Conservatives Forcing People To Work

[pongo]

Besides, they will be well in profit in 12 months time. They could start the process now by simply selling some of their shares. Even if they did it at a loss, the price would rocket as people dived in to buy in the hopes that ukfi will sell the rest.

 

If this is true then there is no problem with the UK economy and Gordon Brown was right. It was supporting the banks which wrecked the UK economy.

 

It seems to me that you don't like Labour in the same way as some people don't like the Tories or Manchester United. IE without it being based on anything specific and without reference to the specifics of policy. It seems as if you support strategies if they are Tory strategies but oppose them if they are Labour strategies. Even if it they are the same strategy.

 

The Tories largely backed Labour's economic policies including the Bank's policy on interest rates. The spivs and non execs on fat salaries and bonuses should be paying back some of the money which UK tax payer ended up paying to rescue their banks and financial institutions.

 

Not that it is even our govt.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The uk was already in such a bad way they could not afford (the compensation) to allow the banks to collapse. Besides, they will be well in profit in 12 months time. They could start the process now by simply selling some of their shares. Even if they did it at a loss, the price would rocket as people dived in to buy in the hopes that ukfi will sell the rest.

Ok, so the banks will soon be in profit. What will happen to this bail-out debt? Will it be nullified by the profits generated by these banks?

[Cambon]

Wait a sec, do you believe the UK's economic situation was caused by something quite different from the global economic crisis? My comments on debt was in reference to the credit and liabilities of the banks.

I believe it would have happened anyway, regardless of the global economic crisis, which was effectively the catalyst.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But this is what I don't understand Cambon, you actually think the economic situation of the UK is a homegrown thing almost entirely, rather than just another link in the chain no doubt with a unique for the UK given its economic policies.

Yet I still don't understand your logic in thinking it is our debt. Responsibility for the debt lies with the banks if too much risk is taken on.

[Tugger]

I assume he is referring to the fact that the UK was running a deficit before the financial crisis hit, when it should have been running a surplus (to build up a war chest for the next downturn). As Gordon Brown thought he'd put an end to boom and bust, perhaps he didn't think it was necessary

[Cambon]

Ok, so the banks will soon be in profit. What will happen to this bail-out debt? Will it be nullified by the profits generated by these banks?

 

Bail out debts? There was no bail out. uk government bought Northern Rock when it collapsed, they then bought the two building societies that were about to go bust. When HBOS started to look bad they conned Lloyds into buying it so they could get a share of that too and then bought RBS. Total cost about £65 billion. A drop in the ocean compared to the £1000 billion national debt that gordon brown has left the uk with. However, a bit of bank bashing does divert attention away from the real problems.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

My understanding was that a very significant proportion of debt was

this purchase of the banks that led to a situation where the UKs finance were in dire straits.

 

In reference to the debt, I was referring to the debt from the purchase of banks, which I presume has raised taxes.

And these banks won't remain in public hands for long.

[Chinahand]

Pongo,

I think you are missing a major point - how quickly debts spiral out of control if you don't manage them.

 

Labour did massively expand the state: look at this graph - this is real spending. The growth rate from 1997 to 2010 is the steepest its ever been. And sorry it is bull that everything was fine prior to 2008 which suddenly opened the government spending flood gates - that is Labour propoganda and the evidence of this graph clearly shows that - there is no large additional expansion after the crisis.

 

 

Clicky

 

Taxes and borrowing all grew to cover this massive expansion of the state, but even that wasn't sufficient. And when recession came there was simply no slack in the system and debts piled up rapidly.

 

I agree that the UK did start the crisis with low overall debts - but Brown didn't pay them down to that level, quite the opposite he inherited it and was slowly increasing the National Debt as he kept fiddling the figures to allow him to continue borrowing while claiming he was still keeping to his very tarnished golden rule of only borrowing for investment over the business cycle.

 

But it doesn't matter how low you start; if you run sustained budget deficits of 10% or more you will suffer exponentially as the debt coverage gets ever more onerous, especially as gilt yields will increase as the finances look worse and worse.

 

All the pain of the Tory cuts will take the size of government back to where it was in 2006!

