Our future leaders in the UK

[DeeTillEhDeh]

That's genuinely the best you have? From a No voter, I can't say I'm surprised.

I'm not a No voter though - read the other thread.

[Ad Lib]

Nice to see AdLib the "confirmed Yes voter" still talking one heap of shite.

And for the rest of you "cringing" and "holding your heads" at the homosexual comment, hang your fucking heads in shame for zeroing in on that part of his argument.

Idiots.

Casually throwing around false accusations of people behaving in a way which systemically facilitates homophobia when they're part of a government that just spear-headed marriage equality legislation is what we call moronic. It should be called out as such.

[Fotbawmad]

Compared to pretty much anywhere else affected by the global financial crisis, we are doing really rather well at deficit reduction. Anyone saying that Osborne has done a bad job because the national debt has gone up is showing a wilful ignorance of the nature and scale of the financial difficulties the Treasury faced in 2010.

The problem is he can't cut the deficit due to past obligations. Just wait till all these baby boomers enter retirement.

This is one of the areas where he really has failed. Not that it really concerns an apparently large section of the public who bemoan spending cuts, but the reality of it is that the UK is still in defecit is still spending above its means. Truth be told, I think this is a decision he completely bottled.

The problem is most people, including politicians don't understand that it's impossible to "cut the deficit, and live within our means". That's fine if your the average citizen living on a fixed income, but utterly delusional when it comes to the national credit card, as these things are deflationary. The system is designed for ever increasing levels of borrowing, and will come to an end some day.

[ayrmad]

Compared to pretty much anywhere else affected by the global financial crisis, we are doing really rather well at deficit reduction. Anyone saying that Osborne has done a bad job because the national debt has gone up is showing a wilful ignorance of the nature and scale of the financial difficulties the Treasury faced in 2010.

Of course the Coalition hasn't met the target of eliminating the structural deficit by the end of the Parliament. But when growth in the Eurozone and even China has spectacularly under-performed relative to expectations of their governments and those of independent observers, why should we expect the UK Treasury to be uniquely capable of an economic miracle?

It would be good if you could list all the countries deficits so we can see what you mean.

I take it the list of the OECD countries deficit reduction wasn't to your liking?

2010 Iceland : 10.1% of GDP, 2013 Iceland:2.7% of GDP

2010 UK: 10% of GDP, 2013 UK: 6.9% of GDP

There are many more but that one will do.

[YassinMoutaouakil]

Gideon hates the gays IMO.

[Ad Lib]

I take it the list of the OECD countries deficit reduction wasn't to your liking?

2010 Iceland : 10.1% of GDP, 2013 Iceland:2.7% of GDP

2010 UK: 10% of GDP, 2013 UK: 6.9% of GDP

There are many more but that one will do.

"That one" is of course massively atypical of the OECD as a whole. Iceland's deficit reduction has come off the back of a 50% devaluation of the currency, 10% inflation, 6% interest rates and an economy still not even 2/3 of the GDP it was pre-crisis. They've endured massive hits to their standard of living to get there and other economic indicators are really troublesome.

By contrast, the UK's currency has broadly maintained parity with the Euro since 2010, has actually increased in value against the Dollar, has 1.9% inflation, 0.5% interest rate, GDP about 9/10 of pre-crisis levels. The foundation of our recovery is significantly stronger than that of Iceland.

The second thing to point out is that far more of our deficit was structural than just about any other country with the possible exception of the US in the OECD. We have largely dove-tailed the US since Osborne's policies have been implemented. Countries like France, Germany, Canada, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Australia, Portugal, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Netherlands and more all had smaller deficits than us, yet have reduced their deficits, more of which were cyclical, no quicker and often more slowly than we did. In the case of Japan, their deficit is actually up! We are completely in line with the net change of deficit over the period you describe, and do so from a position of relatively strong other economic indicators. Our growth outstrips the Eurozone's. Our credit rating, despite widespread scoffing of people on here, is actually still one of the strongest in the European Union, which explains our lower prevailing interest rates on borrowing too.

The notion that Osborne has somehow catastrophically under-performed relative to both the nature and the challenge he faced compared to other countries' finance ministers simply isn't supported by the evidence. Granted, he's no miracle worker, but he has performed no worse than those with comparable structural deficits.

