I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
I'm preparing for lots of mocking and sniggering at this, but it seems to me the only person who can keep Scotland in the UK is Ed Miliband. Not by him simply campaigning and wowing people with his "charisma", and
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon certainly seem to think that "it's impossible for Scotland to ever get a government we'll be happy with when Labour are peddling these policies" is a potent attack line judging by their conference last week (is it too unrealistic to suggest that conference might be the main reason for the surge in the ICM poll?). Ed is the only person who can defuse that potentially referendum-winning argument.
Err isn't it evil Tories manipulating the Scottish electorate to vote Yes so they can be in power for ever in England ? Or was that last week ?
Please find me where I said that. In fact, I've been one of those pointing out that Scotland leaving would make very little difference to Labour's or the Tories' chances of winning UK elections.
I'm preparing for lots of mocking and sniggering at this, but it seems to me the only person who can keep Scotland in the UK is Ed .
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon certainly seem to think that "it's impossible for Scotland to ever get a government we'll be happy with when Labour are peddling these policies" is a potent attack line judging by their conference last week (is it too unrealistic to suggest that conference might be the main reason for the surge in the ICM poll?). Ed is the only person who can defuse that potentially referendum-winning argument.
Err isn't it evil Tories manipulating the Scottish electorate to vote Yes so they can be in power for ever in England ? Or was that last week ?
Please find me where I said that. In fact, I've been one of those pointing out that Scotland leaving would make very little difference to Labour's or the Tories' chances of winning UK elections.
Then you've misunderstood UK politics.
No he has not. Tell me when was the last time Labour won power and then ask would Labour have won without Scotland ? You have to go back to Feb 74 and 1964 as the only two times when Labour won Westminster without winning England and Wales [ I mean in seats !! ]
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
I think you'll find just about every international organisation from the EU to the IMF thinks the UK deficit needs to be cut.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
I think you'll find just about every international organisation from the EU to the IMF thinks the UK deficit needs to be cut.
Or do you actually mean the debt ?
But you keep on saying getting rid of the deficit ? But why ? Why can't we have deficit to, say, 3% of the GDP ?
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
The last Labour government had a lower deficit in 11 out of the 13 years than all the years 1992 - 1997. In fact, the average Labour deficit as % of GDP was lower than under 18 years of the Tories. It was only in 2008 - 2010 that the deficit increased because of the credit crunch like everywhere else.
I'm preparing for lots of mocking and sniggering at this, but it seems to me the only person who can keep Scotland in the UK is Ed Miliband. Not by him simply campaigning and wowing people with his "charisma", and
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon certainly seem to think that "it's impossible for Scotland to ever get a government we'll be happy with when Labour are peddling these policies" is a potent attack line judging by their conference last week (is it too unrealistic to suggest that conference might be the main reason for the surge in the ICM poll?). Ed is the only person who can defuse that potentially referendum-winning argument.
Err isn't it evil Tories manipulating the Scottish electorate to vote Yes so they can be in power for ever in England ? Or was that last week ?
Please find me where I said that. In fact, I've been one of those pointing out that Scotland leaving would make very little difference to Labour's or the Tories' chances of winning UK elections.
I'm preparing for lots of mocking and sniggering at this, but it seems to me the only person who can keep Scotland in the UK is Ed .
uggest that conference might be the main reason for the surge in the ICM poll?). Ed is the only person who can defuse that potentially referendum-winning argument.
Err isn't it evil Tories manipulating the Scottish electorate to vote Yes so they can be in power for ever in England ? Or was that last week ?
Please find me where I said that. In fact, I've been one of those pointing out that Scotland leaving would make very little difference to Labour's or the Tories' chances of winning UK elections.
Then you've misunderstood UK politics.
No he has not. Tell me when was the last time Labour won power and then ask would Labour have won without Scotland ? You have to go back to Feb 74 and 1964 as the only two times when Labour won Westminster without winning England and Wales [ I mean in seats !! ]
If you've just lost 40ish nailed on seats and are then faced with losing up to 20 more as boundaries are reformed and Welsh overrepresentation is hacked back, I'd say you are faced with a pretty large change. Your starting point has gone back 60 paces and your electorate is now more rightwing. Still if you think that's irrelevant then I take that as a good sign, it's the type of complacency that's seeing labour fail in the Indyref.
As Mr T pointed out why's Dougie Alexander planning for an election of a country he won't be part of ?
Evening all, it has been a truly splendid day. This morning the 20 mile drive to church at Creich (Bonar Bridge) along the south shore of the Dornoch Firth was absolutely breathtaking with the sun beating down on the water. Lunch in Tain was its usual excellent self followed by a snnoze this afternoon. This evening I have heard my cousin has won the 1st prize at the Royal Arts Prize at the exhibition at the ROA Gallery in Pall Mall. Maybe I will get the painting I have had my eye on for a couple of years.
Meanwhile the calamity of a decision by the CBI Scotland to support Better Together may lead to the organisation imploding. 2 members and the broadcaster STV left yesterday. Now we hear that Scottish Enterprise and Visit Scotland have resigned from membership and tomorrow several other members will decide whether to resign. Questions being asked whether the Council of Scottish CBI actually discussed, let alone authorised the decision.
The Scottish business community is split down the middle re the Indy ref.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
I think you'll find just about every international organisation from the EU to the IMF thinks the UK deficit needs to be cut.
Or do you actually mean the debt ?
But you keep on saying getting rid of the deficit ? But why ? Why can't we have deficit to, say, 3% of the GDP ?
nothing stopping us having a deficit of 3% if we want one within EU rules. But at present it's twice that so if we want to be good europeans we have to reduce it. Or have you gone all kipper on me ?
Evening all, it has been a truly splendid day. This morning the 20 mile drive to church at Creich (Bonar Bridge) along the south shore of the Dornoch Firth was absolutely breathtaking with the sun beating down on the water. Lunch in Tain was its usual excellent self followed by a snnoze this afternoon. This evening I have heard my cousin has won the 1st prize at the Royal Arts Prize at the exhibition at the ROA Gallery in Pall Mall. Maybe I will get the painting I have had my eye on for a couple of years.
Meanwhile the calamity of a decision by the CBI Scotland to support Better Together may lead to the organisation imploding. 2 members and the broadcaster STV left yesterday. Now we hear that Scottish Enterprise and Visit Scotland have resigned from membership and tomorrow several other members will decide whether to resign. Questions being asked whether the Council of Scottish CBI actually discussed, let alone authorised the decision.
The Scottish business community is split down the middle re the Indy ref.
I thought the last 2 as public funded bodies couldn't be seen to have a "side" hence why they've left.
I'm preparing for lots of mocking and sniggering at this, but it seems to me the only person who can keep Scotland in the UK is Ed Miliband. Not by him simply campaigning and wowing people with his "charisma", and
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon certainly seem to think that "it's impossible for Scotland to ever get a government we'll be happy with when Labour are peddling these policies" is a potent attack line judging by their conference last week (is it too unrealistic to suggest that conference might be the main reason for the surge in the ICM poll?). Ed is the only person who can defuse that potentially referendum-winning argument.
Err isn't it evil Tories manipulating the Scottish electorate to vote Yes so they can be in power for ever in England ? Or was that last week ?
Please find me where I said that. In fact, I've been one of those pointing out that Scotland leaving would make very little difference to Labour's or the Tories' chances of winning UK elections.
I'm preparing for lots of mocking and sniggering at this, but it seems to me the only person who can keep Scotland in the UK is Ed .
.
Please find me where I said that. In fact, I've been one of those pointing out that Scotland leaving would make very little difference to Labour's or the Tories' chances of winning UK elections.
Then you've misunderstood UK politics.
No he has not. Tell me when was the last time Labour won power and then ask would Labour have won without Scotland ? You have to go back to Feb 74 and 1964 as the only two times when Labour won Westminster without winning England and Wales [ I mean in seats !! ]
If you've just lost 40ish nailed on seats and are then faced with losing up to 20 more as boundaries are reformed and Welsh overrepresentation is hacked back, I'd say you are faced with a pretty large change. Your starting point has gone back 60 paces and your electorate is now more rightwing. Still if you think that's irrelevant then I take that as a good sign, it's the type of complacency that's seeing labour fail in the Indyref.
As Mr T pointed out why's Dougie Alexander planning for an election of a country he won't be part of ?
Dream on ! Don't think politics will remain the same after Scotland. You are just as much hated in the North and Yorkshire as you are in Scotland. In fact, the South East will be your only bastion. Oh, wait ! There is UKIP there ! You are doooooooooomed !!!
