Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
In a recession all progressives become Keynesians. During periods of growth, they stop being Keynesians.
I am not sure I would describe Philip as a progressive lol. Reactionary contrarian perhaps.
I'm not a progressive, I'm a libertarian.
I'm not who Malmesbury was referring to though, [I think] he was agreeing with me.
You proved yesterday you are not a libertarian or a liberal (small l). You said you are against countrysports (bloodsports as you call them). To be a true liberal, or even more so, a libertarian you need to oppose laws that restrict the rights of individuals even if you morally disapprove. To be a libertarian you would also need to be in favour of a massive relaxation of gun laws back to pre-1914 levels. So, sorry to disappoint you, you are neither. Reactionary contrarian fits you. Wear it with pride!
I think Nigel has skewered you on this one Philip TBF. I too would have expected you to be opposed to the state banning of country sports on libertarian grounds.
Sports that don't involve animal cruelty absolutely I'm opposed to banning. If you want to go hurling, or play polo or croquet or roll cheese down hills or whatever other country pursuits you may find interesting then I couldn't care less.
I do not approve of lifting bans on animal cruelty. If I saw someone torturing a cat or dog I don't think that needs to be legal in order to be libertarian.
As I said, fox hunting is not cruel.
I don't agree.
But do you accept that if it is cruel then its reasonable for it to be banned?
Or do you think eg a pet owner should be able to torture their pet without the law getting involved? I don't and I don't think that's a liberal policy.
You are perfectly at liberty to think it's cruel. As are vegetarians to think firing a bolt into a cow's head is cruel. I think the issue here is not to want to impose your views on others.
Not the vegetarian on eating meat, not you on hunting.
I see there is now proof covid was in Italy from December. I wonder when it really got to the UK? Would we be shocked to find it was in London also months before the first case was recorded?
There is a proven case in France from December too, with no evidence of travel.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
blah blah blah.
You said an "economic crisis" justifies unprecedented spending. I am just pointing out to you that once you say a crisis of one sort or another justifies unprecedented spending then you can't complain if the crisis that is picked is not one you would spend an extra fiver on.
I was talking about countercyclical spending during a recession. If you were too incapable of reading comprehension to understand that I was talking about a recession then I apologise that my point wasn't explained in simple enough words for you to understand.
You decided to talk about countercyclical spending during a recession.
You started off by saying:
"There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis..."
To which I responded that if you are picking and choosing crises that it is ok to borrow for then you can't criticise other governments or views that agree with that principle (albeit you might not agree that their crisis needs money spending on it in the same way as "your" crisis does).
That in italics is not the sentence I wrote.
When someone uses the word "between" there's normally two or more options for it to be between so please quote the full sentence to see what 'economic crisis' was contrasted with. Feel free to snip the rest of the post but if you're going to quote a sentence including the word "difference between" then please include the full sentence to show what it is meant to be between.
If you do that it might aid your reading comprehension.
"There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. "
Is wot u wrote.
Actually it is an illogical statement. You have identified a crisis that is worth excess borrowing. You have therefore accepted that for certain crises (presumably the ones you think justify it) excess borrowing is ok. Whereas there are plenty of crises that are worth excess borrowing.
Only outside of "times of growth" according to that sentence.
Again, you are setting parameters. But the principle that excess spending in times of crisis is justified has been accepted by you.
I see there is now proof covid was in Italy from December. I wonder when it really got to the UK? Would we be shocked to find it was in London also months before the first case was recorded?
The thing is given how virulent this thing was before lockdown I have issues about it being in the wild so early.
Yes, but he's [Matt] not really a political cartoonist. Of those that are I rate Martin Rowson very highly. Bell's ability and power cannot be questioned but personally I find himtoo acerbic, brutal and at times unpleasant.
Generally the standard is not high, I'm afraid.
Perhaps Matt is a political cartoonist but in the same way that Matthew Parris is party political. Subtle, funny, realistic, pragmatic and not entirely predictable.
There is more to politics than hatred and over simplification.
I draw a clear distinction between 'gag' and political cartoonists. The former are always trying to be funny whereas the latter are not.
There's clearly overlap but it's a question of where the priority lies. For example, if a Matt isn't funny, he's failed. If a Rowson carton doesn't score a political point, he's failed. Matt doesn't have to be political, but sometimes is; likewise Rowson doesn't doesn't have to be funny, though he sometimes is.
What do you think of Coldwar Steve? Obviously he's removed the drawing factor, (but not composition of course).
Yeah, not a traditional cartoonist and not my style but quite effective if you like that sort of thing.
