We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Not Paying Down Deficit-Cons Think Voters Cant Understand Sums
Comments
-
That said they would match Labour spending
That was re after 2010, and before they saw Liam Byrne's note and the back up to it. We are talking here about they would have done in office prior to 2010 and whether they would have left behind such a pigs' breakfast.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
No what I am saying is that we do not know yet if the George's plan is working as deficit is increasing and we don’t know what the GDP would be if a different approach had been taken. I believe growth is less than George predicted so the GDP figure he based his calculations on was wrong. As I said it’s to soon to say if George’s plan is working or not we will see over the coming months / years. We will never know if Labours plan would have worked.
Yes, like I said you're agreeing with me. If you read what I actually posted you'll see that you are. The point I made was that the assertion that more spending always = higher GDP is false.0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »They certainly would not have thrown huge amounts of public money at layabouts on welfare, nor creation of swathes of non-jobs in the public sector, nor on bribing the Scots and Welsh. There is no reason to believe they would have created the hopeless hapless FSA, nor given up a chunk of the EU rebate. So the perception that they would have left the public finances in such a dire state is based purely on prejudicial opinion and not on any objective analysis of what did happen and what would be likely to have happened.
Perhaps they wouldn't have thrown so much at welfare but we would still have had the unemployed and economically inactive. They wouldn't cease to exist, they would just be being paid a little less. We would still have had mass immigration because the civil servant predictions were carp.
We may not have so many namby pamby non jobs but I doubt their salaries make much difference in relation to the Welfare/NHS/Education bills.
We would still have been embroiled in wars in hot dusty places because the USA would have convinced us it was in our interests to do so. We are doing still in North Africa fighting an impossible war.
They may not have come up with the triangular FSA/BOE thing but I doubt regulation would have been much different. It was easy money at the time, they would have just ridden the wave too.
We would still have had the GFC. Whether they would have thrown the full X billions at it we will never know but something tells me they wouldn't have presided over a wholesale banking collapse either.
The final note would have read:-
"Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid to tell you there's almost no money left. Kind regards – and good luck! Danny.""If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Yes, like I said you're agreeing with me. If you read what I actually posted you'll see that you are. The point I made was that the assertion that more spending always = higher GDP is false.
OK I agree with that, but would add that cutting spending will always reduce deficit is also false.0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »That was re after 2010, and before they saw Liam Byrne's note and the back up to it. We are talking here about they would have done in office prior to 2010 and whether they would have left behind such a pigs' breakfast.
It was in 2007 and if the needed a note from Liam Byrne to know state of economy we have no hope.0 -
It was in 2007 and if the needed a note from Liam Byrne to know state of economy we have no hope.
Unwise thought that statement was it was before the credit crunch, before the full folly of Labour's un-regulation of the financial sector became apparent, before the profligacy of the way they handled it, before they thought they could still spend their way out of trouble even after 2008, and before the full facts of dodgy things like PFI's became apparent.
Dyed in the wool Labour supporters like yourself will never see it, but just maybe enough of the electorate will be once bitten twice shy.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Unwise thought that statement was it was before the credit crunch, before the full folly of Labour's un-regulation of the financial sector became apparent, before the profligacy of the way they handled it, before they thought they could still spend their way out of trouble even after 2008, and before the full facts of dodgy things like PFI's became apparent.
If they were a competent opposition I simply don't believe they weren't tracking and monitoring the the activities of Labour, including their economic,social and political policies. I appreciate they wouldn't know down to the last farthing but they would have had access to the key data.
They were following the trend and were happy to commit to it . They didn't have foresight and neither did Labour.
The Conservatives introduced PFIs, they were flavour of the period. They would still have had rings run around them in the early phases, unless of course they were instrumental in setting them up to fail, at a distance of course.
To suggest a handwritten note written, tongue in cheek, was the first inkling they had is ridiculous."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »If they were a competent opposition I simply don't believe they weren't tracking and monitoring the the activities of Labour, including their economic,social and political policies. I appreciate they wouldn't know down to the last farthing but they would have had access to the key data.
They were following the trend and were happy to commit to it . They didn't have foresight and neither did Labour.
The Conservatives introduced PFIs, they were flavour of the period. They would still have had rings run around them in the early phases, unless of course they were instrumental in setting them up to fail, at a distance of course.
To suggest a handwritten note written, tongue in cheek, was the first inkling they had is ridiculous.
Like I said, dyed in the wool Labour supporters ....No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
well well well...I'd read the book and posted it many times...now they've gone and made a movie out of it..;)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Like I said, dyed in the wool Labour supporters ....
No just people who don't accept Tory dogma without reservation.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards