Baxter Parp Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 8 minutes ago, strichener said: Yep, let's just get on the populist "it was all the bankers fault" bandwagon. If your starting point is that austerity is wrong under all circumstance then you not objective. I would be interested to know what you thought of his book and in particular his conclusion. It was all the bankers fault, the Labour government wasn't overspending. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 Let's just shut down Parliament to stop any dissent, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/parliament-summer-holiday-extension-theresa-may-mps-plotting-coup-three-months-house-commons-lords-a7807901.html Parliament's summer holiday could be extended 'to stop MPs plotting coup against Theresa May' Disgruntled MPs 'less likely to oust Prime Minister during recess' Harriet Agerholm @HarrietAgerholm 6 hours ago 17 comments 0 Click to follow Indy Politics Parliament could rise sooner than the planned date of 20 July Getty MPs could have their summer holiday extended to three months under reported Conservative plans to stifle rebellion against Theresa May. Parliament would rise sooner than the planned date of 20 July, while the September sitting would be scrapped, resulting in a summer break of as long as 12 weeks, according to the proposals. The longer holiday was designed to reduce opportunities for disgruntled Tories to plot to oust their leader, The Sunday Times reported. Read more Hard Brexit under threat as MPs plan alliance to defeat May Scheduled to take place from 5 to 14 September this year, the week-long September sitting was introduced as a permanent feature in the Parliamentary calendar after complaints MPs spent too much time away. But now the measure could be axed, risking a public backlash. The longer holiday would ease protests from Conservative MPs, who had been told to spend more time in Westminster after the party lost its majority in the House of Commons. Parliamentary arithmetic means the Tories are expected to rely on the 10 Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) MPs to vote legislation through. Wonder if they do rise sooner than the scheduled 20th July that will allow the DUP home for the marching on the 12th ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 Nick Forbes @nick_forbes Jun 24 Govt have just confirmed on @BBCBreakfast that, despite all their talk of help, councils will have to pay to install sprinklers in blocks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 Yep, let's just get on the populist "it was all the bankers fault" bandwagon. If your starting point is that austerity is wrong under all circumstance then you not objective. I would be interested to know what you thought of his book and in particular his conclusion. You're right to say that western governments have been spending more than they could afford for a long time before the crash (basically the 3rd way of new labour types who wanted high spending on education and healthcare without really increasing the tax take to pay for it). But the sheer amount of money required to save the banks was eye-watering. Literally mind-f**k levels of money (although it's not actually money but that's a whole other thing). The austerity nonsense is absolutely ideological in nature. A giant red herring if ever there was one. This isn't about balancing the books (how are the Tories getting on with reducing the deficit never mind the fucking debt?) but instead about increasing the opportunity for private investment in public services. Shaft those at the bottom whilst the rich get richer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 2 hours ago, pandarilla said: You're right to say that western governments have been spending more than they could afford for a long time before the crash (basically the 3rd way of new labour types who wanted high spending on education and healthcare without really increasing the tax take to pay for it). But the sheer amount of money required to save the banks was eye-watering. Literally mind-f**k levels of money (although it's not actually money but that's a whole other thing). The austerity nonsense is absolutely ideological in nature. A giant red herring if ever there was one. This isn't about balancing the books (how are the Tories getting on with reducing the deficit never mind the fucking debt?) but instead about increasing the opportunity for private investment in public services. Shaft those at the bottom whilst the rich get richer. You appear to be conflating debt and deficit. The absolute level of debt increased as a consequence of the banking bailouts but this was not the cause of the deficit which as you pointed out was down to spending commitments and a very large drop in tax receipts, lack of growth and lack of inflation. There is ideology behind austerity and there is an argument that we are back to historical level of deficit and should look to level off the austerity measures but one thing is for certain, the government could not continue to borrow to the extent that it had in the last decade. Doing so would be to pass on to the next generation the problems we had caused by our need for cheap credit and massive mortgages. The banks may have been irresponsible with their lending but the other side of that transaction is someone being irresponsible with their borrowing. 6 hours ago, Baxter Parp said: It was all the bankers fault, the Labour government wasn't overspending. No it wasn't and only a fool would think that this was the case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 No it wasn't and only a fool would think that this was the case. You're still massively underplaying the massive increase in debt brought about by the bailouts. What impact does that have on borrowing rates? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 Poorly educated schmucks vote Tory. Man of the people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 Poorly educated schmucks vote Tory. The left has always been a somewhat uneasy alliance between the political aware poor and well meaning intellectuals.It follows that their natural opponents are the malevolent rich and the stupid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 1 hour ago, pandarilla said: You're still massively underplaying the massive increase in debt brought about by the bailouts. What impact does that have on borrowing rates? No I am not underplaying the increase in debt. Even with the debt levels that we currently have, we have only increase debt interest by 0.5% of GDP or in actual numbers £16.7bln per annum. In terms of actual government expenditure the increase in debt has not resulted in any disproportionate increase in spending (in 2007 debt interest was 5.71% and in 2017 it will be 5.73%) If you remove QE from this then the actual interest expenditure has reduced as a percentage of overall government spending. All of which still does not change the fact that it is far too simplistic to state that it was the bankers that caused all this. Such sentiment may give people an easy target and allow them to look outward for a cause rather than look into the mirror and see that their desire to borrow 6 x salary for a mortgage played a part in this. The banks may have told people that they could afford such sizeable undertakings but you cannot absolve the borrowers from taking some personal responsibility. Perversely those that have net borrowings are better-off than savers when all the effects of the recession and subsequent recovery are taken together. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 39 minutes ago, strichener said: No I am not underplaying the increase in debt. Even with the debt levels that we currently have, we have only increase debt interest by 0.5% of GDP or in actual numbers £16.7bln per annum. In terms of actual government expenditure the increase in debt has not resulted in any disproportionate increase in spending (in 2007 debt interest was 5.71% and in 2017 it will be 5.73%) If you remove QE from this then the actual interest expenditure has reduced as a percentage of overall government spending. All of which still does not change the fact that it is far too simplistic to state that it was the bankers that caused all this. Such sentiment may give people an easy target and allow them to look outward for a cause rather than look into the mirror and see that their desire to borrow 6 x salary for a mortgage played a part in this. The banks may have told people that they could afford such sizeable undertakings but you cannot absolve the borrowers from taking some personal responsibility. Perversely those that have net borrowings are better-off than savers when all the effects of the recession and subsequent recovery are taken together. Not bad, 40+ years of oil and we owe £8.75 billion in loan interest per annum, £1640 a skull, an absolute bargain to be run by that shower of shite down the road. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizfit Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Dundee is probably the main firm SNP heartland. Perthshire is still firmly Tory, yet they couldn't even take Perth itself at the last election from arguably one of the worst performing MP's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 14 hours ago, strichener said: No it wasn't and only a fool would think that this was the case. No the Labour government wasn't overspending? Glad you agree. Only a right-wing zealot arsehole would think this was the case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 10 hours ago, ayrmad said: Not bad, 40+ years of oil and we owe £8.75 billion in loan interest per annum, £1640 a skull, an absolute bargain to be run by that shower of shite down the road. I don't disagree with the sentiment although it has noting to do with Baxter's claim that it was all caused by the bankers. I do however call into question the part highlighted as this looks far too high. What is your source for this amount as the latest figures from the Scottish Government is 2015/16 and stood at £2.8bln. If it were as high as you are stating, Scotland would be paying over 12% of expenditure on debt interest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: No the Labour government wasn't overspending? Glad you agree. Only a right-wing zealot arsehole would think this was the case. How much was the total surplus during the Labour administration? An answer to the nearest negative 10 billion will be sufficient. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 4 minutes ago, strichener said: How much was the total surplus during the Labour administration? An answer to the nearest negative 10 billion will be sufficient. Jesus Christ. Here, let me help you, as you can see below, historically Tory governments generally run higher deficits than Labour ones and surpluses are, in fact, rare in either case. Note also that the Labour government was running a very moderate deficit until the financial crisis hit when it ballooned due to shrinking revenues and the vast sums handed to the bankers so that they could maintain liquidity and give themselves bonuses. Get it yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizfit Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Has Dugdale blamed this deal on the SNP yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 25 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: Not going to lie, not much of that seems very responsible... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyerTon Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 IDS on BBC Radio 2 just now (Noon-2pm) http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 18 minutes ago, oaksoft said: Don't show me facts, I'm not interested. I don't know enough about the economic history of the United Kingdom to counteract my prejudices. Fair enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) 34 minutes ago, oaksoft said: Hilarious Baxter. No seriously, absolutely hilarious. I gave you an analysis of exactly what was wrong with your statistics and you respond with that guff? You gave me an analysis of f**k all, chum. The chart doesn't show the start and end of party regimes, it's there as a rough guide to deficits vs surpluses, which was the point I was making. If you want to make a different point and provide a detailed analysis you'll need a better chart. Edited June 27, 2017 by Baxter Parp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.