Trump is on the wrong side of Twitter again, this time for posting a fake CNN video and then denouncing fake news. The way he uses the word "fake" suggests more than a personality disorder.
Imagine what he might say if his Tulsa rally spreads SARS-Cov2 and kills people. "Fakes!" "Crisis actors!"
We seem to be eliminating various methods of (usual) spread.
Fleeting passing outdoors - Not particularly likely Sitting with your mates outdoors - Seems to be mainly OK Moving around indoors (Shopping) whilst trying to maintain a 2 metre distance - You'd be unlucky Mass gathering outdoors - Doesn't look to have taken R over 1.
Which really only leaves larger gatherings indoors. By elimination they pretty much MUST be superspreader events !
I see there is now proof covid was in Italy from December. I wonder when it really got to the UK? Would we be shocked to find it was in London also months before the first case was recorded?
Yes I would be.
If it was then why didn't it exponentially grow for months?
Especially in December when everyone is indoors and full of Christmas Parties and other sorts of probable superspreader events.
I guess it's possible, on a "small numbers don't follow the rules of statistics" basis. We know (I think) that the average uncontrolled R = 3 covers a huge range; some individuals infect many more people than that, so others hardly spread it at all. If the first few cases are relatively non-spready, it could take a while for the exponential to take off. Not sure it's likely, and it won't affect the overall numbers much (it won't give an iceberg), but it might be possible.
Try hunting, and then come and tell us what's cruel about it.
Oh God, they've been activated.
Quite. I always found that Marion Stamp Dawkins's approach to animal cruelty was the best. She asked the animals what they thought! IIRC she demonstrated that a chicken would put up with a lot of discomfort (e.g. poorer bedding, colder conditions) rather than live in a battery cage.
Another approach is to see what their biochemistry says, such as the famouys study of Exmoor dog hunting of Red Deer by Bateson and Bradshaw, whose abstract is a masterpiece of scientific irony
"When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds."
I see there is now proof covid was in Italy from December. I wonder when it really got to the UK? Would we be shocked to find it was in London also months before the first case was recorded?
The thing is given how virulent this thing was before lockdown I have issues about it being in the wild so early.
We would have seen a lot of spikes then.
This is the thing that is so confusing about it all...but then there is the research about 80% of cases from 20% events and particular super spreading events e.g. these meat processing places. From this week alone, China, Germany, North Wales and Leicester.
But then we are also seeing an interesting pattern in the US. Massive protests, California new cases peaking, Florida the same, Orgeon / Washington state up as well.....NYC nothing.
It really is like if 20% of your population get this, you have a level of community immunity.
I see there is now proof covid was in Italy from December. I wonder when it really got to the UK? Would we be shocked to find it was in London also months before the first case was recorded?
The thing is given how virulent this thing was before lockdown I have issues about it being in the wild so early.
We would have seen a lot of spikes then.
I think a lot of sparks fizzle out in these things. It certainly was not being picked up in the viral swabs in the British Flu survey that runs every winter. The genetics suggest that nearly all our cases were imported from mainland Europe at the end of February.
I see there is now proof covid was in Italy from December. I wonder when it really got to the UK? Would we be shocked to find it was in London also months before the first case was recorded?
Pretty sure it can't have been in London before it was in Italy, otherwise we'd have seen more cases much earlier - and it clearly wasn't in Italy before December.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
blah blah blah.
You said an "economic crisis" justifies unprecedented spending. I am just pointing out to you that once you say a crisis of one sort or another justifies unprecedented spending then you can't complain if the crisis that is picked is not one you would spend an extra fiver on.
I was talking about countercyclical spending during a recession. If you were too incapable of reading comprehension to understand that I was talking about a recession then I apologise that my point wasn't explained in simple enough words for you to understand.
You decided to talk about countercyclical spending during a recession.
You started off by saying:
"There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis..."
To which I responded that if you are picking and choosing crises that it is ok to borrow for then you can't criticise other governments or views that agree with that principle (albeit you might not agree that their crisis needs money spending on it in the same way as "your" crisis does).
That in italics is not the sentence I wrote.
When someone uses the word "between" there's normally two or more options for it to be between so please quote the full sentence to see what 'economic crisis' was contrasted with. Feel free to snip the rest of the post but if you're going to quote a sentence including the word "difference between" then please include the full sentence to show what it is meant to be between.
If you do that it might aid your reading comprehension.
"There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. "
Is wot u wrote.