[ayrmad]

"That one" is of course massively atypical of the OECD as a whole. Iceland's deficit reduction has come off the back of a 50% devaluation of the currency, 10% inflation, 6% interest rates and an economy still not even 2/3 of the GDP it was pre-crisis. They've endured massive hits to their standard of living to get there and other economic indicators are really troublesome.

By contrast, the UK's currency has broadly maintained parity with the Euro since 2010, has actually increased in value against the Dollar, has 1.9% inflation, 0.5% interest rate, GDP about 9/10 of pre-crisis levels. The foundation of our recovery is significantly stronger than that of Iceland.

The second thing to point out is that far more of our deficit was structural than just about any other country with the possible exception of the US in the OECD. We have largely dove-tailed the US since Osborne's policies have been implemented. Countries like France, Germany, Canada, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Australia, Portugal, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Netherlands and more all had smaller deficits than us, yet have reduced their deficits, more of which were cyclical, no quicker and often more slowly than we did. In the case of Japan, their deficit is actually up! We are completely in line with the net change of deficit over the period you describe, and do so from a position of relatively strong other economic indicators. Our growth outstrips the Eurozone's. Our credit rating, despite widespread scoffing of people on here, is actually still one of the strongest in the European Union, which explains our lower prevailing interest rates on borrowing too.

The notion that Osborne has somehow catastrophically under-performed relative to both the nature and the challenge he faced compared to other countries' finance ministers simply isn't supported by the evidence. Granted, he's no miracle worker, but he has performed no worse than those with comparable structural deficits.

We'd be fighting relegation from the Championship, if we judged ourselves against the other OECD countries.

2010 USA: 12.2% of GDP, 2013 USA: 6.5% of GDP.

France, Germany, Canada, Denmark, Austria, Australia, Portugal, Poland and Slovakia all reduced their deficits at a faster rate, some significantly faster.

Netherlands, Austria, Finland, France, Sweden and Germany are all EU countries with lower risk premium.

What economic indicators are we comparing?

[Ad Lib]

We'd be fighting relegation from the Championship, if we judged ourselves against the other OECD countries.

2010 USA: 12.2% of GDP, 2013 USA: 6.5% of GDP.

France, Germany, Canada, Denmark, Austria, Australia, Portugal, Poland and Slovakia all reduced their deficits at a faster rate, some significantly faster.

Netherlands, Austria, Finland, France, Sweden and Germany are all EU countries with lower risk premium.

What economic indicators are we comparing?

You are just lying.

France's deficit reduced from 7.1% to 4.2%. Net 2.9% reduction. Less than UK's 3.1%.

Canada's deficit reduced from 4.9% to 3.0%. Net 1.9% reduction. Less than UK.

Denmark's deficit reduced from 2.7% to 1.5%. Net 1.2% reduction. Less than UK.

Austria's deficit reduced from 4.5% to 2.3%. Net 2.2% reduction. Less than UK.

Australia's deficit reduced from 5.2% to 2.4%. Net 2.8% reduction. Less than UK.

Poland's deficit reduced from 7.9% to 4.8%. Net 3.1% reduction. Equal to the UK's.

I need not point out to you of course that the EU has more than six countries with respect to your second point.

What should be striking to you is that countries like France have had sluggish growth and poor economic performance despite having a significantly smaller starting-point of a defecit than the Coalition in the UK. Given the comparative scale of the task, the UK is performing well. Saying that the UK is in a dog-fight is one thing. Saying that it's Osborne's fault is quite another. He's like the manager that's been brought in to try to save one of the teams teetering on the brink of the relegation spots and who has stopped a run of 10 successive defeats, going unbeaten in 7, albeit there were three no-score draws in the mix and he probably still needs to win 2 of his last 3 games to stay up.

[ayrmad]

You are just lying.

France's deficit reduced from 7.1% to 4.2%. Net 2.9% reduction. Less than UK's 3.1%.

Canada's deficit reduced from 4.9% to 3.0%. Net 1.9% reduction. Less than UK.

Denmark's deficit reduced from 2.7% to 1.5%. Net 1.2% reduction. Less than UK.

Austria's deficit reduced from 4.5% to 2.3%. Net 2.2% reduction. Less than UK.

Australia's deficit reduced from 5.2% to 2.4%. Net 2.8% reduction. Less than UK.

Poland's deficit reduced from 7.9% to 4.8%. Net 3.1% reduction. Equal to the UK's.

I need not point out to you of course that the EU has more than six countries with respect to your second point.

What should be striking to you is that countries like France have had sluggish growth and poor economic performance despite having a significantly smaller starting-point of a defecit than the Coalition in the UK. Given the comparative scale of the task, the UK is performing well. Saying that the UK is in a dog-fight is one thing. Saying that it's Osborne's fault is quite another. He's like the manager that's been brought in to try to save one of the teams teetering on the brink of the relegation spots and who has stopped a run of 10 successive defeats, going unbeaten in 7, albeit there were three no-score draws in the mix and he probably still needs to win 2 of his last 3 games to stay up.

Most of the others are the basket cases.

I'm not lying, you've made an arse of it.

France's deficit reduced from 7.1% to 4.2%. 40.9% reduction. Greater than UK's 31%.

Canada's deficit reduced from 4.9% to 3.0%. 38.8% reduction. Greater than UK.

Denmark's deficit reduced from 2.7% to 1.5%. 44.44% reduction. Greater than UK.

Austria's deficit reduced from 4.5% to 2.3%. 48.9% reduction. Greater than UK.

Australia's deficit reduced from 5.2% to 2.4%. 53.9% reduction. Greater than UK.

Poland's deficit reduced from 7.9% to 4.8%. 39.2% reduction. Greater than UK's.

[San Starko Rover]

I see what the Labour party are doing more scare stories vote Yes and she could be Prime Minister The thought is enough to keep any Yes voter awake at night with the fear.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/labour-lamont-next-first-minister-of-scotland.1395587913

Comments section is comedy gold, some great one liners my personal favourite

'It is now apparent that Wendy was the one eyed king in land of the Labour party'

Seriously there must be someone better than Lamont and Sarwar in the Labour party how can anyone still vote for this circus? Your might vote Labour because your Dad voted Labour but even he would be able to see the joke this lot have become

[Ad Lib]

Most of the others are the basket cases.

Aha, so we're only allowed to compare the UK to countries which already had smaller deficits, for whom less of their deficits was structural, and who are therefore in no way comparable to the UK whatsoever? Right.

I'm not lying, you've made an arse of it.

France's deficit reduced from 7.1% to 4.2%. 40.9% reduction. Greater than UK's 31%.

Canada's deficit reduced from 4.9% to 3.0%. 38.8% reduction. Greater than UK.

Denmark's deficit reduced from 2.7% to 1.5%. 44.44% reduction. Greater than UK.

Austria's deficit reduced from 4.5% to 2.3%. 48.9% reduction. Greater than UK.

Australia's deficit reduced from 5.2% to 2.4%. 53.9% reduction. Greater than UK.

Poland's deficit reduced from 7.9% to 4.8%. 39.2% reduction. Greater than UK's.

You didn't say we were concerned with reduction as a percentage of the original deficit as percentage of GDP. As I also pointed out before, you have ignored the fact that in most of these cases, their deficit has been cyclical, whereas ours is mostly structural. It would therefore be entirely expected that we would be achieving a smaller percentage reduction in our deficit, while in absolute terms achieving a larger reduction.

[Confidemus]

You didn't say we were concerned with reduction as a percentage of the original deficit as percentage of GDP. As I also pointed out before, you have ignored the fact that in most of these cases, their deficit has been cyclical, whereas ours is mostly structural. It would therefore be entirely expected that we would be achieving a smaller percentage reduction in our deficit, while in absolute terms achieving a larger reduction.

Am I alone in thinking the above is utter, utter word salad?

[ayrmad]

Aha, so we're only allowed to compare the UK to countries which already had smaller deficits, for whom less of their deficits was structural, and who are therefore in no way comparable to the UK whatsoever? Right.

That's unfair of me, here is the list of OECD countries with similar or higher deficits in 2010.