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
The last Labour government had a lower deficit in 11 out of the 13 years than all the years 1992 - 1997. In fact, the average Labour deficit as % of GDP was lower than under 18 years of the Tories. It was only in 2008 - 2010 that the deficit increased because of the credit crunch like everywhere else.
except of course the deficit figures have been revised upwards and the basis of the tax regime was city gambling and consumer debt. Not exactly a convincing economic case.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Please take a look at how the current debt-to-GDP ratio compares to history:
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
I think you'll find just about every international organisation from the EU to the IMF thinks the UK deficit needs to be cut.
Or do you actually mean the debt ?
But you keep on saying getting rid of the deficit ? But why ? Why can't we have deficit to, say, 3% of the GDP ?
nothing stopping us having a deficit of 3% if we want one within EU rules. But at present it's twice that so if we want to be good europeans we have to reduce it. Or have you gone all kipper on me ?
Our average record on deficit is better than the Tories as I have written elsewhere. Going down to 3% deficit will hardly a problem. In fact, with a Tory induced housing boom with inflation following is a sure-shot way of reducing debt as a % of the GDP.
I'm preparing for lots of mocking and sniggering at this, but it seems to me the only person who can keep Scotland in the UK is Ed Miliband. Not by him simply campaigning and wowing people with his "charisma", and certainly not by him joining in with the ludicrous scaremongering that Better Together have been peddling so far. But by him setting out a drastically more left-wing position which will make Scottish Labour voters feel there's actually a point in staying in the UK because there's atleast a CHANCE they'll eventually get a government which doesn't just pander to greedy southern-Englanders and big businesses with their demands for endless austerity, scrounger-bashing and letting the super-rich get away with blue murder.
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon certainly seem to think that "it's impossible for Scotland to ever get a government we'll be happy with when Labour are peddling these policies" is a potent attack line judging by their conference last week (is it too unrealistic to suggest that conference might be the main reason for the surge in the ICM poll?). Ed is the only person who can defuse that potentially referendum-winning argument.
Danny it is arguable that in order to satisfy the policy needs of SLAB who continue to live in the 1960s and 1970s, Ed Milibland would have to support policies which make him utterly unelectable in England. The SNP in economic and business terms are way to the right of SLAB, which is why they are popular with large sections of the Scottish business community as can be seen with the catastrophic error made by the CBI.
I'm preparing for lots of mocking and sniggering at this, but it seems to me the only person who can keep Scotland in the UK is Ed Miliband. Not by him simply campaigning and wowing people with his "charisma", and
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon certainly seem to think that "it's impossible for Scotland to ever get a government we'll be happy with when Labour are peddling these policies" is a potent attack line judging by their conference last week (is it too unrealistic to suggest that conference might be the main reason for the surge in the ICM poll?). Ed is the only person who can defuse that potentially referendum-winning argument.
Err isn't it evil Tories manipulating the Scottish electorate to vote Yes so they can be in power for ever in England ? Or was that last week ?
Please find me where I said that. In fact, I've been one of those pointing out that Scotland leaving would make very little difference to Labour's or the Tories' chances of winning UK elections.
I'm preparing for lots of mocking and sniggering at this, but it seems to me the only person who can keep Scotland in the UK is Ed .
.
Please find me where I said that. In fact, I've been one of those pointing out that Scotland leaving would make very little difference to Labour's or the Tories' chances of winning UK elections.
Then you've misunderstood UK politics.
No he has not. Tell me when was the last time e only two times when Labour won Westminster without winning England and Wales [ I mean in seats !! ]
If you've just lost 40ish nailed on seats and are then faced with losing up to 20 more as e that as a good sign, it's the type of complacency that's seeing labour fail in the Indyref.
As Mr T pointed out why's Dougie Alexander planning for an election of a country he won't be part of ?
Dream on ! Don't think politics will remain the same after Scotland. You are just as much hated in the North and Yorkshire as you are in Scotland. In fact, the South East will be your only bastion. Oh, wait ! There is UKIP there ! You are doooooooooomed !!!
That's a bit silly Surby old chap. Yorkshire is labour's weak spot. labour's bastions ex Scotland are Wales, the North East and the North West. Whole swathes of the South see no labourites at all but good to see you egg on a party to the right of Cameron. If Scotlanfd goes labour will be forced to change or die out.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Please take a look at how the current debt-to-GDP ratio compares to history:
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
If I remember correctly, the debt was 250% of GDP in 1948 falling to a mere 105% in 1959. After 8 years of never being so good !
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Please take a look at how the current debt-to-GDP ratio compares to history:
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
Yes, you mean debt not deficit there's a big difference.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
I think you'll find just about every international organisation from the EU to the IMF thinks the UK deficit needs to be cut.
Or do you actually mean the debt ?
But you keep on saying getting rid of the deficit ? But why ? Why can't we have deficit to, say, 3% of the GDP ?
nothing stopping us having a deficit of 3% if we want one within EU rules. But at present it's twice that so if we want to be good europeans we have to reduce it. Or have you gone all kipper on me ?
Our average record on deficit is better than the Tories as I have written elsewhere. Going down to 3% deficit will hardly a problem. In fact, with a Tory induced housing boom with inflation following is a sure-shot way of reducing debt as a % of the GDP.
If going down to 3% is that simple then you must be a huge Osborne fan, look how much extra he's spending ! can't understand why Ed opposes it so much.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Please take a look at how the current debt-to-GDP ratio compares to history:
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
Yes, you mean debt not deficit there's a big difference.
Why are you so confused about the two ? Deficit is the difference between government expenditure over revenues. Debt is the total of all outstanding borrowings. Capito ?
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
I think you'll find just about every international organisation from the EU to the IMF thinks the UK deficit needs to be cut.
Or do you actually mean the debt ?
But you keep on saying getting rid of the deficit ? But why ? Why can't we have deficit to, say, 3% of the GDP ?
nothing stopping us having a deficit of 3% if we want one within EU rules. But at present it's twice that so if we want to be good europeans we have to reduce it. Or have you gone all kipper on me ?
Our average record on deficit is better than the Tories as I have written elsewhere. Going down to 3% deficit will hardly a problem. In fact, with a Tory induced housing boom with inflation following is a sure-shot way of reducing debt as a % of the GDP.
If going down to 3% is that simple then you must be a huge Osborne fan, look how much extra he's spending ! can't understand why Ed opposes it so much.
Even in 2010, our debt as a % of GDP was lower than Germany. Now under the Tories, it is much higher. No growth, you see for 3 years, did it !
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Please take a look at how the current debt-to-GDP ratio compares to history:
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
Yes, you mean debt not deficit there's a big difference.
Why are you so confused about the two ? Deficit is the difference between government expenditure over revenues. Debt is the total of all outstanding borrowings. Capito ?
Well apart from your bad Italian we've been trying to point this out to Danny on the thread, if one leftie now understands this we've made progress.
Alanbrooke precisely the point. Given that CBI has a disproportionate number of its members among public sector organisations, it should have kept quiet and lobbied both sides to protect the interests of its members. Eck is a great fan of SCDI which is maintaining neutrality and has worked successfully with every government in Scotland since it was set up by my great granduncle over 70 years ago when he was Sec of State for Scotland.
I'm preparing for lots of mocking and sniggering at this, but it seems to me the only person who can keep Scotland in the UK is Ed Miliband. Not by him simply campaigning and wowing people with his "charisma", and
Please find me where I said that. In fact, I've been one of those pointing out that Scotland leaving would make very little difference to Labour's or the Tories' chances of winning UK elections.
I'm preparing for lots of mocking and sniggering at this, but it seems to me the only person who can keep Scotland in the UK is Ed .
.
Please find me where I said that. In fact, I've been one of those pointing out that Scotland leaving would make very little difference to Labour's or the Tories' chances of winning UK elections.
Then you've misunderstood UK politics.
No he has not. Tell me when was the last time e only two times when Labour won Westminster without winning England and Wales [ I mean in seats !! ]
If you've just lost 40ish nailed on seats and are then faced with losing up to 20 more as e that as a good sign, it's the type of complacency that's seeing labour fail in the Indyref.
As Mr T pointed out why's Dougie Alexander planning for an election of a country he won't be part of ?
Dream on ! Don't think politics will remain the same after Scotland. You are just as much hated in the North and Yorkshire as you are in Scotland. In fact, the South East will be your only bastion. Oh, wait ! There is UKIP there ! You are doooooooooomed !!!