Actually it is an illogical statement. You have identified a crisis that is worth excess borrowing. You have therefore accepted that for certain crises (presumably the ones you think justify it) excess borrowing is ok. Whereas there are plenty of crises that are worth excess borrowing.
Only outside of "times of growth" according to that sentence.
Again, you are setting parameters. But the principle that excess spending in times of crisis is justified has been accepted by you.
Absolutely during recessions yes it has. It has for hundreds of years, even before Keynes but especially post-Keynes it has been accepted and I accept that too.
Try hunting, and then come and tell us what's cruel about it.
Oh God, they've been activated.
Quite. I always found that Marion Stamp Dawkins's approach to animal cruelty was the best. She asked the animals what they thought! IIRC she demonstrated that a chicken would put up with a lot of discomfort (e.g. poorer bedding, colder conditions) rather than live in a battery cage.
Another approach is to see what their biochemistry says, such as the famouys study of Exmoor dog hunting of Red Deer by Bateson and Bradshaw, whose abstract is a masterpiece of scientific irony
"When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds."
Do you think the right is about to split again? At a zenith in its power?
His argument is the Tory vote is mainly made up of social conservatives now who could drift back to Farage if Boris does not reduce immigration, stand up to Wokeism etc. Whereas Cameron also had social liberals who no longer vote Tory
When Boris fails to deliver unicorns, what do you expect?
Try hunting, and then come and tell us what's cruel about it.
Oh God, they've been activated.
Quite. I always found that Marion Stamp Dawkins's approach to animal cruelty was the best. She asked the animals what they thought! IIRC she demonstrated that a chicken would put up with a lot of discomfort (e.g. poorer bedding, colder conditions) rather than live in a battery cage.
Another approach is to see what their biochemistry says, such as the famouys study of Exmoor dog hunting of Red Deer by Bateson and Bradshaw, whose abstract is a masterpiece of scientific irony
"When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds."
On the same basis, when you see that a fox is running away rather than staying to play the game ...
Is that a description of Sebastian Coe when he won his 1500 metres gold?
No, because - if I understand it correctly - Homo sapiens is a long distance hunter in the wild anyway, so it is in his nature in a way that is not true of Cervus elaphus.
Try hunting, and then come and tell us what's cruel about it.
Oh God, they've been activated.
Quite. I always found that Marion Stamp Dawkins's approach to animal cruelty was the best. She asked the animals what they thought! IIRC she demonstrated that a chicken would put up with a lot of discomfort (e.g. poorer bedding, colder conditions) rather than live in a battery cage.
Another approach is to see what their biochemistry says, such as the famouys study of Exmoor dog hunting of Red Deer by Bateson and Bradshaw, whose abstract is a masterpiece of scientific irony
"When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds."
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
In a recession all progressives become Keynesians. During periods of growth, they stop being Keynesians.
I am not sure I would describe Philip as a progressive lol. Reactionary contrarian perhaps.
I'm not a progressive, I'm a libertarian.
I'm not who Malmesbury was referring to though, [I think] he was agreeing with me.
You proved yesterday you are not a libertarian or a liberal (small l). You said you are against countrysports (bloodsports as you call them). To be a true liberal, or even more so, a libertarian you need to oppose laws that restrict the rights of individuals even if you morally disapprove. To be a libertarian you would also need to be in favour of a massive relaxation of gun laws back to pre-1914 levels. So, sorry to disappoint you, you are neither. Reactionary contrarian fits you. Wear it with pride!
I think Nigel has skewered you on this one Philip TBF. I too would have expected you to be opposed to the state banning of country sports on libertarian grounds.
Sports that don't involve animal cruelty absolutely I'm opposed to banning. If you want to go hurling, or play polo or croquet or roll cheese down hills or whatever other country pursuits you may find interesting then I couldn't care less.
I do not approve of lifting bans on animal cruelty. If I saw someone torturing a cat or dog I don't think that needs to be legal in order to be libertarian.
As I said, fox hunting is not cruel.
I don't agree.
But do you accept that if it is cruel then its reasonable for it to be banned?
Or do you think eg a pet owner should be able to torture their pet without the law getting involved? I don't and I don't think that's a liberal policy.
You are perfectly at liberty to think it's cruel. As are vegetarians to think firing a bolt into a cow's head is cruel. I think the issue here is not to want to impose your views on others.
Not the vegetarian on eating meat, not you on hunting.
That surely is the mark of a libertarian.
I don't know any libertarians that think its OK to torture cats and dogs and that all laws on animal cruelty should be abolished. There might be some, but again there's a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist.
