Re: What now for the UK? : Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:50 pm  

Mintball wrote: The plain fact is that the deficit was around the same as in John Major's time before the financial crash. Has anyone ever claimed that it wasn't? I'm confused as to why this totally irrelevant fact keeps getting brought up. (source) The issue isn't about what happened prior to 2000 (we entered a boom period and so were able to move to a surplus - there's a clear trend on the graph). Nor is it about what happened from 2008 onwards (global financial crisis). It's what went wrong in 2001/2002 that required the government to run a significant deficit for the following six years.

Mintball wrote: The plain fact is that the deficit was around the same as in John Major's time before the financial crash. Has anyone ever claimed that it wasn't? I'm confused as to why this totally irrelevant fact keeps getting brought up. (source) The issue isn't about what happened prior to 2000 (we entered a boom period and so were able to move to a surplus - there's a clear trend on the graph). Nor is it about what happened from 2008 onwards (global financial crisis). It's what went wrong in 2001/2002 that required the government to run a significant deficit for the following six years.

[Kosh]

Re: What now for the UK? : Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:06 pm  

Staffs FC wrote:

Kosh wrote:

And as you well know I've worked for the last 30-odd years in a major industry where the opposite applies and where companies have set up shop in the UK specifically because of the single market. Make no mistake about it - dropping out of the single market would do enormous harm to the UK economy. Assuming that the single market survives the current crisis of course...

Indeed - and I agree the single market is vital. It's a shame we Europeans couldn't just stop there though.

There are reasons why it didn't stop there, and some of them are at least understandable even if not what you might call good ones. In fact there are some pretty strong reasons why a Europe integrated to some degree above and beyond a simple free trade area is a good thing. Trouble is that the whole project has been botched, despite some good intentions by some parties. And I'm not sure what, if anything, can be rescued from the current sorry state of affairs.

[DaveO]

Re: What now for the UK? : Mon Dec 19, 2011 12:36 am  

SBR wrote: Mintball wrote: The plain fact is that the deficit was around the same as in John Major's time before the financial crash. Has anyone ever claimed that it wasn't? I'm confused as to why this totally irrelevant fact keeps getting brought up. (source) The issue isn't about what happened prior to 2000 (we entered a boom period and so were able to move to a surplus - there's a clear trend on the graph). Nor is it about what happened from 2008 onwards (global financial crisis). It's what went wrong in 2001/2002 that required the government to run a significant deficit for the following six years. Nothing went wrong as you put it. What you fail to mention is that while the deficits were similar to the end of the last Tory government as a % of GDP they were much lower. They were therefore sustainable in the short term and were what they were because people wanted money spent on things like the school infrastructure and so on. And that money needed spending with schools falling down and people left lying on trolleys is hospital corridors. We did actually benefit from the spending you know. However even Darling knew that could not go on forever and was planning to reduce it before we ever had a banking crisis. You are perpetuatomg a complete myth that running a deficit from 2001 to 2007 was in some way economic incompetence. if you look back over the economic history of the UK and similar countries it is just for the course. Without a banking crisis had the Tories won they would have carried on the same level of spending. That was their stated plan so they clearly didn't see the level of defict as evil. They do now because it's politically expedient to do so to beat Labour up about it and unfortunately most people are too thick to understand the difference between having a credit card debt and running an economy. The game changer was the banking crisis. The level of deficit prior to that was not.

SBR wrote: Mintball wrote: The plain fact is that the deficit was around the same as in John Major's time before the financial crash. Has anyone ever claimed that it wasn't? I'm confused as to why this totally irrelevant fact keeps getting brought up. (source) The issue isn't about what happened prior to 2000 (we entered a boom period and so were able to move to a surplus - there's a clear trend on the graph). Nor is it about what happened from 2008 onwards (global financial crisis). It's what went wrong in 2001/2002 that required the government to run a significant deficit for the following six years. Nothing went wrong as you put it. What you fail to mention is that while the deficits were similar to the end of the last Tory government as a % of GDP they were much lower. They were therefore sustainable in the short term and were what they were because people wanted money spent on things like the school infrastructure and so on. And that money needed spending with schools falling down and people left lying on trolleys is hospital corridors. We did actually benefit from the spending you know. However even Darling knew that could not go on forever and was planning to reduce it before we ever had a banking crisis. You are perpetuatomg a complete myth that running a deficit from 2001 to 2007 was in some way economic incompetence. if you look back over the economic history of the UK and similar countries it is just for the course. Without a banking crisis had the Tories won they would have carried on the same level of spending. That was their stated plan so they clearly didn't see the level of defict as evil. They do now because it's politically expedient to do so to beat Labour up about it and unfortunately most people are too thick to understand the difference between having a credit card debt and running an economy. The game changer was the banking crisis. The level of deficit prior to that was not.