That's a bit silly Surby old chap. Yorkshire is labour's weak spot. labour's bastions ex Scotland are Wales, the North East and the North West. Whole swathes of the South see no labourites at all but good to see you egg on a party to the right of Cameron. If Scotlanfd goes labour will be forced to change or die out.
WE beat you in England and Wales, in 1997, 2001 and 2005. We will do it again !
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
I think you'll find just about every international organisation from the EU to the IMF thinks the UK deficit needs to be cut.
Or do you actually mean the debt ?
But you keep on saying getting rid of the deficit ? But why ? Why can't we have deficit to, say, 3% of the GDP ?
nothing stopping us having a deficit of 3% if we want one within EU rules. But at present it's twice that so if we want to be good europeans we have to reduce it. Or have you gone all kipper on me ?
Our average record on deficit is better than the Tories as I have written elsewhere. Going down to 3% deficit will hardly a problem. In fact, with a Tory induced housing boom with inflation following is a sure-shot way of reducing debt as a % of the GDP.
If going down to 3% is that simple then you must be a huge Osborne fan, look how much extra he's spending ! can't understand why Ed opposes it so much.
Even in 2010, our debt as a % of GDP was lower than Germany. Now under the Tories, it is much higher. No growth, you see for 3 years, did it !
yes that merely illustrates how little Labour understood about contingent liabilities and breakeven points. When your tax base collapses because it's built on sand and you won't cut your outgoings then the deficit racks up alarmingly which is what happened.
Alanbrooke precisely the point. Given that CBI has a disproportionate number of its members among public sector organisations, it should have kept quiet and lobbied both sides to protect the interests of its members. Eck is a great fan of SCDI which is maintaining neutrality and has worked successfully with every government in Scotland since it was set up by my great granduncle over 70 years ago when he was Sec of State for Scotland.
Then if its stuffed full of quangos it's not representing business is it ? The split seems to be between people dependent on government favour and people who have to pay salaries from their own efforts.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Please take a look at how the current debt-to-GDP ratio compares to history:
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
Yes, you mean debt not deficit there's a big difference.
Yes, I am aware of the difference, but it doesn't change the fact that the deficit doesn't become worrying until debt is much higher.
I'm preparing for lots of mocking and sniggering at this, but it seems to me the only person who can keep Scotland in the UK is Ed Miliband. Not by him simply campaigning and wowing people with his "charisma", and
Please find me where I said that. In fact, I've been one of those pointing out that Scotland leaving would make very little difference to Labour's or the Tories' chances of winning UK elections.
I'm preparing for lots of mocking and sniggering at this, but it seems to me the only person who can keep Scotland in the UK is Ed .
.
Please find me where I said that. In fact, I've been one of those pointing out that Scotland leaving would make very little difference to Labour's or the Tories' chances of winning UK elections.
Then you've misunderstood UK politics.
No he has not. Tell me when was the last time e only two times when Labour won Westminster without winning England and Wales [ I mean in seats !! ]
If you've just lost 40ish nailed on seats and are then faced with losing up to 20 more as e that as a good sign, it's the type of complacency that's seeing labour fail in the Indyref.
As Mr T pointed out why's Dougie Alexander planning for an election of a country he won't be part of ?
Dream on ! Don't think politics will remain the same after Scotland. You are just as much hated in the North and Yorkshire as you are in Scotland. In fact, the South East will be your only bastion. Oh, wait ! There is UKIP there ! You are doooooooooomed !!!
That's a bit silly Surby old chap. Yorkshire is labour's weak spot. labour's bastions ex Scotland are Wales, the North East and the North West. Whole swathes of the South see no labourites at all but good to see you egg on a party to the right of Cameron. If Scotlanfd goes labour will be forced to change or die out.
WE beat you in England and Wales, in 1997, 2001 and 2005. We will do it again !
You shot ubertory Blair. I doubt you'll repeat the trick so easily.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Please take a look at how the current debt-to-GDP ratio compares to history:
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
Yes, you mean debt not deficit there's a big difference.
Yes, I am aware of the difference, but it doesn't change the fact that the deficit doesn't become worrying until debt is much higher.
Sure, it's just that dannynomics is at odds with every major economic institution worldwide. I mean are you saying our current debts aren't worryingly high given they're at twice the level of ten years ago ?
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Please take a look at how the current debt-to-GDP ratio compares to history:
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
Yes, you mean debt not deficit there's a big difference.
Yes, I am aware of the difference, but it doesn't change the fact that the deficit doesn't become worrying until debt is much higher.
Sure, it's just that dannynomics is at odds with every major economic institution worldwide. I mean are you saying our current debts aren't worryingly high given they're at twice the level of ten years ago ?
Correct, I absolutely don't think our current debts are worrying high, as shown by the fact there have been many occasions in the past where debt was much higher yet armageddon did not occur
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Please take a look at how the current debt-to-GDP ratio compares to history:
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
Yes, you mean debt not deficit there's a big difference.
Yes, I am aware of the difference, but it doesn't change the fact that the deficit doesn't become worrying until debt is much higher.
Sure, it's just that dannynomics is at odds with every major economic institution worldwide. I mean are you saying our current debts aren't worryingly high given they're at twice the level of ten years ago ?
Correct, I absolutely don't think our current debts are worrying high, as shown by the fact there have been many occasions in the past where debt was much higher yet armageddon did not occur
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Its hard to believe that you really mean that. After all, repayments of these deficits have to be repaid and currently cost about £50 bn a year. This clearly can't go on forever.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Please take a look at how the current debt-to-GDP ratio compares to history:
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
Yes, you mean debt not deficit there's a big difference.
Yes, I am aware of the difference, but it doesn't change the fact that the deficit doesn't become worrying until debt is much higher.
Sure, it's just that dannynomics is at odds with every major economic institution worldwide. I mean are you saying our current debts aren't worryingly high given they're at twice the level of ten years ago ?
Correct, I absolutely don't think our current debts are worrying high, as shown by the fact there have been many occasions in the past where debt was much higher yet armageddon did not occur
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
The last Labour government had a lower deficit in 11 out of the 13 years than all the years 1992 - 1997. In fact, the average Labour deficit as % of GDP was lower than under 18 years of the Tories. It was only in 2008 - 2010 that the deficit increased because of the credit crunch like everywhere else.
The last labour govt could have totally scrapped income tax instead of of showering the public sector with money that was simply wasted.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Its hard to believe that you really mean that. After all, repayments of these deficits have to be repaid and currently cost about £50 bn a year. This clearly can't go on forever.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Please take a look at how the current debt-to-GDP ratio compares to history:
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
If I remember correctly, the debt was 250% of GDP in 1948 falling to a mere 105% in 1959. After 8 years of never being so good !
I would remember that:
a) There was very substantial austerity in the post WW2 period. Rationing on sweets only ended in 1953, for example. Read the excellent Austerity Britain for a feel for the period. b) The economy was able to grow pretty rapidly in the post War period as (a) demobilisation grew the workforce, and (b) lot's of disrupted industries were able to return to normal.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
The last Labour government had a lower deficit in 11 out of the 13 years than all the years 1992 - 1997. In fact, the average Labour deficit as % of GDP was lower than under 18 years of the Tories. It was only in 2008 - 2010 that the deficit increased because of the credit crunch like everywhere else.
Wow! What a [definitely against site rules]!
You ignore two recessions under the Tories (when deficits go up), but include the recession at the end of Labour's rule.
Furthermore, no mention of the deficits for the next 5-10 years you've bequeathed subsequent administrations due to your fiscal incontinence.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Its hard to believe that you really mean that. After all, repayments of these deficits have to be repaid and currently cost about £50 bn a year. This clearly can't go on forever.
Why?
Because the supply of money will dry up, the govt will not be able to borrow it because no one will be willing to lend. And if the govt takes it by force then less wealth will be created in the future so there will not be anything left to steal.
Even in 2010, our debt as a % of GDP was lower than Germany. Now under the Tories, it is much higher. No growth, you see for 3 years, did it !
The Germans have run a much more balanced budget than we have. In the troughs of the GFC and the Eurozone crisis, the German budget deficit was never more than 4% of GDP.
Under Gordon Brown, spending was ramped up very sharply post GFC in 2008/2009. Germany never attempted the same kind of fiscal stimulus that GB did.
Given our current economic growth trajectory, I would expect debt to GDP will probably start to come down in 2016.
