL. Among men, the Tories led Labour by 10% at the 2010 election, but among women they led by just 4%. The situation has since grown worse for the Tories. An Ipsos MORI poll published on 14 September 2011 found that support for the Tories among women had fallen to 29%, compared to 38% among men. A New Statesman/ICD poll published on 4 October 2011 found that just 35% of women "would consider" voting for the Tories at the next election and that 65% would not. According to this, women are “turning away from the Tories in droves”:-

 
Misses the point completely... did you not notice I was specifically commenting on the C2 group which one would expect to consist of Labour core supporters.
 

Ivan wrote:

This will allow the Labour party a landslide for 5 years of fiscal stupidity……  Labour could get in...behave responsibly

 
One minute you’re suggesting that Labour should be worried about its support, then you’re predicting a Labour landslide!

 
That's because you are conflating two separate issues. The point above about core support from C2 and the specifics of the next election where it is likely UKIP will hole the Tories below the water line and LibDem supporters will either abstain or vote Labour. It should be obvious that getting in on a protest vote is a different issue from being unable to attract what should be core voters. 
 

Ivan wrote:...Perhaps you’d like to read these articles:-... richardgraham.me... alastaircampbell.org...

As you like to point out about some things I have suggested I would hardly call these two independent views ... would you?
 

Ivan wrote:

another ignominious crawl to the IMF

 
It’s strange that few people seem to mention that a Tory government had to seek an IMF loan in 1956, preferring instead to remind of us how a Labour government, struggling with the effects of the quadrupling of the price of oil and the double-digit inflation left behind by the Tories in 1974, asked the IMF for a loan in 1976. At that time, the UK government debt was 47% of GDP and the budget deficit was 7%. By the end of 1977, partly as a result of North Sea oil revenues, there were improvements in the balance of trade, so the UK did not need to draw the full loan from the IMF.

 
All you are really saying is that having needed a massive bail out they were saved by the fortuitous discovery of North Sea Oil.
 

Ivan wrote:However, I was a working adult in the late 1970s and I know that this is just nonsense...

You must have been very lucky to be living in a sheltered part of the country. I also remember the late seventies also as a working adult. Funnily enough I cannot recall them as halcyon days.
 

Ivan wrote:

if you have not got the income you cannot afford the expenditure…..we are still living beyond our means. That means CUTS. It is unavoidable

 
I hope you’re not trying to make the erroneous comparison between a household budget and a national one. The way to increase income is through growth, not cuts.

 
I was making the point that you cannot continually spend what you do not have. I made the distinction between national debt and balance of trade. A deficit in the latter means that you have to be funded by external lenders etc... did you read that part or simply ignore it? The problem the treasury has is that there has been NO growth which is why the cuts. The 'austerity does not work' approach has one shortcoming. It relies on others being willing to lend money to make up the difference. My question which you failed to respond to was 'WHY SHOULD THEY'. What do they want in return? Should we be mortgaging our children's future.
 
Statements like 'we are the 7th richest country...' well OK sell the family treasures and produce this wealth and pay off the debts... Of course not. It simply does not work like that.
 
Does anyone actually believe that you can spend your way out of debt? That seems to be the impression I am being left with.

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it looks like a duck - it must be a closet Tory.

Phil Hornby wrote:There is not one significant aspect of my fortunate independent life which has been made worse by Cameron's Government and , daily, I express gratitude for it.

That is not to say , however, that I don't sympathise deeply with the tens of thousands - or millions - whose existences have been made truly miserable by the Coalition. All of those unfortunate people should remember one thing : without the Lib Dems, none of Cameron's cruel policies would have been possible.

 MAKE THEM PAY DEARLY...   

To a certain extent I agree PH, but my sense of fair play tells me that the Prostitute party and the Vile Tories should pay in equal measures when two people asrgue both are in the wrong. So I am hoping that the Labour party do really well in the general election 2015, I would love a better result for Ed than Tony Blair got in 1997 that would shrink down the support for both of the poor excuses for human beings that calls itself the UK gov't. 

oftenwrong wrote:If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it looks like a duck - it must be a closet Tory.