GREECE: 2010 10.8% of GDP 2013 2.4% of GDP. Net Reduction 8.4%.. % Reduction 77.8%

ICELAND: 2010 10.1% of GDP 2013 2.7% of GDP. Net Reduction 7.4%.. % Reduction 73.3%

IRELAND: 2010 30.6% of GDP 2013 7.4% of GDP. Net Reduction 23.2%. % Reduction 75.8%

PORTUGAL: 2010 9.9% of GDP 2013 5.7% of GDP. Net Reduction 4.2%. % Reduction 42.4%

UK: 2010 10.0% of GDP 2013 6.9% of GDP. Net Reduction 3.1%. % Reduction 31.0%

UNITED STATES: 2010 12.2% of GDP 2013 6.5% of GDP. Net Reduction 5.7%. % Reduction 46.7%

Owned I think H_B calls it.

[Ad Lib]

That's unfair of me, here is the list of OECD countries with similar or higher deficits in 2010.

GREECE: 2010 10.8% of GDP 2013 2.4% of GDP. Net Reduction 8.4%.. % Reduction 77.8%

ICELAND: 2010 10.1% of GDP 2013 2.7% of GDP. Net Reduction 7.4%.. % Reduction 73.3%

IRELAND: 2010 30.6% of GDP 2013 7.4% of GDP. Net Reduction 23.2%. % Reduction 75.8%

PORTUGAL: 2010 9.9% of GDP 2013 5.7% of GDP. Net Reduction 4.2%. % Reduction 42.4%

UK: 2010 10.0% of GDP 2013 6.9% of GDP. Net Reduction 3.1%. % Reduction 31.0%

UNITED STATES: 2010 12.2% of GDP 2013 6.5% of GDP. Net Reduction 5.7%. % Reduction 46.7%

Owned I think H_B calls it.

Just a few observations:

Greece, Iceland and Portugal, at least, had deficits which they were compelled by people bailing them out to reduce. Greece has 27% unemployment. Iceland has 10% inflation, Portugal has unemployment at 15%. Their deficit reduction plans have been externally imposed and come with drastic domestic consequences. The UK has achieved a far better consolidated reduction in its deficit while keeping unemployment down, inflation under control, interest rates low and growth at reasonable levels.

You are also still not engaging at all with the structural/cyclical distinction.

As an aside, you probably shouldn't be using 2010 as your starting point given pretty much all fiscal decision-making from the Coalition government didn't kick in properly until 2011. Funnily enough if you go from then to the present we dovetail the USA.

So no, not "owned" in the slightest.

[Confidemus]

Just a few observations:

Greece, Iceland and Portugal, at least, had deficits which they were compelled by people bailing them out to reduce. Greece has 27% unemployment. Iceland has 10% inflation, Portugal has unemployment at 15%. Their deficit reduction plans have been externally imposed and come with drastic domestic consequences. The UK has achieved a far better consolidated reduction in its deficit while keeping unemployment down, inflation under control, interest rates low and growth at reasonable levels.

You are also still not engaging at all with the structural/cyclical distinction.

As an aside, you probably shouldn't be using 2010 as your starting point given pretty much all fiscal decision-making from the Coalition government didn't kick in properly until 2011. Funnily enough if you go from then to the present we dovetail the USA.

So no, not "owned" in the slightest.

Why can't you just drop the word salad for a moment and admit you've been "owned"?

[Burma]

Oof. AdLib appears to have been knocked da fuq out.

[ayrmad]

Here is your original post that I questioned.

Compared to pretty much anywhere else affected by the global financial crisis, we are doing really rather well at deficit reduction. Anyone saying that Osborne has done a bad job because the national debt has gone up is showing a wilful ignorance of the nature and scale of the financial difficulties the Treasury faced in 2010.

Of course the Coalition hasn't met the target of eliminating the structural deficit by the end of the Parliament. But when growth in the Eurozone and even China has spectacularly under-performed relative to expectations of their governments and those of independent observers, why should we expect the UK Treasury to be uniquely capable of an economic miracle?

Where do you get all the shit below from the post above?