Alanbrooke precisely the point. Given that CBI has a disproportionate number of its members among public sector organisations, it should have kept quiet and lobbied both sides to protect the interests of its members. Eck is a great fan of SCDI which is maintaining neutrality and has worked successfully with every government in Scotland since it was set up by my great granduncle over 70 years ago when he was Sec of State for Scotland.
Then if its stuffed full of quangos it's not representing business is it ? The split seems to be between people dependent on government favour and people who have to pay salaries from their own efforts.
The 1st 2 Companies which resigned are both led by highly successful self-made entrepreneurs who just happen to support YES.
Alanbrooke precisely the point. Given that CBI has a disproportionate number of its members among public sector organisations, it should have kept quiet and lobbied both sides to protect the interests of its members. Eck is a great fan of SCDI which is maintaining neutrality and has worked successfully with every government in Scotland since it was set up by my great granduncle over 70 years ago when he was Sec of State for Scotland.
Then if its stuffed full of quangos it's not representing business is it ? The split seems to be between people dependent on government favour and people who have to pay salaries from their own efforts.
The 1st 2 Companies which resigned are both led by highly successful self-made entrepreneurs who just happen to support YES.
What is also interesting is that the CBI were - it is said - forced to come out of the anti-indy closet by Business for Scotland.
There are apparently serious questions about how many businesses and related organizations were actually members. It will be interesting to see how much more pressure is put on the CBI to come clean.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Please take a look at how the current debt-to-GDP ratio compares to history:
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
If I remember correctly, the debt was 250% of GDP in 1948 falling to a mere 105% in 1959. After 8 years of never being so good !
I would remember that:
a) There was very substantial austerity in the post WW2 period. Rationing on sweets only ended in 1953, for example. Read the excellent Austerity Britain for a feel for the period. b) The economy was able to grow pretty rapidly in the post War period as (a) demobilisation grew the workforce, and (b) lot's of disrupted industries were able to return to normal.
In response to (a), that doesn't explain why austerity and rationing had long ceased by the end of the 1950s, when debt was proportionally far higher than it is now.
(b) is a valid point, the circumstances of post-war period did produce a once-in-a-generation boom which is unlikely to be repeated anytime soon -- however, in the graph I posted, surely that boom in GDP is already accounted for? Remember it's not measuring how indebted the UK was in real terms (which might potentially be slightly misleading), it's measuring how indebted they were in proportion to GDP. Even taking into account the massively expanding economy, debt was still huge, yet the sky didn't fall in and there was no run on the pound or refusal to buy government bonds.
Alanbrooke precisely the point. Given that CBI has a disproportionate number of its members among public sector organisations, it should have kept quiet and lobbied both sides to protect the interests of its members. Eck is a great fan of SCDI which is maintaining neutrality and has worked successfully with every government in Scotland since it was set up by my great granduncle over 70 years ago when he was Sec of State for Scotland.
Then if its stuffed full of quangos it's not representing business is it ? The split seems to be between people dependent on government favour and people who have to pay salaries from their own efforts.
The 1st 2 Companies which resigned are both led by highly successful self-made entrepreneurs who just happen to support YES.
Sure and companies like Weir and Barr Travel support No. The facts simply remain that Indy will deliver a shock of some sort to Scottish business. Why's it wrong to flag that up ?
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Its hard to believe that you really mean that. After all, repayments of these deficits have to be repaid and currently cost about £50 bn a year. This clearly can't go on forever.
Why?
Because the supply of money will dry up, the govt will not be able to borrow it because no one will be willing to lend. And if the govt takes it by force then less wealth will be created in the future so there will not be anything left to steal.
Then why were people still willing to lend in the 1950s and 1960s when the debt-to-GDP ratio was so much worse?
I'm not saying there's NO limit to how much debt we can rack up. I'm just saying we're an awful long way away from that limit yet, as shown by historical comparisons.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Yes, you mean debt not deficit there's a big difference.
Yes, I am aware of the difference, but it doesn't change the fact that the deficit doesn't become worrying until debt is much higher.
Correct, I absolutely don't think our current debts are worrying high, as shown by the fact there have been many occasions in the past where debt was much higher yet armageddon did not occur
And are these the same "major economic institutions" who were all insisting prior to 2007/8 that there was no danger of a banking crash at all?
There are three spikes in your graph:
1. Napoleonic Wars 2. WW I 3. WW II
In all three cases the debt was reduced by de-militarisation and in the latter two by pent up growth and suppressed demand being released after wars and de-mobilisation.
Neither of these two beneficial factors apply today.
Furthermore, we are still accumulating debt due to large deficits and we have a huge consumer debt to pay off as well.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
I think you'll find just about every international organisation from the EU to the IMF thinks the UK deficit needs to be cut.
Or do you actually mean the debt ?
But you keep on saying getting rid of the deficit ? But why ? Why can't we have deficit to, say, 3% of the GDP ?
nothing stopping us having a deficit of 3% if we want one within EU rules. But at present it's twice that so if we want to be good europeans we have to reduce it. Or have you gone all kipper on me ?
I don't believe - as non Eurozone members - that we're bound by the Fiscal Compact of the Growth and Stability Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_and_Growth_Pact). Therefore, we are under no obligation (beyond common sense) to get our deficits below 3%.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Please take a look at how the current debt-to-GDP ratio compares to history:
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
If I remember correctly, the debt was 250% of GDP in 1948 falling to a mere 105% in 1959. After 8 years of never being so good !
I would remember that:
a) There was very substantial austerity in the post WW2 period. Rationing on sweets only ended in 1953, for example. Read the excellent Austerity Britain for a feel for the period. b) The economy was able to grow pretty rapidly in the post War period as (a) demobilisation grew the workforce, and (b) lot's of disrupted industries were able to return to normal.
In response to (a), that doesn't explain why austerity and rationing had long ceased by the end of the 1950s, when debt was proportionally far higher than it is now.
(b) is a valid point, the circumstances of post-war period did produce a once-in-a-generation boom which is unlikely to be repeated anytime soon -- however, in the graph I posted, surely that boom in GDP is already accounted for? Remember it's not measuring how indebted the UK was in real terms (which might potentially be slightly misleading), it's measuring how indebted they were in proportion to GDP. Even taking into account the massively expanding economy, debt was still huge, yet the sky didn't fall in and there was no run on the pound or refusal to buy government bonds.
There's also the issue of inflation. I don't know what it was in the periods in question, and in particular what it was in the late 1940s/1950s, but it would have acted as a de facto writer down of the debt. Any comments on that?
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Please take a look at how the current debt-to-GDP ratio compares to history:
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
If I remember correctly, the debt was 250% of GDP in 1948 falling to a mere 105% in 1959. After 8 years of never being so good !
I would remember that:
a) There was very substantial austerity in the post WW2 period. Rationing on sweets only ended in 1953, for example. Read the excellent Austerity Britain for a feel for the period. b) The economy was able to grow pretty rapidly in the post War period as (a) demobilisation grew the workforce, and (b) lot's of disrupted industries were able to return to normal.
In response to (a), that doesn't explain why austerity and rationing had long ceased by the end of the 1950s, when debt was proportionally far higher than it is now.
(b) is a valid point, the circumstances of post-war period did produce a once-in-a-generation boom which is unlikely to be repeated anytime soon -- however, in the graph I posted, surely that boom in GDP is already accounted for? Remember it's not measuring how indebted the UK was in real terms (which might potentially be slightly misleading), it's measuring how indebted they were in proportion to GDP. Even taking into account the massively expanding economy, debt was still huge, yet the sky didn't fall in and there was no run on the pound or refusal to buy government bonds.
There's also the issue of inflation. I don't know what it was in the periods in question, and in particular what it was in the late 1940s/1950s, but it would have acted as a de facto writer down of the debt. Any comments on that?
Here is a graph covering basically the entire period for the debt-gdp graph.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
I think you'll find just about every international organisation from the EU to the IMF thinks the UK deficit needs to be cut.
Or do you actually mean the debt ?
But you keep on saying getting rid of the deficit ? But why ? Why can't we have deficit to, say, 3% of the GDP ?
nothing stopping us having a deficit of 3% if we want one within EU rules. But at present it's twice that so if we want to be good europeans we have to reduce it. Or have you gone all kipper on me ?
I don't believe - as non Eurozone members - that we're bound by the Fiscal Compact of the Growth and Stability Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_and_Growth_Pact). Therefore, we are under no obligation (beyond common sense) to get our deficits below 3%.
Not very communautaire RCS, aren't we still meant to be aspiring to the Euro ? In any case anyone who breaks the golden rule gets marked down by the Commission - even the french these days !