Re: What now for the UK? : Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:17 am  

DaveO wrote: SBR wrote: Mintball wrote: The plain fact is that the deficit was around the same as in John Major's time before the financial crash. Has anyone ever claimed that it wasn't? I'm confused as to why this totally irrelevant fact keeps getting brought up. (source) The issue isn't about what happened prior to 2000 (we entered a boom period and so were able to move to a surplus - there's a clear trend on the graph). Nor is it about what happened from 2008 onwards (global financial crisis). It's what went wrong in 2001/2002 that required the government to run a significant deficit for the following six years. Nothing went wrong as you put it. What you fail to mention is that while the deficits were similar to the end of the last Tory government as a % of GDP they were much lower. They were therefore sustainable in the short term and were what they were because people wanted money spent on things like the school infrastructure and so on. And that money needed spending with schools falling down and people left lying on trolleys is hospital corridors. We did actually benefit from the spending you know. However even Darling knew that could not go on forever and was planning to reduce it before we ever had a banking crisis. You are perpetuatomg a complete myth that running a deficit from 2001 to 2007 was in some way economic incompetence. if you look back over the economic history of the UK and similar countries it is just for the course. Without a banking crisis had the Tories won they would have carried on the same level of spending. That was their stated plan so they clearly didn't see the level of defict as evil. They do now because it's politically expedient to do so to beat Labour up about it and unfortunately most people are too thick to understand the difference between having a credit card debt and running an economy. The game changer was the banking crisis. The level of deficit prior to that was not. This is true. The conservatives agreed with just about every Labour spending policy prior to the point where they were forced to show their hand (which I should say was far, far too late and the media simply let them get away with it). Capitalism has always needed protecting from itself. Left unchecked in a resource-finite environment it must ultimately devour itself which is why the economic legislative system was constructed. Unfortunately, the problem we have today is that people still think they are living in a world where the key economic actors are states. It's comfortable to think "Britain" really can shape its own destiny but the reality is that in a world where half the GDP of the US is cycled through the financial markets daily, a corporation or coalitions of corporations can effectively bankrupt a country (via capital flight or such) which chooses to implement unfavourable policies, where unelected and unaccountable trans-national bodies such as the WTO, IMF and World Bank wield tremendous power (far greater than anything Cameron, Blair & Thatcher put together could ever muster) the latitude for economic decision-making is narrower than a pencil mark. Of course, this is nothing new. Seventy years ago countries (such as Germany) were complaining bitterly about the likes of the Rotschchilds sabotaging economic reforms. But back then a prime minister or a president or a chancellor did have the ability to fundamentally re-shape his country's economic system. Today this just isn't possible - unless you are willing to brave the colossal penalties. I mean, if you want a good example look at what happened to Yugoslavia when it chose to take on the IMF & World Bank. Cameron has plenty of faults. But he is simply a pawn in a much greater game.

