Shameless labour

StevieJ

julieq wrote: »

OK, shall we actually read the article rather than just the headline? (From 2009 incidentally):

"The commitments include buying £76bn of shares in Royal Bank of Scotland and the Lloyds Banking Group; indemnifying the Bank of England against losses incurred in providing more than £200bn of liquidity support; guaranteeing up to £250bn of wholesale borrowing by banks to strengthen liquidity; providing £40bn of loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; and insurance cover of over £280bn for bank assets."

In other words the "cost" is actually not costs, it's provisions. As none of the banks have actually failed, the losses haven't crystallised. And in fact the taxpayer may end up breaking even or conceivably making a profit.

This is the SAME article that is being quoted as reporting a loss, remember, and the paragraph I quoted isn't even buried in the small print. Of course if you want to believe that the deficit is all from bank rescues you're probably just going to quote the headline in the pub.

On the other hand, the money spent by Labour on the public sector is genuinely gone. The private sector couldn't support that level of deficit, and as a result everyone's income is going to have to get squeezed to remove it.

I can't agree with your last paragraph, a large proportion of the deficit was built up post 2007 as was a consequence of the credit crunch induced recession, both in reduced revenue and increased costs (and I don't mean bank bail outs). If I remember correctly, before the recession the UK deficit to GBP shaped up quite well against or western neighbours. The Labour party undoubtedly spent too much post 2000 but nothing that could not have been handled by a normal tightening of the belt. It was those dodgy CDO's that really did the damage and who dreamt them up :eek:

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL, he got owned on BBC breakfast too.

Explaining why growth flat lined, excluding snow:

Ed: The begining of the impact of the actual spending cuts this year
Sian: But there have been no spending cuts
Ed: *mumble* (releases an embarrased mirroring of what shes said, classic symptom of finding oneself screwed).
Sian: There was growth actually in the last quarter that we are talking about, there was growth in government spending
Ed: Sure, but
Sian: Of about 5% on the previous year
Ed: but but, in certain areas of construction in particular, you've had the building of schools cut....but the second thing which is more important (and moving on swiftly!)

....YAWN.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12283916

Oh, and this is what I said about Ed Balls only days ago:



http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=40452436&postcount=8

Check out his face in the interview. Smirking away while twisting the truth, sian corrects him, no smirking now, serious face on.

Moves swiftly on from the first point he's been rumbled on.....smirk smirk smirk.

He's so see through it's stupid. If anyone is going to tarnish labours own recovery, it's him and his wife.

But I thought the BBC were politically biased and in the Labour party pocket?

A._Badger

StevieJ wrote: »

But I thought the BBC were politically biased and in the Labour party pocket?

Let's take a look at what Tim Luckhurst thinks, shall we?

Who?

Luckhurst is Professor of Journalism at the University of Kent.

Tired old Rightie polemiist?

Well, not exactly. Luckhurst was once Parliamentary Press Officer for Donald Dewar MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, and for the Scottish Labour group of MPs at Westminster. In 1987 he stood as a Labour candidate.

Luckhurst's view?

"BBC journalists are aware of their duty to be impartial but they understand it intellectually not instinctively. While the BBC would never endorse one political party, its dominant attitudes are rigidly social democratic. Those values are so dominant that they are treated as virtues not opinions. It is why a BBC correspondent cried when Yassir Arafat died and a Today presenter referred to the Labour Party as “we”.

"These political prejudices are innate because too few BBC employees have ever experienced life in the free market and those who have are often refugees from it. The corporation grows its own managers in preference to recruiting from outside and advertises for staff in left-wing newspapers.

"The left-wing consensus can only change if the BBC reforms its selection procedures and eradicates a hierarchy that is modelled on the Civil Service."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/thunderer/article378573.ece

Still, I'm sure StevieJ knows better.

StevieJ

Not sure what you mean I was merely referring to the BBC put down of the opposition premier and chancellor as quoted by Dev

A._Badger

Oh, and I forgot to add, Luckhurst is also a former BBC hack - and a sometime producer of Toady, no less!

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

But I thought the BBC were politically biased and in the Labour party pocket?

Well according to blacklight, they are trying to engineer the biggest crash in UK history.

But we don't take too much notice of what he says do we. Instead, we mostly laugh and ignore it, and stick to the point.

The BBC doe swing more to the left, and Sky do swing more to the right. But it doesn't stop either from butting in to any party when they are spouting pure lies.

[Deleted User]

Wookster wrote: »

I am so sick of seeing ed ball on TV glibly blaming the Tories for all the nation's woes.

All Labour can ever think about is tax and spend and if you don't have the money, never mind, just spend it anyway.

Perhaps if they had won another term they'd have totally screwed the economy and people would treat them with the contempt they deserve.

Edit:

And to add to that, why is there a surprise that the economy shrunk? Labour presided over the largest growth of debt, both private and public since WW2. Of course there's no growth - we have no money left, as their Secretary to the Treasury pointed out.

of course the tory led govt is to blame after all they are in power,and lets be honest about this they arent making a very good job of it so far are they?

julieq

StevieJ wrote: »

I can't agree with your last paragraph, a large proportion of the deficit was built up post 2007 as was a consequence of the credit crunch induced recession, both in reduced revenue and increased costs (and I don't mean bank bail outs). If I remember correctly, before the recession the UK deficit to GBP shaped up quite well against or western neighbours. The Labour party undoubtedly spent too much post 2000 but nothing that could not have been handled by a normal tightening of the belt. It was those dodgy CDO's that really did the damage and who dreamt them up :eek:

There's no argument that tax revenue fell as a result of the crisis, but the problem was that the Labour party having arbitrarily abolished "busts" as part of the economic cycle had no contigency in place. They were running deficits even in boom years so it's not altogether surprising that things got very bad indeed when the recession hit.

StevieJ

woodbine wrote: »

of course the tory led govt is to blame after all they are in power,and lets be honest about this they arent making a very good job of it so far are they?

You ain't seen nothing yet :eek:

julieq

woodbine wrote: »

of course the tory led govt is to blame after all they are in power,and lets be honest about this they arent making a very good job of it so far are they?

On what basis do you make that statement? The policies have yet to kick in.

The Labour party were blaming their "inheritance" years into their government, though in fact they got a very strong economy from the Major government. It does take time for measures to take effect, and a surprise contraction in the economy isn't evidence that policies aren't working, it's a sign of a fragile economy which is hardly surprising.

I was surprised at the contraction, because frankly I'm not seeing it in my day job at all. In fact having been expecting a double dip, I'd not seen any evidence it would happen. If anything there's an increase in confidence in business.