Alanbrooke precisely the point. Given that CBI has a disproportionate number of its members among public sector organisations, it should have kept quiet and lobbied both sides to protect the interests of its members. Eck is a great fan of SCDI which is maintaining neutrality and has worked successfully with every government in Scotland since it was set up by my great granduncle over 70 years ago when he was Sec of State for Scotland.
Then if its stuffed full of quangos it's not representing business is it ? The split seems to be between people dependent on government favour and people who have to pay salaries from their own efforts.
The 1st 2 Companies which resigned are both led by highly successful self-made entrepreneurs who just happen to support YES.
Sure and companies like Weir and Barr Travel support No. The facts simply remain that Indy will deliver a shock of some sort to Scottish business. Why's it wrong to flag that up ?
But to act as effectively a political party is de trop, above all without consulting members, and that is what the CBI has been forced to admit it is doing. If it could get away with it, the CBI wouldn't have registered itself with the Electoral Commission.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Wow.
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Yes, you mean debt not deficit there's a big difference.
Yes, I am aware of the difference, but it doesn't change the fact that the deficit doesn't become worrying until debt is much higher.
Correct, I absolutely don't think our current debts are worrying high, as shown by the fact there have been many occasions in the past where debt was much higher yet armageddon did not occur
And are these the same "major economic institutions" who were all insisting prior to 2007/8 that there was no danger of a banking crash at all?
There are three spikes in your graph:
1. Napoleonic Wars 2. WW I 3. WW II
In all three cases the debt was reduced by de-militarisation and in the latter two by pent up growth and suppressed demand being released after wars and de-mobilisation.
Neither of these two beneficial factors apply today.
Furthermore, we are still accumulating debt due to large deficits and we have a huge consumer debt to pay off as well.
What is your evidence that growth was "pent up" after the world wars?
In response to (a), that doesn't explain why austerity and rationing had long ceased by the end of the 1950s, when debt was proportionally far higher than it is now.
(b) is a valid point, the circumstances of post-war period did produce a once-in-a-generation boom which is unlikely to be repeated anytime soon -- however, in the graph I posted, surely that boom in GDP is already accounted for? Remember it's not measuring how indebted the UK was in real terms (which might potentially be slightly misleading), it's measuring how indebted they were in proportion to GDP. Even taking into account the massively expanding economy, debt was still huge, yet the sky didn't fall in and there was no run on the pound or refusal to buy government bonds.
If the size of the economy doubles, debt-to-GDP will halve. Add in a bit of inflation and it will change even quicker.
If you have debt-to-GDP of 250% of GDP, and your economy grows 5%, and there is 5% inflation, and a balanced budget, your debt-to-GDP will fall to 225% in a single year. Add in the fact that in the three years between 1949 and 1951, we ran surpluses of around 3% of GDP, and you see why debt-to-GDP came down so quickly.
As a general rule, coming out recessions deficits tend to fall faster than expected because tax receipts rise, and expenditure falls (lower spending on benefits).
However, there are a number of reasons why we would expect it to be tougher now to reduce the deficit. With an ageing population, there are significant pressures on pensions and healthcare, that mean that baseline government spending will increase irrespective of the economic outlook. Inflation - despite QE - also remains stubbornly unhelpful (although we're better off than the Eurozone here, see @Socrates posts).
Oh good, many thanks! Fascinating graph. I have seen and used relatively coarse tables of the cost of living, but had not appreciated the degree to which the inflationary and deflationary periods had been counteracting each other, till after the 1920s.
Alanbrooke precisely the point. Given that CBI has a disproportionate number of its members among public sector organisations, it should have kept quiet and lobbied both sides to protect the interests of its members. Eck is a great fan of SCDI which is maintaining neutrality and has worked successfully with every government in Scotland since it was set up by my great granduncle over 70 years ago when he was Sec of State for Scotland.
Then if its stuffed full of quangos it's not representing business is it ? The split seems to be between people dependent on government favour and people who have to pay salaries from their own efforts.
The 1st 2 Companies which resigned are both led by highly successful self-made entrepreneurs who just happen to support YES.
Sure and companies like Weir and Barr Travel support No. The facts simply remain that Indy will deliver a shock of some sort to Scottish business. Why's it wrong to flag that up ?
But to act as effectively a political party is de trop, above all without consulting members, and that is what the CBI has been forced to admit it is doing. If it could get away with it, the CBI wouldn't have registered itself with the Electoral Commission.
How's it acting as a political body ? Are you seriously telling me you can see no changes to Scottish business as a result of Indy - currency, EU, finance sector ....
That's just nonsense and you know it. There will be an impact of some sort, but to continue claiming there won't is ridiculous.
This BBC correspondent is an idiot. He's now arguing that Mugabe is a sell-out to the West by selling diamonds raw rather than cutting and polishing them in Zimbabwe. Given that Botswana, which has a far higher level of skills and development than Zimbabwe, has tried to do this but only at a huge economic cost, this is insane. This is outrageous levels of BBC bias in this whole documentary.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Its hard to believe that you really mean that. After all, repayments of these deficits have to be repaid and currently cost about £50 bn a year. This clearly can't go on forever.
Why?
Because the supply of money will dry up, the govt will not be able to borrow it because no one will be willing to lend. And if the govt takes it by force then less wealth will be created in the future so there will not be anything left to steal.
Then why were people still willing to lend in the 1950s and 1960s when the debt-to-GDP ratio was so much worse?
I'm not saying there's NO limit to how much debt we can rack up. I'm just saying we're an awful long way away from that limit yet, as shown by historical comparisons.
Because in days gone by ordinary people had their savings in institutions that had to buy gilts.
The nature of society is changing and ordinary people are getting more choice.
Also, I'm not saying that we are dangerously close to ther limit but much closer than you think.
Alanbrooke precisely the point. Given that CBI has a disproportionate number of its members among public sector organisations, it should have kept quiet and lobbied both sides to protect the interests of its members. Eck is a great fan of SCDI which is maintaining neutrality and has worked successfully with every government in Scotland since it was set up by my great granduncle over 70 years ago when he was Sec of State for Scotland.
Then if its stuffed full of quangos it's not representing business is it ? The split seems to be between people dependent on government favour and people who have to pay salaries from their own efforts.
The 1st 2 Companies which resigned are both led by highly successful self-made entrepreneurs who just happen to support YES.
Sure and companies like Weir and Barr Travel support No. The facts simply remain that Indy will deliver a shock of some sort to Scottish business. Why's it wrong to flag that up ?
But to act as effectively a political party is de trop, above all without consulting members, and that is what the CBI has been forced to admit it is doing. If it could get away with it, the CBI wouldn't have registered itself with the Electoral Commission.
How's it acting as a political body ? Are you seriously telling me you can see no changes to Scottish business as a result of Indy - currency, EU, finance sector ....
That's just nonsense and you know it. There will be an impact of some sort, but to continue claiming there won't is ridiculous.
Of course there will be impactS - [edited to clarify] I never said there wouldn't. CBI Scotland has every right and duty to lobby both sides, as Mr Easterross said I think. But to act in such a consistently political manner as the CBI Scotland has infamously been doing for years is self-evidently unsustainable. it wouldn't be coming out of the closet and admitting it by registering, would it?!
It's not white-washing the anti-democratic nature of Mugabe's regime, saying that regional observers beleived his election represented the will of the people. Briefly mentioning vote-rigging but only as complaints from the opposition, while not mentioning at all the huge human rights abuses.
Furthermore, we are still accumulating debt due to large deficits and we have a huge consumer debt to pay off as well.
The consumer debt situation in the UK remains a major issue, at around 140% of GDP. But it is worth remembering that it has come down from 170% of GDP in 2007, so there has been substantial progress there.
This BBC correspondent is an idiot. He's now arguing that Mugabe is a sell-out to the West by selling diamonds raw rather than cutting and polishing them in Zimbabwe. Given that Botswana, which has a far higher level of skills and development than Zimbabwe, has tried to do this but only at a huge economic cost, this is insane. This is outrageous levels of BBC bias in this whole documentary.
Turn off the TV. No good will come of watching this documentary.
Alanbrooke precisely the point. Given that CBI has a disproportionate number of its members among public sector organisations, it should have kept quiet and lobbied both sides to protect the interests of its members. Eck is a great fan of SCDI which is maintaining neutrality and has worked successfully with every government in Scotland since it was set up by my great granduncle over 70 years ago when he was Sec of State for Scotland.