If it has its head buried in the ground so it does not have to see what is going on around it, it is either an ostrich or an uncritical Labour supporter...

"Does anyone actually believe that you can spend your way out of debt? That seems to be the impression I am being left with.."

Well Bell, we managed to do just that after the wars. I hate to say it but Hitler did it from an absolute disaster Germany were faced with in the thirties.
The fact is that you seem to miss the fact that most countries borrow with the view of long term repayment, rather like a mortgage as you had previouly mentioned in one of your posts.
If however there becomes a Global crisis, due to greedy unregulated banks that little seems possible to do anything about, then borrowing turns to debt very quickly.

Perhaps you failed to grasp or read my post at 5:51 yesterday.

Mel wrote:"Does anyone actually believe that you can spend your way out of debt? That seems to be the impression I am being left with.."

Well Bell, we managed to do just that after the wars. I hate to say it but Hitler did it from an absolute disaster Germany were faced with in the thirties.
The fact is that you seem to miss the fact that most countries borrow with the view of long term repayment, rather like a mortgage as you had previouly mentioned in one of your posts.
If however there becomes a Global crisis, due to greedy unregulated banks that little seems possible to do anything about, then borrowing turns to debt very quickly.

Perhaps you failed to grasp or read my post at 5:51 yesterday.

I read it all right BUT as with Ivan YOU have missed the point. You assume that borrowing is always available. Most Governments are not borrowing long term ... the longest most manage is ten years. Long term bonds (such as war bonds) are not very fashionable because they are difficult to resell unless the price is very low bumping up the yields. Given that yields are generally low at the moment it makes these bonds 'almost' valueless.

I asked why should countries like China lend to us if they see that the chance for repayment diminishes because we cannot manage the economy - mainly balance of payments. It becomes like investing in a loss making company. You only do that for one reason - asset strip. Well the Tories (and Labour to a lesser extent) have sold off most of the assets so what do we have left? A garage sale? IMHO it does not matter who wins the next election from the economy point of view.

Country Average of CIA and IMF data   Public debt as % of GDP Date Net government debt as % of GDP Date Region

 Greece 158.339 161.3 2012 est. 155.378 2012 Europe
 Japan 174.3125 214.3 2012 est. 134.325 2012 est. Asia
 Portugal 115.628 123.6 2012 est. 111.556 2012 est. Europe
 Singapore 109.782 111.4 2012 est. 108.164 2012 gross, est. Southeast Asia
 United States 80.7295 73.6 2012 est. 107.18 2012 North America
 Italy        114.654 126.1 2012 est. 103.208 2012 Europe
 Ireland 110.162 118 2012 est. 102.324 2012 Europe
 France 86.9825 89.9 2012 est. 84.065 2012 est. Europe
 Belgium 91.452 99.6 2012 est. 83.304 2012 est. Europe
 United Kingdom 85.7425 88.7 2012 est. 82.785 2012 Europe

 Spain 78.6155 85.3 2012 est. 71.931 2012 Europe

It is worth noting that Spain is actually less leveraged than we are and it is paying a heavy price for uncontrolled spending. 50% unemployment for 18->25 year olds and 25% unemployment overall. Is that what we want? Look at the price that Greece has paid for loss of confidence in their economy. Is that what we want? Why is a controlled, relatively debt free economy such an anathema to Labour supporters? Do we really want to be like Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland? How is the French doing under a 'Socialist' president? Are they successfully 'spending' their way out of difficulty?

What I want is what I thought the LibDems and once upon a time Labour wanted. A fair society where everyone has opportunity not just the favoured few. That means full employment (the 'a price worth paying' quote about unemployment by Norman Lamont was probably the most despicable thing any Parliamentarian has ever said in the House), housing, health services and, for those prepared to put the real effort in, a chance to get on with a fulfilled life. This cannot happen if you bankrupt the country by profligate spending.

