Labour goes back to its roots.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

One tiny paragraph, pulled from "somewhere" with no reference to the rest of the wording, or date, and used as a lib dems point to have a go at an MP?

It's about as amateurish as quoting select text from posts on here without taking any notice of anything else said.

It was from a report commissioned by Cameron, obviously quickly dropped when the effects of the credit crunch became apparent :rotfl:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/aug/17/conservatives.uk

Oh, and,

George Osborne, 2006
'In an age that demands a light touch, [Brown] offers that clunking fist. He has clobbered business with £50bn of regulation, when we should be liberating our economy to compete.'

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

It was from a report commissioned by Cameron, obviously quickly dropped when the effects of the credit crunch became apparent :rotfl:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/aug/17/conservatives.uk

Oh, and,

George Osborne, 2006
'In an age that demands a light touch, [Brown] offers that clunking fist. He has clobbered business with £50bn of regulation, when we should be liberating our economy to compete.'

Why do you pretend not to be a labour supporter?!

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why do you pretend not to be a labour supporter?!

Does not compute, the quote was off a LibDem blog
BTW I think you will see that quote many times before the next election

tomterm8

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, easy.

If the roof was indeed fixed, howcome the labour party had to re-write their own fiscul rules and go past 40% GDP?

If the roof was fixed, surely this wouldn't be needed?

Can I ask you a question, then, what is the mean fiscal cost of systemic banking crises since 1977?

Oh, yes, sorry, actually I know the answer.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2008/wp08224.pdf wrote:

D. Fiscal Costs and Real Effects of Banking Crises

Fiscal costs, net of recoveries, associated with crisis management can be substantial, averaging about 13.3 percent of GDP on average, and can be as high as 55.1 percent of GDP. Recoveries of fiscal outlays vary widely as well, with the average recovery rate reaching 18.2 percent of gross fiscal costs. While countries that used asset management companies seem to
achieve slightly higher recovery rates, the correlation is very small, at about 10 percent.

Finally, output losses (measured as deviations from trend GDP) of systemic banking crises can be large, averaging about 20 percent of GDP on average during the first four years of the crisis, and ranging from a low of 0 percent to a high of 98 percent of GDP.

And it seems that the above average costs were for systemic banking crises where the world wasn't actually experiencing negative growth.

Graham_Devon

tomterm8 wrote: »

Can I ask you a question, then, what is the mean fiscal cost of systemic banking crises since 1977?

Oh, yes, sorry, actually I know the answer.

[/LEFT]
[/FONT]
And it seems that the above average costs were for systemic banking crises where the world wasn't actually experiencing negative growth.

Ok, may I remind you, we are at 90%?

tomterm8

Which is below typical. When you add those costs up, it results in an average increase in government debt on pretty minor banking crises of over 60% of GDP. In some cases, like japan, well over 100% of GDP (hard to say, exactly, since Japan moneterized a large chunk of her debts).

And i will remind you, most of the crises are pretty minor. There has not been a financial crises of this magnitude since before world war II. Those average figures frankly look very good compared to what I was expecting .I think if it ends up below 120% GDP it will be a tour de force of whatever government is in power after the next election. The government figures seem to me to be optomistic to the point of idiocy. Most financial crises result in L-shaped recessions where the recovery can be five or more years of anemic growth.

There has not been a global recession where world GDP shrinks since before the war. we are not heading to a best case cost, we are heading to one that is worse than the Japanese costs. In my option.

The basic question is, where is recovery coming from? In past financial crises, it was an export lead recovery. That isn't obviously available to us in this economic climate.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, easy.

If the roof WAS fixed. Howcome we are left with no money while other nations are.

You are asking for this evidence, because you know, because of the vast measure included in "the roof being fixed" there is not one single piece of evidence that can be used, which will prove you wrong.

That's why you keep asking for it.

So, I shall revert the question to you.

If the roof was indeed fixed, howcome the labour party had to re-write their own fiscul rules and go past 40% GDP?

If the roof was fixed, surely this wouldn't be needed?

1. "left with no money". I assume you refer to the current account deficit? Thats caused by tax revenues vs costs - you could have net debt at 20% or 100% and still have the same issue. What does this have to do with "fixing the roof"?
Why do we have a bigger deficit? Because we are more reliant on banking - tax revenues have crashed harder than say Germany.
2. Why did we have to go past 40%? because we're in recession? Because we had to rescue the banks? Why do you think we did? And again, what difference does starting debt levels have on how much we've had to spend? You're desperately trying to distract us away from facts that don't fit your narrative....

JayScottGreenspan wrote:

According to your figures net debt was 35% of GDP after the 90s, compared to what 44% at the end of this boom?

Also according to your figures net debt peaked at 55% of GDP after the 90s bust (thought the national statistics website is telling me 42%), compared to 79% forecast by the current lot.

I was quoting Eurostat numbers which include PFI. And yes, debt was 55% at the early 90s peak, was down to 47% in 1997, 35% in 2002 and 44% in 2007. Debt was lower in 2007 than in 1997 even allowing for a doubling of investment in the NHS. As I said, debt tended to shoot up every decade or so as the economy tanked, Labour choose to increase debt to spend on infrastructure and did so in a way that still left debt lower than when they started. I think its the extra investment the Tories are so upset about. Continuing the late 90s trend would have dropped Net debt down below 30%. Again I ask - name me a Conservative chancellor who did this? The accusation is that Labour didn't do something that the Tories had never done either.

So, lower debt AND massive investment? Sounds like the roof wasn't just fixed, it was replaced.

Graham_Devon

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

1. "left with no money". I assume you refer to the current account deficit? Thats caused by tax revenues vs costs - you could have net debt at 20% or 100% and still have the same issue. What does this have to do with "fixing the roof"?
Why do we have a bigger deficit? Because we are more reliant on banking - tax revenues have crashed harder than say Germany.
2. Why did we have to go past 40%? because we're in recession? Because we had to rescue the banks? Why do you think we did? And again, what difference does starting debt levels have on how much we've had to spend? You're desperately trying to distract us away from facts that don't fit your narrative....

.

I'm desperately trying?

You ask for answers to your questions, then when you get them, you simply revert that answer into yet more questions!

Rochdale_Pioneers

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm desperately trying?

You ask for answers to your questions, then when you get them, you simply revert that answer into yet more questions!

because you're not answering the question. Allegations about how much debt we started with do not affect how tax revenues collapse along with the city nor how much cash we need to spend to rescue banks. What difference to events post autumn 2007 would net debt of 50% made? Or 80%? Or 30%?

"Labour didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining" is not about the crash, its about the boom. your "answer" was all about the crash.

Graham_Devon

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

because you're not answering the question. Allegations about how much debt we started with do not affect how tax revenues collapse along with the city nor how much cash we need to spend to rescue banks. What difference to events post autumn 2007 would net debt of 50% made? Or 80%? Or 30%?

"Labour didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining" is not about the crash, its about the boom. your "answer" was all about the crash.

No it was not all about the crash. You decided to turn it into that.

So, your stating that the roof was fixed before the crash. Then when the crash happened, the roof was broken, but only broken for the crash?

That's a bit like saying the horse was fine, until it bolted.

When people speak about the roof not being fixed, they are not ONLY talking about debt. Something you seem to be only taking in to account.