Then if its stuffed full of quangos it's not representing business is it ? The split seems to be between people dependent on government favour and people who have to pay salaries from their own efforts.
The 1st 2 Companies which resigned are both led by highly successful self-made entrepreneurs who just happen to support YES.
Sure and companies like Weir and Barr Travel support No. The facts simply remain that Indy will deliver a shock of some sort to Scottish business. Why's it wrong to flag that up ?
But to act as effectively a political party is de trop, above all without consulting members, and that is what the CBI has been forced to admit it is doing. If it could get away with it, the CBI wouldn't have registered itself with the Electoral Commission.
How's it acting as a political body ? Are you seriously telling me you can see no changes to Scottish business as a result of Indy - currency, EU, finance sector ....
That's just nonsense and you know it. There will be an impact of some sort, but to continue claiming there won't is ridiculous.
Of course there will be impactS - [edited to clarify] I never said there wouldn't. CBI Scotland has every right and duty to lobby both sides, as Mr Easterross said I think. But to act in such a consistently political manner as the CBI Scotland has infamously been doing for years is self-evidently unsustainable. it wouldn't be coming out of the closet and admitting it by registering, would it?!
Why do think it is a Scottish phenomenon ? Big business doesn't like change and will fight it's corner. It will argue also against EU withdrawal at which point you will suddenly agree with them.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Its hard to believe that you really mean that. After all, repayments of these deficits have to be repaid and currently cost about £50 bn a year. This clearly can't go on forever.
Why?
Because the supply of money will dry up, the govt will not be able to borrow it because no one will be willing to lend. And if the govt takes it by force then less wealth will be created in the future so there will not be anything left to steal.
Then why were people still willing to lend in the 1950s and 1960s when the debt-to-GDP ratio was so much worse?
I'm not saying there's NO limit to how much debt we can rack up. I'm just saying we're an awful long way away from that limit yet, as shown by historical comparisons.
Because in days gone by ordinary people had their savings in institutions that had to buy gilts.
The nature of society is changing and ordinary people are getting more choice.
Also, I'm not saying that we are dangerously close to ther limit but much closer than you think.
This is actually a very important point: right up until the 1980s we had capital controls in place, which restricted the ability of Brits to invest their money abroad. That is no longer the case. I don't think anyone would suggest that reintroducing capital controls would do anything (positive) for our economy.
I see Nick Palmer has sloped off and failed to answer my question of earlier on what he'd do on welfare spending and how he'd reconcile that with the deficit and balancing the UK budget. He's happy to list the problems. He's very reluctant to spell out practical solutions.
Tells you everything you need to know about him and his party's readiness for power.
The deficit doesn't need to be reduced. We've had a deficit in...how many of the last 150 years?
Its hard to believe that you really mean that. After all, repayments of these deficits have to be repaid and currently cost about £50 bn a year. This clearly can't go on forever.
Why?
Because the supply of money will dry up, the govt will not be able to borrow it because no one will be willing to lend. And if the govt takes it by force then less wealth will be created in the future so there will not be anything left to steal.
Then why were people still willing to lend in the 1950s and 1960s when the debt-to-GDP ratio was so much worse?
I'm not saying there's NO limit to how much debt we can rack up. I'm just saying we're an awful long way away from that limit yet, as shown by historical comparisons.
Because in days gone by ordinary people had their savings in institutions that had to buy gilts.
The nature of society is changing and ordinary people are getting more choice.
Also, I'm not saying that we are dangerously close to ther limit but much closer than you think.
This is actually a very important point: right up until the 1980s we had capital controls in place, which restricted the ability of Brits to invest their money abroad. That is no longer the case. I don't think anyone would suggest that reintroducing capital controls would do anything (positive) for our economy.
Oh I don't know, I might give it a go just to see how Charles and Richard N react :-)
Ridiculous story by the DM. What I am trying to work out is why that is new.
On a far more interesting level I am re-reading Caro's 4th volume on LBJ. Wow. Just wow. Anyone interested in politics should really read it.
A classic paragraph on why LBJ had pushed through the Civil Rights Bill after Kennedy's death:
"But although the cliche says that power always corrupts, what is seldom said, but is equally true, is that power always reveals. When a man is climbing, trying to persuade others to give him power, concealment is necessary: to hide traits that might make others reluctant to give him power, to hide also what he wants to do with that power; if men recognised the traits or realised the aims, they might refuse to give him what he wants. But as a man obtains more power, camouflage is less necessary. The curtain begins to rise. The revealing begins."
Really, anyone interested in politics has to read this.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Britain could handle a much higher debt ratio than today’s because an integrated global capital market developed in which the British economy was the major borrower and lender. There was little credible competition with British bonds. As a result, British public debt remained universally acceptable despite its relative abundance. (The United States has enjoyed a similar position since World War II, but the uncontrolled U.S. budget deficit may eventually put an end to that.)
Before the twentieth century, moreover, the British government did not have major commitments to social spending at home. The spending of the central government was principally on administration and defence. As a use of government revenue, interest payments did not have to compete with major entitlement claims. This kept government guarantees of repayment credible.
Nick, obviously you object to the welfare cuts. So how would you recommend balancing the budget, the deficit on which is still around ~£100bn p.a. IIRC?
As I said, the food bank issue is not mostly caused by low benefits. It's by it taking SIX MONTHS to find out whether you'll get help or not. When I went to a briefing on this, the non-political organisers said the majority of their customers were not people who'd been turned down, but simply people who had run out of money while awaiting a decision. Often poor credit risks and in cities often without helpful family networks, they had only three options:
Understaffing the offices that decide is a false economy. It's stupid. It's cruel. And it's completely ridiculous to blame the food banks for it.
There is also the sanctioning of people for minor matters which is allegedly occuring on an industrial scale.
What most people don't realise is that there are two benefit systems inthe UK. For those out of work or on low pay with a child there is child tax credits which are generous to the point of being embarrasing. Exceedingly generous amounts (plus child benefit too). No sanctions and no capital test (and even interest in ISAs exempt from assessment). For the single there is jobseekers allowance, which is an absolute pittance, has strict capital and income assessments and is subject to sanctions if you don't jump through the hoop (such as working without pay for multinationals on "training" programmes).
To cap it all, the generous amounts ladelled to the tax credit recipients are then used to demonise the wretches given £70 per week jobseekers allowance.
The other lucky winners in our welfare system are of course landlords who hoover up housing benefit, which artificially raises the amount of rent they can charge.
Anyone who dosent believe me can go to www.entitledto.co.uk and enter some scenarios eg single person or family with four children and see the difference in entitlement. Welfare in the UK is a complete mess.
This is actually a very important point: right up until the 1980s we had capital controls in place, which restricted the ability of Brits to invest their money abroad. That is no longer the case. I don't think anyone would suggest that reintroducing capital controls would do anything (positive) for our economy.
I haven't made my mind up about it, but I think there is a far stronger case for capital controls, if deployed sensibly and for the right reasons, than is often acknowledged. Plenty of unsustainable and destructive bubbles have been caused by allowing foreign money to flood into an economy and then quickly withdrawn.
On topic, but by free association, I sometimes wonder who reads the D Mail. Maybe ones seeking play on their pre-conceived notions, in this case that the World is full of free-loaders who are out to cheat us.
"No questions asked"? Questions were asked, apparently by some well meaning people who actually seem to care.
Maybe one day I'll be able to pay someone a ricocheted compliment by saying "Sir/Madam I knew a Mail reader once and you're no Mail reader" But first I'll have to get to know one.
This BBC correspondent is an idiot. He's now arguing that Mugabe is a sell-out to the West by selling diamonds raw rather than cutting and polishing them in Zimbabwe. Given that Botswana, which has a far higher level of skills and development than Zimbabwe, has tried to do this but only at a huge economic cost, this is insane. This is outrageous levels of BBC bias in this whole documentary.
Turn off the TV. No good will come of watching this documentary.
My money is still being spent on it. There was virtually no mention of his human rights abuses throughout the whole thing. The two periods of most aggressive questioning was that he sold out to white interests by taking so long for land "reform" and that by selling diamonds unprocessed, he was costing Zimbabwe jobs.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Britain could handle a much higher debt ratio than today’s because an integrated global capital market developed in which the British economy was the major borrower and lender. There was little credible competition with British bonds. As a result, British public debt remained universally acceptable despite its relative abundance. (The United States has enjoyed a similar position since World War II, but the uncontrolled U.S. budget deficit may eventually put an end to that.)