The irony is that Norman Lamont, a man I truly came to despise when he said the earlier quote, did say one thing that I agree with...

There is something wrong with the way in which we make our decisions. The Government listen too much to the pollsters and the party managers. The trouble is that they are not even very good at politics, and they are entering too much into policy decisions. As a result, there is too much short-termism, too much reacting to events, and not enough shaping of events. We give the impression of being in office but not in power. Far too many important decisions are made for 36 hours' publicity.

It is exactly what I think and why I hold most politicians in contempt. It is also why I am so angry with Clegg. I naively made the mistake of thinking better of him. His grasp for 15 minutes of fame was a bigger sell out than  - well he should have come away from the negotiation with the Tories and said

"I have in my hand a piece of paper signed by Mr Cameron"

. At least I could have guessed what was coming.

Recent History of UK National Debt

After a period of financial restraint, from mid 1990s, public sector debt at a % of GDP fell to 29% of GDP by 2002. From 2002 – 2007 , national debt  increased to 37 % of GDP. This increase in debt levels occurred  despite the long period of economic expansion; it was primarily due to the government’s decision to increase spending on health and education (see: Gov’t spending in this period). There has also been a marked rise in social security spending.

Since 2008, public sector debt has increased sharply because of:

•2008-13 recession (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits) The recession particularly hit stamp duty (falling house prices) income tax and lower corporation tax.
•These cyclical factors have also exposed an underlying structural deficit. (deficit caused by spending greater than tax, ignoring cyclical factors)
•Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds and other banks.
Comparison With Other Countries
Although 73% of GDP is a lot, it is worth bearing in mind that other countries have a much bigger problem. Japan for example has a National debt of 225%, Italy is over 100%.  The US national debt is close to 75% of GDP. [See other countries debt]. Also the UK has had much higher national debt in the past, e.g. in the late 1940s, UK debt  was over 180% of GDP. Nevertheless, there are reasons why the UK couldn’t borrow the same sums that we did post-war.

Note the very good and necessary reasons for Labours borrowings. Especially following Thatcher's doing nothing for the necessaries.

economicshelporg.

I do not take too much notice of IMF data as they get it wrong time and time again. The head of IMF the French bird Christine Madeleine Odette Lagarde is in love with the Tories and in particular Cameron and as a consequence says anything helpful for them at most times.

The reason for the French bird being in love with the Tories Mel could it be that they would allow the bankers to get away with murder just like the IMF said FCUK all in 2008 leaving it up the the taxpayer to pay for their night out at the CASINO.:yeahthat:

Mel wrote:...exposed an underlying structural deficit. (deficit caused by spending greater than tax, ignoring cyclical factors)...

and in the middle of what actually was a bit of an apology for national indebtedness lies the nub of the matter. Exactly the point I am driving at. So what are you all suggesting? Apparently we must spend more which will make the structural problems less? Really? That seems to be what you and Ivan are suggesting.

Neither of you has answered the basic question of why should countries like China and others lend money to a country that is profligate and does not have its economy under control. I cannot imagine any one investing in a country version of Viv Nicholson can you?

Bell, it was NOT an apology, it was an explanation of why spending was necessary.
If all you can produce to give credence to your ever ending blame of spend and borrow, is a one line comment taken out of context and without looking and understanding the rest of the reasons mentioned in the post, then I am less than impressed.

Yea that Red. 

Bellatori wrote:-
Misses the point completely... did you not notice I was specifically commenting on the C2 group which one would expect to consist of Labour core supporters.

 
Sorry for taking a while to reply. As you are aware, I help Shirina and moonbeam to run this forum, which has included setting up a poll concerning a possible chat facility. I hope that every member reading this will take the trouble to vote either for or against the idea here:-
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t910-would-you-like-to-see-a-chat-facility
 
I think most Labour people are well aware that the party’s middle class vote held up quite well in 2010, but that a large chunk of its working class vote either stayed at home or voted for a party which seemed to be more left-wing – the Liberal Democrats! I guess they won’t be doing that again in a hurry.
 