 

The issue for me though is that an awful lot of Labours spending went into unreformed public services and simple hasn't produced the results it should have.

 

Blair fully admits he failed public sector reform, and the blame is pretty squarely with Brown who blocked it. [PK,if you read this, have you got to the bit in Blair's autobiography which covers this? As a sandle wearing bleeding heart, where do you stand on it and Labour's legacy. For me its one of their biggest blunders.]

 

Labour unsustainably expanded the state, didn't reform it and had no means of sustainably paying for it. Recession turned that drama into an absolute crisis with huge gambles having to be taken to try to pay it down.

 

Even if Brown wasn't responsible for the banking crisis - and in many ways I dispute that - he had created a state which couldn't ride out a storm and was rapidly becoming a tax and debt black hole. It wasn't sustainable, and that is the mess the UK has to now face clearing up.

[pongo]

The Tories supported Labour's economic policies. As Stephanie Flanders points out in the piece China linked to.

 

----

it is bull that everything was fine prior to 2008 **

 

**ETA: I agree btw. But nobody said that "everything was fine".

 

UK deficit vs GDP:

 

 

See the sharp increase post 2008.

 

 

In the financial year 2009/10 the UK recorded general government net borrowing of £159.8 billion, which was equivalent to 11.4 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP).

 

At the end of March 2010 general government debt was £1000.4 billion, equivalent to 71.3 per cent of GDP.

 

This shows the current situation in perspective.

 

[MilitantDogOwner]

How about....

 

Instead of paying taxes and NI, all households will be issued with a long term unemployed person (LTUP). The household is responsible for feeding, clothing and catering for all the needs of the LTUP. If you earn over a certain amount each year, you will be issued with a long term unemployed family (LTUF). This will comprise of two LTUP and their kids.

 

While in the household, the LTUP/LTUF will contribute in no way but will have to be feed, clothed and have neccessary items brought for them (fags, booze, LCD TVs and 4x4s).

 

Failure to maintain your LTUP/LTUF will result in your house/possesions being forfeited to the LTUP/LTUF.

 

Or.....they could get jobs, buy shit from their own earns and stop raping my pocket.

[Terse]

stop raping my pocket.

At least they'll come into money.

[Blade Runner]

Sorry if this has allready been asked but does anybody know what the figures are on the island for the long term unemployed?

 

Is it a problem over here?

[MilitantDogOwner]

stop raping my pocket.

At least they'll come into money.

 

Would it then be classed as a money shot?

[Terse]

Sorry if this has allready been asked but does anybody know what the figures are on the island for the long term unemployed?

 

Is it a problem over here?

Stu Peters put the question to Martyn Quayle on Talking Heads today. I think the answer was something like a couple of dozen or so. He seemed more concerned by those claiming disability allowance who, if they were willing, could probably be re-trained for new jobs.

[P.K.]

Blair fully admits he failed public sector reform, and the blame is pretty squarely with Brown who blocked it. [PK,if you read this, have you got to the bit in Blair's autobiography which covers this? As a sandle wearing bleeding heart, where do you stand on it and Labour's legacy. For me its one of their biggest blunders.]

 

I got as far as Diana's funeral before my copy was filched by a relative! I'll get it back when she's finished it I suppose. But early on Blair admits they didn't get to where they should have been on the public sector. By the way, your reference to me being a "bleeding heart" (my sandals are top-of-the-range Source and bloody good they are as well) is that the same as having a social conscience and wanting the government of the day to have a duty of care to ALL of it's citizens? Despite totally disagreeing with Labour's policies on the Welfare State I have to say that I'm disgusted that Cameron and Osborne are using the deficit as an excuse to shaft the most vulnerable. They've always wanted to do this so I feel almost ashamed that I helped them to get there by voting for "sell-out" Clegg. The Holy Grail for folks like me is voting reform. I notice that Cleggy has been totally out-manoeuvred by Cameron and his fellow multi-millionaires in that the AV referendum will now be lost in the local election clutter. Bastards. Anyway, I'm officially no longer a member of the Con-Dems having sent my card back, along with something like 50% of the membership. But is this message getting through to Cleggy and Cable? Is it bollocks...