Before the twentieth century, moreover, the British government did not have major commitments to social spending at home. The spending of the central government was principally on administration and defence. As a use of government revenue, interest payments did not have to compete with major entitlement claims. This kept government guarantees of repayment credible.
Could you give me an example of an economy that has control of its own monetary policy seeing interest rates rise rapidly (as would be the case if the money was running out) with debt levels anywhere near our own?
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Britain could handle a much higher debt ratio than today’s because an integrated global capital market developed in which the British economy was the major borrower and lender. There was little credible competition with British bonds. As a result, British public debt remained universally acceptable despite its relative abundance. (The United States has enjoyed a similar position since World War II, but the uncontrolled U.S. budget deficit may eventually put an end to that.)
Before the twentieth century, moreover, the British government did not have major commitments to social spending at home. The spending of the central government was principally on administration and defence. As a use of government revenue, interest payments did not have to compete with major entitlement claims. This kept government guarantees of repayment credible.
That article shows its bias when it predicts the US budget deficit will supposedly lead to a loss of confidence in the bond markets. Unsurprisingly, that hasn't happened.
Oh I don't know, I might give it a go just to see how Charles and Richard N react :-)
I can't speak for Charles, but I'm happy to confirm that I'm against!
[And what a nostalgic picture the idea of capital controls conjures up - I still have my old, long ago cancelled, passport with the sheet in the back where the bank had to enter any foreign exchange transaction in order to ensure you didn't exceed the £50 limit. Ah, those were the days!]
Then why were people still willing to lend in the 1950s and 1960s when the debt-to-GDP ratio was so much worse?
I'm not saying there's NO limit to how much debt we can rack up. I'm just saying we're an awful long way away from that limit yet, as shown by historical comparisons.
And all we need to do is slash health funding to a similar level of GDP to where it was in the 1950s and 1960s. Back to about 3% of GDP. So, say £48 bn or so?
And welfare (including pensions) down to about 5% of GDP, so call it £80bn.
So yes - we can sustain a far higher debt interest rate repayment level - if we went back to the historic level of spending on other things. Just slash healthcare by £85 bn or so, and welfare and pensions by £180bn and we'll be able to compare with those historic levels.
Or if we want to sustain these non-historic levels of spending in these areas, we won't be able to sustain those levels of interest payments and debt repayments.
Could you give me an example of an economy that has control of its own monetary policy seeing interest rates rise rapidly (as would be the case if the money was running out) with debt levels anywhere near our own?
Well, Venezuela's not looking too good (despite the fact that it is an oil-rich country), and their accumulated debt is much lower than ours. Their deficit is, however, even higher than that inherited by Osborne, which might explain quite a lot.
Good article I've found about why Britain can't handle the high debt levels it did in earlier times.
Could you give me an example of an economy that has control of its own monetary policy seeing interest rates rise rapidly (as would be the case if the money was running out) with debt levels anywhere near our own?
How about Britain in the 1970's?
Sure, interest rates can be kept artificially low, but at the expense of currency collapse and high inflation.
Could you give me an example of an economy that has control of its own monetary policy seeing interest rates rise rapidly (as would be the case if the money was running out) with debt levels anywhere near our own?
Well, Venezuela's not looking too good (despite the fact that it is an oil-rich country), and their accumulated debt is much lower than ours. Their deficit is, however, even higher than that inherited by Osborne, which might explain quite a lot.
Fair enough for meeting my set challenge, but this is clearly due to their random appropriations of assets, rather than their level of debt.
I really don't understand Labour-ish supporters arguing that the deficit should not be cut. Do they not remember how popular Gordon Brown was when he could announce at every budget how much money he could spend on schools and hospitals because his prudence meant it no longer had to be spent on debt interest?
The issue has never been about whether the deficit needs to be cut. It has always been about how. Yet Labour have managed to completely abandon that argument in favour of pretending that the deficit doesn't really need to be cut. Idiots.
Could you give me an example of an economy that has control of its own monetary policy seeing interest rates rise rapidly (as would be the case if the money was running out) with debt levels anywhere near our own?
Well, Venezuela's not looking too good (despite the fact that it is an oil-rich country), and their accumulated debt is much lower than ours. Their deficit is, however, even higher than that inherited by Osborne, which might explain quite a lot.
Fair enough for meeting my set challenge, but this is clearly due to their random appropriations of assets, rather than their level of debt.
Is there a difference?
Henry VIII's wars led to the 'Great Debasement' (money printing avant la lettre) and, of course, the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the greatest act of nationalisation between the Labour Government of 1945 and the Norman Conquest of 1066.
Yet Labour have managed to completely abandon that argument in favour of pretending that the deficit doesn't really need to be cut. Idiots.
That's not true - not only is Labour committed to cutting the deficit they are planning to run surpluses again. How long they will retain supporters who argue that the deficit doesnt need to be cut from 7% at all is a matter entirely for those supporters rather than the party.
Fair enough for meeting my set challenge, but this is clearly due to their random appropriations of assets, rather than their level of debt.
The random appropriation of assets is another symptom of the same underlying cause: profligacy. It's a vicious circle. Unsurprisingly, when governments spend money at an unsustainable rate, something has to give. That 'something' varies, but usually comprises some mixture of high inflation, collapse of the currency, punitive interest rates, capital flight, collapse in investment, and high unemployment.
Admittedly unsustainable positions can sometimes be sustained for surprisingly long periods, as in Japan. That's not an argument in favour of unsustainability, though.
That's not true - not only is Labour committed to cutting the deficit they are planning to run surpluses again. How long they will retain supporters who argue that the deficit doesnt need to be cut from 7% at all is a matter entirely for those supporters rather than the party.
On your first sentence: up to a point. A more accurate characterisation is that they are theoretically committed to cutting the deficit, but opposed in practice to almost every single measure for doing so.
A more accurate characterisation is that they are theoretically committed to cutting the deficit, but opposed in practice to almost every single measure for doing so.
They're the opposition, they're opposing things, it's what oppositions do. But their fiscal plans will be pretty similar to the Coalition's in the end.
It is not friggin front page news that the head of the Humanist society and 50 other people with similar views object to Cameron talking about Christian Country.
It is like publishing an open letter from Republic if Cameron says the Queen is great. No s##t they don't agree, and having some famous name on it doesn't make it any more credible.
They're the opposition, they're opposing things, it's what oppositions do. But their fiscal plans will be pretty similar to the Coalition's in the end.
Maybe. As I've said before, Ed Balls is reassuringly dishonest.
However, I wouldn't put too much faith in his disingenuousness, for two reasons. Firstly, as you rightly pointed out, a substantial proportion of Labour's support comes from deficit-deniers. That might not matter too much if they had a Blair-style majority, but they won't; if Miliband becomes PM, he will either lead a minority government, make some arrangement with the LibDems (who will be keen to show their profligate, non-Tory, credentials, in such a scenario), or possibly have a tiny majority. Any of those scenarios will mitigate against sound public finances.
Secondly, there are more choices to be made than just the macro-economic balance, and Miliband has shown every sign of being anti-business, anti-prosperity, and anti-realism. Thus, even if a Miliband/Balls government sets out to be prudent in macro-economic terms, I believe they will be highly destructive in their effect on business confidence and investment. That in turn will hit revenues, leading to tax increases, and a reversal of the progress made under Osborne.
Speaking of the Mail, Heffer has changed his tune a bit. I wonder what his posting name is on here?
Sep '13: 'Since the mid-Nineties I have been convinced that England and Scotland would benefit from a divorce, or at least from a trial separation. Many Scots don’t much like the English and appear ungrateful for everything that England does for them in showering them with money.'
Today: 'SIMON HEFFER: How can this great, UNITED Kingdom - which gave the world Christian civilisation - just tear itself apart?'
Comments
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/471446/Sunday-Express-readers-to-vote-for-Nigel-Farage-s-Ukip-in-next-election
I think you'll find just about every international organisation from the EU to the IMF thinks the UK deficit needs to be cut.
Or do you actually mean the debt ?
How many years in a row do you think a deficit in excess of 7% of GDP can be sustained for?
Cahal Milmo @cahalmilmo
Oliver Cameron, the kidney patient whose sister was refused visa to be a donor, told she can come to the UK after all. Victory for decency
As Mr T pointed out why's Dougie Alexander planning for an election of a country he won't be part of ?
Meanwhile the calamity of a decision by the CBI Scotland to support Better Together may lead to the organisation imploding. 2 members and the broadcaster STV left yesterday. Now we hear that Scottish Enterprise and Visit Scotland have resigned from membership and tomorrow several other members will decide whether to resign. Questions being asked whether the Council of Scottish CBI actually discussed, let alone authorised the decision.
