Re: Osborne Anounces Another £140 Billion Bank Bailout : Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:43 pm  

SBR wrote:

The economy would be in a different state now had Labour spent less (which they should have). That would have put us in a better position borrow the money we need to spend now. It doesn't help us, now the mistakes have been made, but Labour have to take their share of the blame for our current economic situation.

None of this excuses Labour's overspending prior to 2008.

Whoah.
We can borrow money (via selling government bonds) cheaper than I can ever remember, there are plenty of funds out there who would love to lend us their money.
The problem is supposed to be that it would increase the overall debt ... but a lot of that debt is underwritten the by bank shares that we own.
We may argue about how much they are worth and whether they are worth holding onto but the fact remains that those shares are still worth something even though it's less than we paid, so the debt-minus-assets isn't really as bad as it looks.

Bear in mind that Labour's "overspending" (as you put it) left them with a debt no higher than the debt they inherited.
Even after bailing out the banks, it was still way, way below that with Greece or the US and it makes us look pretty frugal.

Osborne's warnings about us being like Greece and on the brink of bankruptcy were absolute and total rubbish.

Re: Osborne Anounces Another £140 Billion Bank Bailout : Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:08 pm  

DHM wrote:

Except he's not very "nice" is he.

Now, "Tim, complete c**t, and thick as pig$h!t" , possibly more accurate.

I loathe the man but I think he is not quite as thick as he appears.
He is a Tory and is simply pursuing Tory ideology, which is to ensure the rich stay rich and sod everyone else.
He and Cameron and their clique want to roll back as much of government spending as they can, regardless of what it would have been spent on and regardless of whether that would have been a good way to spend it.
In their book, the poor are their pawns and can (and should) only be motivated by hardship.
To them, ANY government spending is a source of regret, they see it as money that could be jingling in their mate's pockets instead of making everyone's lives better.
To them, decent schools and hospitals should be a source of cash profit, allowing it to be free at the point of supply makes them choke, I mean what's the point of being rich if everyone gets the benefit of education and health care?

Equality of opportunity is absolutely not what they are about.
Preserving their advantage .... that is what motivates them.

Re: Osborne Anounces Another £140 Billion Bank Bailout : Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:02 pm  

I'm constantly amazed that no Tory Government has ever suggested that anyone who spends their own money on education (via private schools) or on health (via private health providers) should have a corresponding discount on their NIS contributions.

Its just so blindingly obvious to follow the political dogma to its natural conclusion that I don't understand why its never been suggested - or has it ?

Re: Osborne Anounces Another £140 Billion Bank Bailout : Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:45 am  

El Barbudo wrote: We can borrow money (via selling government bonds) cheaper than I can ever remember, there are plenty of funds out there who would love to lend us their money. The problem is supposed to be that it would increase the overall debt ... but a lot of that debt is underwritten the by bank shares that we own. We may argue about how much they are worth and whether they are worth holding onto but the fact remains that those shares are still worth something even though it's less than we paid, so the debt-minus-assets isn't really as bad as it looks. The problem with debt is the cost of servicing that debt, not just in the short term but also in the medium and long term. The source of the debt doesn't have a massive affect on that. El Barbudo wrote: Bear in mind that Labour's "overspending" (as you put it) left them with a debt no higher than the debt they inherited. At a completely different point in the economic cycle. At the end of a long, sustained, boom period. Here's a graph of budgets' surplus/deficit. The question is what happened in 2001 which required running a deficit for the next six years? Source

El Barbudo wrote: We can borrow money (via selling government bonds) cheaper than I can ever remember, there are plenty of funds out there who would love to lend us their money. The problem is supposed to be that it would increase the overall debt ... but a lot of that debt is underwritten the by bank shares that we own. We may argue about how much they are worth and whether they are worth holding onto but the fact remains that those shares are still worth something even though it's less than we paid, so the debt-minus-assets isn't really as bad as it looks. The problem with debt is the cost of servicing that debt, not just in the short term but also in the medium and long term. The source of the debt doesn't have a massive affect on that. El Barbudo wrote: Bear in mind that Labour's "overspending" (as you put it) left them with a debt no higher than the debt they inherited. At a completely different point in the economic cycle. At the end of a long, sustained, boom period. Here's a graph of budgets' surplus/deficit. The question is what happened in 2001 which required running a deficit for the next six years? Source

Re: Osborne Anounces Another £140 Billion Bank Bailout : Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:29 am  

SBR wrote: The problem with debt is the cost of servicing that debt, not just in the short term but also in the medium and long term. The source of the debt doesn't have a massive affect on that. At a completely different point in the economic cycle. At the end of a long, sustained, boom period. Here's a graph of budgets' surplus/deficit. The question is what happened in 2001 which required running a deficit for the next six years? Source I'd hazard a gues that it was at least some attempt to reverse 18 years of underfunding by the tories in things like hospitals and schools. Wasn't there also a fooking great big war/wars to fund too?

SBR wrote: The problem with debt is the cost of servicing that debt, not just in the short term but also in the medium and long term. The source of the debt doesn't have a massive affect on that. At a completely different point in the economic cycle. At the end of a long, sustained, boom period. Here's a graph of budgets' surplus/deficit. The question is what happened in 2001 which required running a deficit for the next six years? Source I'd hazard a gues that it was at least some attempt to reverse 18 years of underfunding by the tories in things like hospitals and schools. Wasn't there also a fooking great big war/wars to fund too?