DaveO wrote: SBR wrote: Mintball wrote: The plain fact is that the deficit was around the same as in John Major's time before the financial crash. Has anyone ever claimed that it wasn't? I'm confused as to why this totally irrelevant fact keeps getting brought up. (source) The issue isn't about what happened prior to 2000 (we entered a boom period and so were able to move to a surplus - there's a clear trend on the graph). Nor is it about what happened from 2008 onwards (global financial crisis). It's what went wrong in 2001/2002 that required the government to run a significant deficit for the following six years. Nothing went wrong as you put it. What you fail to mention is that while the deficits were similar to the end of the last Tory government as a % of GDP they were much lower. They were therefore sustainable in the short term and were what they were because people wanted money spent on things like the school infrastructure and so on. And that money needed spending with schools falling down and people left lying on trolleys is hospital corridors. We did actually benefit from the spending you know. However even Darling knew that could not go on forever and was planning to reduce it before we ever had a banking crisis. You are perpetuatomg a complete myth that running a deficit from 2001 to 2007 was in some way economic incompetence. if you look back over the economic history of the UK and similar countries it is just for the course. Without a banking crisis had the Tories won they would have carried on the same level of spending. That was their stated plan so they clearly didn't see the level of defict as evil. They do now because it's politically expedient to do so to beat Labour up about it and unfortunately most people are too thick to understand the difference between having a credit card debt and running an economy. The game changer was the banking crisis. The level of deficit prior to that was not. This is true. The conservatives agreed with just about every Labour spending policy prior to the point where they were forced to show their hand (which I should say was far, far too late and the media simply let them get away with it). Capitalism has always needed protecting from itself. Left unchecked in a resource-finite environment it must ultimately devour itself which is why the economic legislative system was constructed. Unfortunately, the problem we have today is that people still think they are living in a world where the key economic actors are states. It's comfortable to think "Britain" really can shape its own destiny but the reality is that in a world where half the GDP of the US is cycled through the financial markets daily, a corporation or coalitions of corporations can effectively bankrupt a country (via capital flight or such) which chooses to implement unfavourable policies, where unelected and unaccountable trans-national bodies such as the WTO, IMF and World Bank wield tremendous power (far greater than anything Cameron, Blair & Thatcher put together could ever muster) the latitude for economic decision-making is narrower than a pencil mark. Of course, this is nothing new. Seventy years ago countries (such as Germany) were complaining bitterly about the likes of the Rotschchilds sabotaging economic reforms. But back then a prime minister or a president or a chancellor did have the ability to fundamentally re-shape his country's economic system. Today this just isn't possible - unless you are willing to brave the colossal penalties. I mean, if you want a good example look at what happened to Yugoslavia when it chose to take on the IMF & World Bank. Cameron has plenty of faults. But he is simply a pawn in a much greater game.

Re: What now for the UK? : Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:46 am  

Dally wrote:

cod'ead wrote:

I just find it hilarious reading the thoughts of all you little englanders.

So little, there is no capital E!

Anyway, why is someone opposed to Britain joining the Euro a 'little Englander?' Surely, they are rationale people? Why is it somehow superior to succumb to the undemocratic act of faith that is the Euro project?

Who on here has advocated us joining the Euro anytime soon?

Re: What now for the UK? : Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:49 am  

Horatio Yed wrote:

cod'ead wrote:

I just find it hilarious reading the thoughts of all you little englanders. Somebody in the pub actually buys the Daily Star and reading the text messages they receive and print is similar to reading the guff from all you right-wing eeejits on here

Oh right, so Euro sceptics and people on the right of the political divide are all xenophobic, illiterate morons? Why didn't you say so earlier, all the time we've wasted NOT worshipping at your feet.

Silly us eh?

It's taken some time but you're getting there

Re: What now for the UK? : Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:50 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

cod'ead wrote:

all you right-wing eeejits on here

We are winning.

You are losing.

You missed out the "naa naa naa naa naa" from the end of that insightful post

Re: What now for the UK? : Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:59 am  

DaveO wrote:

Nothing went wrong as you put it.

I know. That's why we should have continued to run a surplus to put ourselves in a better position to cope when things did go wrong.

DaveO wrote:

They were therefore sustainable in the short term

Yes they were sustainable, in the short term, for as long as the boom continued. Unfortunately we are now paying the price for that short-termism. In the medium term the boom was always going to end and Labour should have know that and they should have been preparing for it. Instead they choose to increase spending.

DaveO wrote:

The game changer was the banking crisis. The level of deficit prior to that was not.

The boom was going to end one way or another. Labour should have (and could have) put us in a better situation to cope.

Re: What now for the UK? : Mon Dec 19, 2011 3:17 pm  

I thought Gordie promised an end to boom and bust?

[Kosh]

Re: What now for the UK? : Mon Dec 19, 2011 3:36 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

I thought Gordie promised an end to boom and bust?

He didn't promise anything. He actually claimed to have achieved it. Not his finest moment.