The Scottish business community is split down the middle re the Indy ref.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/motherhood-and-apple-pie/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_GDP.png
In other words, we'd be able to continue to run a deficit of 7% for many years before we even got to the level of the 1950s (which itself was not a total disaster).
That's a bit silly Surby old chap. Yorkshire is labour's weak spot. labour's bastions ex Scotland are Wales, the North East and the North West. Whole swathes of the South see no labourites at all but good to see you egg on a party to the right of Cameron. If Scotlanfd goes labour will be forced to change or die out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_GDP.png
And are these the same "major economic institutions" who were all insisting prior to 2007/8 that there was no danger of a banking crash at all?
On your second point lots of people warned on the UK economy, but the PM believed he had put an end to boom and bust. Didn't call it right, did he ?
a) There was very substantial austerity in the post WW2 period. Rationing on sweets only ended in 1953, for example. Read the excellent Austerity Britain for a feel for the period.
b) The economy was able to grow pretty rapidly in the post War period as (a) demobilisation grew the workforce, and (b) lot's of disrupted industries were able to return to normal.
Too many chocolate eggs have been consumed I think! Sugar-rush is the only explanation.
You ignore two recessions under the Tories (when deficits go up), but include the recession at the end of Labour's rule.
Furthermore, no mention of the deficits for the next 5-10 years you've bequeathed subsequent administrations due to your fiscal incontinence.
Absolutely laughable.
Under Gordon Brown, spending was ramped up very sharply post GFC in 2008/2009. Germany never attempted the same kind of fiscal stimulus that GB did.
Given our current economic growth trajectory, I would expect debt to GDP will probably start to come down in 2016.
There are apparently serious questions about how many businesses and related organizations were actually members. It will be interesting to see how much more pressure is put on the CBI to come clean.
(b) is a valid point, the circumstances of post-war period did produce a once-in-a-generation boom which is unlikely to be repeated anytime soon -- however, in the graph I posted, surely that boom in GDP is already accounted for? Remember it's not measuring how indebted the UK was in real terms (which might potentially be slightly misleading), it's measuring how indebted they were in proportion to GDP. Even taking into account the massively expanding economy, debt was still huge, yet the sky didn't fall in and there was no run on the pound or refusal to buy government bonds.
I'm not saying there's NO limit to how much debt we can rack up. I'm just saying we're an awful long way away from that limit yet, as shown by historical comparisons.
1. Napoleonic Wars
2. WW I
3. WW II
In all three cases the debt was reduced by de-militarisation and in the latter two by pent up growth and suppressed demand being released after wars and de-mobilisation.
Neither of these two beneficial factors apply today.
Furthermore, we are still accumulating debt due to large deficits and we have a huge consumer debt to pay off as well.
http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/~jrvarma/blog/Y2009/UK-inflation.png
If you have debt-to-GDP of 250% of GDP, and your economy grows 5%, and there is 5% inflation, and a balanced budget, your debt-to-GDP will fall to 225% in a single year. Add in the fact that in the three years between 1949 and 1951, we ran surpluses of around 3% of GDP, and you see why debt-to-GDP came down so quickly.
As a general rule, coming out recessions deficits tend to fall faster than expected because tax receipts rise, and expenditure falls (lower spending on benefits).
However, there are a number of reasons why we would expect it to be tougher now to reduce the deficit. With an ageing population, there are significant pressures on pensions and healthcare, that mean that baseline government spending will increase irrespective of the economic outlook. Inflation - despite QE - also remains stubbornly unhelpful (although we're better off than the Eurozone here, see @Socrates posts).
That's just nonsense and you know it. There will be an impact of some sort, but to continue claiming there won't is ridiculous.
The nature of society is changing and ordinary people are getting more choice.
Also, I'm not saying that we are dangerously close to ther limit but much closer than you think.
On a far more interesting level I am re-reading Caro's 4th volume on LBJ. Wow. Just wow. Anyone interested in politics should really read it.
A classic paragraph on why LBJ had pushed through the Civil Rights Bill after Kennedy's death:
"But although the cliche says that power always corrupts, what is seldom said, but is equally true, is that power always reveals. When a man is climbing, trying to persuade others to give him power, concealment is necessary: to hide traits that might make others reluctant to give him power, to hide also what he wants to do with that power; if men recognised the traits or realised the aims, they might refuse to give him what he wants. But as a man obtains more power, camouflage is less necessary. The curtain begins to rise. The revealing begins."
Really, anyone interested in politics has to read this.
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/markharrison/entry/the_history_of_1/
Excerpt:
What most people don't realise is that there are two benefit systems inthe UK. For those out of work or on low pay with a child there is child tax credits which are generous to the point of being embarrasing. Exceedingly generous amounts (plus child benefit too). No sanctions and no capital test (and even interest in ISAs exempt from assessment). For the single there is jobseekers allowance, which is an absolute pittance, has strict capital and income assessments and is subject to sanctions if you don't jump through the hoop (such as working without pay for multinationals on "training" programmes).
To cap it all, the generous amounts ladelled to the tax credit recipients are then used to demonise the wretches given £70 per week jobseekers allowance.
The other lucky winners in our welfare system are of course landlords who hoover up housing benefit, which artificially raises the amount of rent they can charge.
Anyone who dosent believe me can go to www.entitledto.co.uk and enter some scenarios eg single person or family with four children and see the difference in entitlement. Welfare in the UK is a complete mess.
"No questions asked"? Questions were asked, apparently by some well meaning people who actually seem to care.
Maybe one day I'll be able to pay someone a ricocheted compliment by saying "Sir/Madam I knew a Mail reader once and you're no Mail reader" But first I'll have to get to know one.
[And what a nostalgic picture the idea of capital controls conjures up - I still have my old, long ago cancelled, passport with the sheet in the back where the bank had to enter any foreign exchange transaction in order to ensure you didn't exceed the £50 limit. Ah, those were the days!]
Back to about 3% of GDP. So, say £48 bn or so?
And welfare (including pensions) down to about 5% of GDP, so call it £80bn.
So yes - we can sustain a far higher debt interest rate repayment level - if we went back to the historic level of spending on other things. Just slash healthcare by £85 bn or so, and welfare and pensions by £180bn and we'll be able to compare with those historic levels.
Or if we want to sustain these non-historic levels of spending in these areas, we won't be able to sustain those levels of interest payments and debt repayments.
How about Britain in the 1970's?
Sure, interest rates can be kept artificially low, but at the expense of currency collapse and high inflation.
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/British/David-Cameron-specials/Politics-N-1z131s4Z1z141hvZ1z141ne/
The issue has never been about whether the deficit needs to be cut. It has always been about how. Yet Labour have managed to completely abandon that argument in favour of pretending that the deficit doesn't really need to be cut. Idiots.
Henry VIII's wars led to the 'Great Debasement' (money printing avant la lettre) and, of course, the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the greatest act of nationalisation between the Labour Government of 1945 and the Norman Conquest of 1066.
Admittedly unsustainable positions can sometimes be sustained for surprisingly long periods, as in Japan. That's not an argument in favour of unsustainability, though.
Your second point is very sound, though.
I'm not fan of Cameron and his twisting in the wind to appeal to different groups, but this just nonsense.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10777270/David-Cameron-fuelling-sectarian-division-by-bringing-God-into-politics.html
It is not friggin front page news that the head of the Humanist society and 50 other people with similar views object to Cameron talking about Christian Country.
It is like publishing an open letter from Republic if Cameron says the Queen is great. No s##t they don't agree, and having some famous name on it doesn't make it any more credible.
However, I wouldn't put too much faith in his disingenuousness, for two reasons. Firstly, as you rightly pointed out, a substantial proportion of Labour's support comes from deficit-deniers. That might not matter too much if they had a Blair-style majority, but they won't; if Miliband becomes PM, he will either lead a minority government, make some arrangement with the LibDems (who will be keen to show their profligate, non-Tory, credentials, in such a scenario), or possibly have a tiny majority. Any of those scenarios will mitigate against sound public finances.
Secondly, there are more choices to be made than just the macro-economic balance, and Miliband has shown every sign of being anti-business, anti-prosperity, and anti-realism. Thus, even if a Miliband/Balls government sets out to be prudent in macro-economic terms, I believe they will be highly destructive in their effect on business confidence and investment. That in turn will hit revenues, leading to tax increases, and a reversal of the progress made under Osborne.