You said that C2 women voted “almost 2:1” for the Tories in 2010. That’s rather slack for someone who is a statistician, isn’t it? When I was at school, 41:25 was a ratio of 1.64:1, but I’ll bow to your superior wisdom. I did notice - from your figures - that 31% of women voted Labour in 2010, compared with 28% of men. As I’ve demonstrated previously, it’s the Tories who have a problem attracting female voters, more so than ever since 2010.
 
So you don’t like Alastair Campbell and dismissed his blog, presumably without reading it. I say that because most of the blog consists of factual evidence from the Growth Commission, but presumably you see it as tainted because Campbell quoted it.
 
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2013/08/19/the-mess-we-inherited-some-facts-with-which-to-fight-the-tory-big-lies/
 
We didn’t need “a massive bailout” from the IMF in 1976, we didn’t take up all of the loan. You, the great thinker, seem to have ignored the causes of that financial crisis, which can be traced back at least to the oil embargo (and the quadrupling of oil prices) following the Yom Kippur War of 1973, if not to the ‘Barber boom’ of that incompetent Tory government which you helped to vote into office.
 
History is always written by the victorious. The stories of the dead going unburied (what was that – for one day in one place perhaps?) and piles of rubbish everywhere are a wild exaggeration. As former Fleet Street editor Derek Jameson later recalled of press coverage of the ‘crisis’: "We pulled every dirty trick in the book; we made it look like it was general, universal and eternal, when it was in reality scattered, here and there, and no great problem". Neil Clark points out that “the strikes themselves only lasted for a comparatively short period and were largely over by February 1979”. 
 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/23/myths-reality-unions-winter-discontent
 
During 1978, Britain's standard of living rose by 6.4% to reach its highest ever level. "The outlook for Britain is better than at any time in the postwar years" was the verdict, not of a Labour Party propagandist, but of Chase Manhattan bank's chief European economist, Geoffrey Maynard. Then along came Thatcher to ruin everything.
 
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/23545/seventies-were-great-dont-believe-myth-thatcherism
 
Forget Viv Nicholson, there’s no comparison between the way an individual should run its finances and a government. Have you ever heard of ‘the paradox of thrift’?
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t646-keynes-friedman-and-the-paradox-of-thrift-who-is-right

Today, some media royalty appear at The old Bailey.

The next five months will no doubt produce a few more examples of Managed News in our daily diet.

Mel wrote:Bell, it was NOT an apology, it was an explanation of why spending was necessary.
If all you can produce to give credence to your ever ending blame of spend and borrow, is a one line comment taken out of context and without looking and understanding the rest of the reasons mentioned in the post, then I am less than impressed.

The importance of the line overshadowed everything else which was simply an apologist approach to spending and was completely irrelevant to the point I have been making.


the treasury figures show that under the long Labour government spending went on a dramatic rise funded by debt. So much for a 'prudent' chancellor. Gordo loved using the word 'prudent'. The graph shows that he was not. Add this graph to the next one



and you can see the underlying problem. The question that I keep asking and that Mel and Ivan seem to avoid is WHY SHOULD ANYONE LEND US MONEY WHEN WE ARE SIMPLY SLIPPING FURTHER INTO DEBT?

If we had stuck to the 2001-2 net borrowing would we have been in the same mess when the proverbial hit the fan in 2008 or would we have been like Canada and able to ride out the storm?

The assumption that Mel & Ivan seem to be making is that we can always fund the debt so spend, spend, spend will be OK. I would have thought it was axiomatic that there must be a point when no further funding is available. Simply ignoring this has to be a recipe for disaster.

Whilst a certain level of ongoing indebtedness is acceptable because inflation and growth will cover the additional expenditure this is not the case NOW and actually was not the case from 2002 on.