Re: Osborne Anounces Another £140 Billion Bank Bailout : Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:15 am  

And in more good news for Osborne: Borrowing fails to contract Wrong bloke for the job it would seem

And in more good news for Osborne: Borrowing fails to contract Wrong bloke for the job it would seem

Re: Osborne Anounces Another £140 Billion Bank Bailout : Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:24 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Things like a VAT cut and investment in social housing (which would help solve the ever increasing housing benefit bill) are not giving £100 vouchers but are more direct form of government action that I thik they should be taking at this time. Rather than giving a darn sight more than £100 to rich higher rate tax payers in the vain hope this will "trickle down".

I'm not sure about a cut in VAT, especially if it was only in temporary, need to think that one through. It depends on what sort of investment you actually mean, but for many reasons I wouldn't want to get into at this hour, I seriously doubt whether a major new investment in social housing would actually stimulate growth (that's not to say there aren't arguments for this, just that growth probably isn't one of them). But when people start bringing phrases like "trickle down" into a thread it generally means they've run out of serious ideas and are just going for derailment.

DaveO wrote:

At the moment how would you tell a pseudo-Keynesians from a Keynesian? They would both be spending to invest in infrastructure. You could only tell the difference in several years time when (if) we emerge from the recession part of the cycle we are in now.

The easy way would be that the Keynesians would be the ones who five to eight years ago would have been calling for the government to contract spending so to bring down aggregate demand, so in the case of New Labour it would have been contracting the public sector rather than growing it. I could be wrong but I don't remember that many voices calling out for that, and as I wrote in previous post it would have been a pretty hard sell for any government.

Re: Osborne Anounces Another £140 Billion Bank Bailout : Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:39 am  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

The easy way would be that the Keynesians would be the ones who five to eight years ago would have been calling for the government to contract spending so to bring down aggregate demand, so in the case of New Labour it would have been contracting the public sector rather than growing it. I could be wrong but I don't remember that many voices calling out for that, and as I wrote in previous post it would have been a pretty hard sell for any government.

Tony Blair did, this was one of the splits at the heart of the party when they were in power. Blair thought public spending had grown too much in the 2001-05 parliament and wanted to contract after the election, Brown didn't, and Brown played hardball over a PM with diminishing power as it was known he wasn't going to fight another election.

Still though even if the UK had been running balanced budgets or small surplus going into the recession it wouldn't have made much difference to the fact the public finances ended up in a shocking state given the size of the recession and the bailout of the banking sector. The real problem was a failure to regulate the banking sector as it was the collapse of the banking sector that ruined the economy. Ireland got in a worse mess than us, and they were running budget surpluses going into 2008, same as Portugal.

Re: Osborne Anounces Another £140 Billion Bank Bailout : Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:34 am  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

I'm not sure about a cut in VAT, especially if it was only in temporary, need to think that one through. It depends on what sort of investment you actually mean, but for many reasons I wouldn't want to get into at this hour, I seriously doubt whether a major new investment in social housing would actually stimulate growth (that's not to say there aren't arguments for this, just that growth probably isn't one of them). But when people start bringing phrases like "trickle down" into a thread it generally means they've run out of serious ideas and are just going for derailment.

Investment in social housing would certainly stimulate a building trade that is currently on its knees, a trade that employs many low skilled easily-unemployed people (as well as skilled labour of course) so in that respect it would make a difference and anything that gets people into work with money in their pockets will stimulate growth.

On the other hand the concept of a Conservative government encouraging an increase in the social housing stock is bizarre, particulalry with the news today that the latest kite to be flown is to remove housing benefit from the under 25s, the very people on the bottom rung of the ladder that social housing is designed for.

Re: Osborne Anounces Another £140 Billion Bank Bailout : Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:20 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

I loathe the man but I think he is not quite as thick as he appears.
He is a Tory and is simply pursuing Tory ideology, which is to ensure the rich stay rich and sod everyone else.
He and Cameron and their clique want to roll back as much of government spending as they can, regardless of what it would have been spent on and regardless of whether that would have been a good way to spend it.
In their book, the poor are their pawns and can (and should) only be motivated by hardship.
To them, ANY government spending is a source of regret, they see it as money that could be jingling in their mate's pockets instead of making everyone's lives better.
To them, decent schools and hospitals should be a source of cash profit, allowing it to be free at the point of supply makes them choke, I mean what's the point of being rich if everyone gets the benefit of education and health care?

Equality of opportunity is absolutely not what they are about.
Preserving their advantage .... that is what motivates them.

I'm reminded of an episode of South Park where the boys uncover a "conspiracy". Turns out that it's "W" creating a fake conspiracy to make it seem that his government is all powerful and controls everything - when really they haven't a f******g clue .
This is how I see this lot.
They don't even have the brains to follow a simple Tory ideology. Look at the latest clumsy outpourings, stop housing benefit for under 25's, bring back O Levels. Next they'll be blaming miners.
The great skill of the upper class is to look stupid, act stupid and talk stupid and yet still the plebs think they must actually be really clever. They hand each other prizes at their expensive schools and universities to show how clever they must be and we all buy it. Take away Cameron and Osbournes money and they wouldn't have been able to scrape a GCSE grade C between them.

Cunning plan my arrrssseee.