Just a few observations:

Greece, Iceland and Portugal, at least, had deficits which they were compelled by people bailing them out to reduce. Greece has 27% unemployment. Iceland has 10% inflation, Portugal has unemployment at 15%. Their deficit reduction plans have been externally imposed and come with drastic domestic consequences. The UK has achieved a far better consolidated reduction in its deficit while keeping unemployment down, inflation under control, interest rates low and growth at reasonable levels.

You are also still not engaging at all with the structural/cyclical distinction.

As an aside, you probably shouldn't be using 2010 as your starting point given pretty much all fiscal decision-making from the Coalition government didn't kick in properly until 2011. Funnily enough if you go from then to the present we dovetail the USA.

So no, not "owned" in the slightest.

UNITED KINGDOM: 2011 7.9% of GDP, 2013 6.9% of GDP. Net Reduction 1.0%. % Reduction 12.7%

UNITED STATES: 2011 10.7% of GDP, 2013 6.5% of GDP. Net Reduction 4.2%. % Reduction 39.3%

That shows the United States reducing her deficit at a considerably faster rate than the UK.

Of the 6 countries with a similar or higher deficit in 2011, 5 reduced it more using both methods.

Comparing all OECD countries from 2011, 11 reduced their deficit faster using your method, 21 reduced their deficit faster using my method.

Definitely looks like you're being completely owned to me.

[Ad Lib]

Here is your original post that I questioned.

Where do you get all the shit below from the post above?

Deficit reduction has a context. It takes place in an environment of other economic indicators.

UNITED KINGDOM: 2011 7.9% of GDP, 2013 6.9% of GDP. Net Reduction 1.0%. % Reduction 12.7%

UNITED STATES: 2011 10.7% of GDP, 2013 6.5% of GDP. Net Reduction 4.2%. % Reduction 39.3%

That shows the United States reducing her deficit at a considerably faster rate than the UK.

Of the 6 countries with a similar or higher deficit in 2011, 5 reduced it more using both methods.

Comparing all OECD countries from 2011, 11 reduced their deficit faster using your method, 21 reduced their deficit faster using my method.

Definitely looks like you're being completely owned to me.

Again, though, you ignore the context in which the US deficit has been reduced, namely a relative devaluation of the dollar. The point is the two deficit reduction strategies dove-tail one another according to the OECD projections for the end of this Parliament.

ETA: and I observe AGAIN that you still don't engage with the structural/cyclical dimension that exists here, which placed the UK at a much larger starting disadvantage over those with comparable overall deficits, because more of our deficit would have continued to exist irrespective of a growth-led recovery.

[ayrmad]

As an aside, you probably shouldn't be using 2010 as your starting point given pretty much all fiscal decision-making from the Coalition government didn't kick in properly until 2011. Funnily enough if you go from then to the present we dovetail the USA.

The point is the two deficit reduction strategies dove-tail one another according to the OECD projections for the end of this Parliament.

You do realise that according to yourself over 2 years previous Brown and Darling reduced the deficit by 3.3% compared to your Coalition' 1% using your method and 29.5% compared to your coalition' 12.7%.

Who planned this mythical dove-tailing between the 2?

I must get to keep you now.

A bad day at Lib Dumb central today.

A wee "I got it wrong" ages ago would surely have been better than this course of buffoonery you've chosen for yourself.

[Ad Lib]

You do realise that according to yourself over 2 years previous Brown and Darling reduced the deficit by 3.3% compared to your Coalition' 1% using your method and 29.5% compared to your coalition' 12.7%.

Who planned this mythical dove-tailing between the 2?

I must get to keep you now.

A bad day at Lib Dumb central today.

A wee "I got it wrong" ages ago would surely have been better than this course of buffoonery you've chosen for yourself.

Apologies. I had misremembered the tables (I read them briefly last night). That first post of the two you quoted should not have suggested 2011-present. I was recalling the projections for 2014 and 2015, which do indeed dove-tail one another.

ETA: however, and at risk of repeating myself, you're still only dealing with budget deficits, not the structural deficit. The UK structural deficit was much larger as a proportion of the total budget deficit than essentially all of those who, by your measure, have reduced their deficits more quickly. Brown and Darling didn't touch the structural deficit; the entirety of the reduction under their watch was a result of their fiscal stimulus package re-inflating GDP, and was therefore of a cyclical nature.