So I repeat, WHY SHOULD ANYONE LEND US MONEY IF WE ARE SIMPLY NOT PREPARED TO MANAGE THE ECONOMY?

Please note that making the excuse that the global crash occurred is not an answer. It is simply that, an excuse. It has simply brought the debt problem and poor fiscal handling into relief. As far as I can see the only reason that we are not in the position of Greece or Ireland is that the money has to go somewhere and, AT THE MOMENT, these sources of money think we are a better risk. So I would ask yet again... AND IF THEY CHANGE THEIR MINDS?


If you go back 15 years and assume a 2% real growth rate then government spending to be neutral would be at 600Bn now. Additionally all those PFI deals and local government borrowing that have been so popular make the actual debt over 100% of GDP rather than the neatly trimmed 75% or so. Interest on Debt will rise to 70Bn per year.

If I may use a football analogy, when cheap credit was readily available you had many, many football clubs who were using it to live beyond their means. It was only when the financial crisis took place that this stopped and the banks started asking for their money back that the culture altered. Just because the problem only really had an impact on the behaviour of the clubs at this point it doesn't mean that it was ok to behave like that in the first place. This applies to the clubs themselves and the people lending the money.

Dan Fante wrote:If I may use a football analogy, when cheap credit was readily available you had many, many football clubs who were using it to live beyond their means.

 
I think Leeds United was a good example of this. They gambled on European success, just missed out and then went bankrupt. Had they made the next round, the money coming in would have seen them OK.
 
It's like governments, they gamble on future growth and when it doesn't happen as they expect we are in the proverbial. Chancellors of every stripe are notorious for using the treasury model and quoting only the most positive view of the economy. There is always the next day report where someone else has used the same model and produced a very different forecast.

"Managed News in our daily diet.."

Indeed ow, the chances of Government press regulation is of course zero under this shower. No doubt their worry is that if Labour introduce regulation there might be a clause for political bias to be curtailed.

It's taken long enough for the "media royalty" to come to court and I expect that will drag on and on until Cameron is safe out of office when the truth comes out about Brooks and Caulson.

Mel wrote:"Managed News in our daily diet.."

 
You are what you read A bit out of date but an interesting read.
 
It is interesting to note that the Sun (Tony Blair's favourite newspaper? ) has a target demographic of C2DE which one would think are Labour core. That's a cunning piece of tactic by the Tory part of the press.
 
I expect Murdoch is funding Brooks and Coulson defence... my guess is they will be found not guilty. There is no doubt sufficient dirt that can be thrown up for the CPS to decide that discretion is the better part of valour and there is no public interest to be served by carrying on.  If someone was making a corrupt payment then someone had to be receiving a corrupt payment. So the policeman says 'Yes it was me whot dunnit' and is getting some benefit from the confession who is going to give it any credibility? Well we shall have to wait and see. I agree that it will probably stretch out for years unless the case collapses quickly.

Bellatori wrote:
I think Leeds United was a good example of this. They gambled on European success, just missed out and then went bankrupt. Had they made the next round, the money coming in would have seen them OK.

Leeds got to the semi finals of the European Cup (or the Champions League as it's now known) and borrowed on the strength of getting into the top four every year after but missed out the following year then got relegated when they had to sell all their best players. Robbie Fowler was still getting paid about 4 years after he left the club I think. There's also the tale about a player they signed (might have been Seth Johnson) whose agent asked for something like £30k a week for his player and Ridsdale is supposed to have said something along the lines of "I think we can do better than that". Absolute madness and they got exactly what they deserved. The fans didn't deserve it though. Portsmouth would be another example. Modern football is rubbish, to paraphrase Blur.

oftenwrong wrote:Today, some media royalty appear at The old Bailey.

The next five months will no doubt produce a few more examples of Managed News in our daily diet.

I just wonder OW if Cameron will get his hands dirty for his "CHIPPING NORTON SET"?:yeahthat: