Postpone some of the cuts?

LauraW10

Generali wrote: »

I can do far better than that, it's just pointless discussing stuff with Labour (or Tory or BNP) stooges that just want to parrot a party line. It's more fun just to insult them or wind them up.

If you can't get a sensible debate going you might as well have a bit of fun I reckon.

Do you actually work for the Labour party or do you do this stuff in your spare time?

Fine.

Why did you bother to join in this thread then? Did you just want to wreck it?

Perhaps you could have spent your time more productively?

wherediditallgothen

LauraW10 wrote: »

It is sad enough being stupid, but stupid and rude is a really bad combination imho.

Try and cut it out then.

Generali

LauraW10 wrote: »

Fine.

Why did you bother to join in this thread then? Did you just want to wreck it?

Perhaps you could have spent your time more productively?

No I joined because I thought it might spawn some good debate. I hung around to annoy you.

It's midnight and still about 27C so I might hang around for a bit more annoying or just go and have a snooze and annoy you later. It depends on my tiredness:annoying ratio is going really.

I find it especially amusing that you seem to be having a go at the rest of us for posting nothing of substance while posting one or two line dismissals of any dissenting posts.

You never did answer my question. Are you a particularly low quality Labour party worker who's been farmed out to post on obscure forums (I guess the good ones get mumsnet and Money Saving Old Style)? Which other forums do you peddle this stuff on? I'd be interested to follow your career.

Graham_Devon

LauraW10 wrote: »

Graham if you ever make a post that I find in anyway enlightening I will be the first to give you a big clap.....

It is sad enough being stupid, but stupid and rude is a really bad combination imho.

Irony is such a useful word.

wherediditallgothen

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ironing is such a useful word.

She'd be better served doing some, I fancy.

Thrugelmir

LauraW10 wrote: »

I would just like to point out that GB only ever borrowed to invest in the UKs future and not to finance their everyday spending. This was intended to create growth.

You'd better get an update from your HQ. A couple of key indisputable facts.

Applying GB's Golden Rules (in hindsight) the UK has in fact been running a structural deficit since 2002.

Youth unemployment has been steadily increasing for a considerable number of years.

Again today after PMQ's, on the radio discussion the Labour MP present couldn't even name a single cut that Labour would impose. As she didn't wish to pre-empt Ed Balls. (Sounds as if there's a 3 line whip out! ). In fact all she mentioned was the High Speed train line which is spending! In such a serious situation this is trully appalling and I suspect representative of the quality of MP that now sits.

LauraW10

A warning shot for the British experiment

By Martin Wolf
Published: January 27 2011 22:10 | Last updated: January 27 2011 22:10

The preliminary figures on UK gross domestic product for the fourth quarter of last year were a shock. Where now is the robust recovery that justified the government’s rapid fiscal retrenchment? In a word, nowhere.

It is foolish to consider monetary tightening, to drive wage increases even lower, with a view to offsetting imported and government-imposed price jumps. This makes even less sense when, as Mr King states, “the three factors described – higher import and energy prices and taxes – have squeezed real take-home pay by around 12 per cent. Average real take-home pay normally rises as productivity increases – money wages normally rise faster than prices. But the opposite was true last year, so real wages fell sharply. And given the rise in VAT and other price rises this year, real wages are likely to fall again. As a result, in 2011 real wages are likely to be no higher than they were in 2005.”

The squeeze on households is merciless.

Against this background, I find it hard to understand why the government is so confident that the economy would withstand the sharp fiscal squeeze that lies ahead. This has depended on an inordinately optimistic view: higher net exports and corporate investment will offset the contractionary impact of tough constraints on public spending, declining real household disposable incomes, a high probability of further falls in house prices, massive household indebtedness, and negligible growth in broad money and credit. We are not talking about mere headwinds here, but head-gales.
If any such overconfidence existed before these latest numbers, it should now have gone.

It is true, as Mr King notes, that exports have shown an encouraging turnround: the volume of exports, excluding oil and erratic items, jumped by 25 per cent between May 2009 and November 2010. But the volume of corresponding imports rose by 22 per cent. The net impact on demand was, therefore, modest. Again, investment should strengthen. But, given the weak economy, why should the financial surplus of the non-financial corporate sector, at close to 5 per cent of GDP in the third quarter of 2010, swiftly disappear, thereby offsetting fiscal tightening?

The government has now been warned. The decision on the long-term level of spending relative to GDP is essentially a matter of political values. But how quickly to cut fiscal deficits is a different matter. If the government wants to stick to its plans for current spending, let it do so. But there is no reason not to complete valuable planned investments, as I have argued on previous occasions. And there is equally no good reason not to delay planned tax increases or even cut taxes now, until the economy becomes far more robust.
The inflexibility of George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, is a political gift to the Labour opposition and Ed Balls, Labour’s new shadow chancellor. Just hoping for the best is simply irrational. The chancellor should plan for the worst, right now.

[EMAIL="martin.wolf@ft.com"]martin.wolf@ft.com[/EMAIL]


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/886ec5a8-2a52-11e0-b906-00144feab49a.html#axzz1CoXFTqfr

LauraW10

Generali wrote: »

No I joined because I thought it might spawn some good debate. I hung around to annoy you.

It's midnight and still about 27C so I might hang around for a bit more annoying or just go and have a snooze and annoy you later. It depends on my tiredness:annoying ratio is going really.

I find it especially amusing that you seem to be having a go at the rest of us for posting nothing of substance while posting one or two line dismissals of any dissenting posts.

You never did answer my question. Are you a particularly low quality Labour party worker who's been farmed out to post on obscure forums (I guess the good ones get mumsnet and Money Saving Old Style)? Which other forums do you peddle this stuff on? I'd be interested to follow your career.

Have you been drinking?

LauraW10

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Irony is such a useful word.

That's what I love about your posts graham they are off such a high quality! I really don't know how you do it.

Graham_Devon

LauraW10 wrote: »

That's what I love about your posts graham they are off such a high quality! I really don't know how you do it.

You do seem to have a habit of totally ignoring previous events.

Including, it seems, you own posts moaning about rudeness and lack of informative posts.

As I said. Irony is such a useful word. Hence I'm saying it again.

As for your article, it states, and I quote:

Just hoping for the best is simply irrational

I'm therefore left pondering a question. What else, exactly, can we do, in a situation as we are in now.

Presumably labour know? Presumably they have the answers? Presumably, you'd care to share?

So....what would labour do?