Re: Osborne Anounces Another £140 Billion Bank Bailout : Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:42 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote:

...and those greedy disabled people.


I think we're keeping immigrants in reserve for another spin-day.

Re: Osborne Anounces Another £140 Billion Bank Bailout : Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:46 am  

Vicky Redwood, chief UK economist at Capital Economics, said the figures boded ill for the rest of the year, particularly because of the effect of the Queen's Jubilee holiday: "Given the negative impact of June's extra bank holiday, GDP is likely to have contracted again in the second quarter." Full story One day is likely to screw up 90 odd? When people spent the day shopping or in the pub? These people are just guessing, aren't they? Fred Karno really does appear to be in charge.

Vicky Redwood, chief UK economist at Capital Economics, said the figures boded ill for the rest of the year, particularly because of the effect of the Queen's Jubilee holiday: "Given the negative impact of June's extra bank holiday, GDP is likely to have contracted again in the second quarter." Full story One day is likely to screw up 90 odd? When people spent the day shopping or in the pub? These people are just guessing, aren't they? Fred Karno really does appear to be in charge.

Re: Osborne Anounces Another £140 Billion Bank Bailout : Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:17 pm  

El Barbudo wrote: You have pointed at 2001 in an earlier post. Brown had refused to over-spend in the previous four years, building up what the press referred to as his "war chest". I think you'd agree that the time to spend is when there is a danger of recession? Well, in 2001 GDP growth fell to 0.3%. Exactly the time to start spending. Clearly I don't agree. We were not in danger of recession and we certainly didn't need the six years of overspending that followed. Whilst I failed to get a decent explanation for the overspending on this thread I have spotted one on another thread: major hound wrote: Blair came in on a fairly middle of the road programme and pretty fair economic weather. Brown did quite a lot of redistribution on the qt. But didn't crow about it. But they stuck to the Tories 1997 spending plans (which the cynical Ken Clarke admitted that even the Tories hadn't planned to stick to) and were condemned for not doing enough for the least well off during the 2001 election. Hence the spending on social services. Mintball wrote: The crisis was causes by massive over-spending on public services and the gold-plated pensions of public sector workers. Again I ask who, other than you, is making this claim?

El Barbudo wrote: You have pointed at 2001 in an earlier post. Brown had refused to over-spend in the previous four years, building up what the press referred to as his "war chest". I think you'd agree that the time to spend is when there is a danger of recession? Well, in 2001 GDP growth fell to 0.3%. Exactly the time to start spending. Clearly I don't agree. We were not in danger of recession and we certainly didn't need the six years of overspending that followed. Whilst I failed to get a decent explanation for the overspending on this thread I have spotted one on another thread: major hound wrote: Blair came in on a fairly middle of the road programme and pretty fair economic weather. Brown did quite a lot of redistribution on the qt. But didn't crow about it. But they stuck to the Tories 1997 spending plans (which the cynical Ken Clarke admitted that even the Tories hadn't planned to stick to) and were condemned for not doing enough for the least well off during the 2001 election. Hence the spending on social services. Mintball wrote: The crisis was causes by massive over-spending on public services and the gold-plated pensions of public sector workers. Again I ask who, other than you, is making this claim?

Re: Osborne Anounces Another £140 Billion Bank Bailout : Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:20 pm  

Chris28 wrote: Fred Karno really does appear to be in charge. TBH I wonder if anyone is in charge having seen this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... intcmp=239 from about 6 miinutes in. Perhaps the Downing Street cat is running things. The government borrowed an extra £3bn in May because of extra dole and less tax coming in. But according to this young lady there's £4bn underspend floating about somewhere - at least that's how I understood her. But then she said in May that the fuel duty rise would produce £1.5bn and now its cancellation will only cost £500m. All very confusing. Labour were once again attacked last night on Any Questions for leaving a huge deficit but as Chuka Amunna said, we did leave a plan for dealing with the deficit (the Darling budget) and we left a growing economy not a recession. The current state of affairs is all Mr Osborne's own work.

Chris28 wrote: Fred Karno really does appear to be in charge. TBH I wonder if anyone is in charge having seen this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... intcmp=239 from about 6 miinutes in. Perhaps the Downing Street cat is running things. The government borrowed an extra £3bn in May because of extra dole and less tax coming in. But according to this young lady there's £4bn underspend floating about somewhere - at least that's how I understood her. But then she said in May that the fuel duty rise would produce £1.5bn and now its cancellation will only cost £500m. All very confusing. Labour were once again attacked last night on Any Questions for leaving a huge deficit but as Chuka Amunna said, we did leave a plan for dealing with the deficit (the Darling budget) and we left a growing economy not a recession. The current state of affairs is all Mr Osborne's own work.