Try hunting, and then come and tell us what's cruel about it.
Oh God, they've been activated.
Quite. I always found that Marion Stamp Dawkins's approach to animal cruelty was the best. She asked the animals what they thought! IIRC she demonstrated that a chicken would put up with a lot of discomfort (e.g. poorer bedding, colder conditions) rather than live in a battery cage.
Another approach is to see what their biochemistry says, such as the famouys study of Exmoor dog hunting of Red Deer by Bateson and Bradshaw, whose abstract is a masterpiece of scientific irony
"When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds."
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
blah blah blah.
You said an "economic crisis" justifies unprecedented spending. I am just pointing out to you that once you say a crisis of one sort or another justifies unprecedented spending then you can't complain if the crisis that is picked is not one you would spend an extra fiver on.
I was talking about countercyclical spending during a recession. If you were too incapable of reading comprehension to understand that I was talking about a recession then I apologise that my point wasn't explained in simple enough words for you to understand.
You decided to talk about countercyclical spending during a recession.
You started off by saying:
"There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis..."
To which I responded that if you are picking and choosing crises that it is ok to borrow for then you can't criticise other governments or views that agree with that principle (albeit you might not agree that their crisis needs money spending on it in the same way as "your" crisis does).
That in italics is not the sentence I wrote.
When someone uses the word "between" there's normally two or more options for it to be between so please quote the full sentence to see what 'economic crisis' was contrasted with. Feel free to snip the rest of the post but if you're going to quote a sentence including the word "difference between" then please include the full sentence to show what it is meant to be between.
If you do that it might aid your reading comprehension.
"There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. "
Is wot u wrote.
Actually it is an illogical statement. You have identified a crisis that is worth excess borrowing. You have therefore accepted that for certain crises (presumably the ones you think justify it) excess borrowing is ok. Whereas there are plenty of crises that are worth excess borrowing.
Only outside of "times of growth" according to that sentence.
Again, you are setting parameters. But the principle that excess spending in times of crisis is justified has been accepted by you.
Absolutely during recessions yes it has. It has for hundreds of years, even before Keynes but especially post-Keynes it has been accepted and I accept that too.
Do you also see how a Labour govt might use the argument that the Conservatives justified spending for "their" crises (Covid-19, recession, etc) so we are going to justify spending for "our" crises (child poverty, libraries, etc).
And because the Cons have already justified it for "their" crises it will be difficult to say "oh but that's not the right kind of crisis"?
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
blah blah blah.
You said an "economic crisis" justifies unprecedented spending. I am just pointing out to you that once you say a crisis of one sort or another justifies unprecedented spending then you can't complain if the crisis that is picked is not one you would spend an extra fiver on.
I was talking about countercyclical spending during a recession. If you were too incapable of reading comprehension to understand that I was talking about a recession then I apologise that my point wasn't explained in simple enough words for you to understand.
You decided to talk about countercyclical spending during a recession.
You started off by saying:
"There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis..."
To which I responded that if you are picking and choosing crises that it is ok to borrow for then you can't criticise other governments or views that agree with that principle (albeit you might not agree that their crisis needs money spending on it in the same way as "your" crisis does).
That in italics is not the sentence I wrote.
When someone uses the word "between" there's normally two or more options for it to be between so please quote the full sentence to see what 'economic crisis' was contrasted with. Feel free to snip the rest of the post but if you're going to quote a sentence including the word "difference between" then please include the full sentence to show what it is meant to be between.
If you do that it might aid your reading comprehension.
"There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. "
Is wot u wrote.
Actually it is an illogical statement. You have identified a crisis that is worth excess borrowing. You have therefore accepted that for certain crises (presumably the ones you think justify it) excess borrowing is ok. Whereas there are plenty of crises that are worth excess borrowing.
Only outside of "times of growth" according to that sentence.
Again, you are setting parameters. But the principle that excess spending in times of crisis is justified has been accepted by you.
Absolutely during recessions yes it has. It has for hundreds of years, even before Keynes but especially post-Keynes it has been accepted and I accept that too.
Do you also see how a Labour govt might use the argument that the Conservatives justified spending for "their" crises (Covid-19, recession, etc) so we are going to justify spending for "our" crises (child poverty, libraries, etc).
And because the Cons have already justified it for "their" crises it will be difficult to say "oh but that's not the right kind of crisis"?
If their crises are recessions then yes. If they intend to sort out the deficit after the recession then yes.
If they're using it as an excuse to write blank cheques during growth times then no.
Try hunting, and then come and tell us what's cruel about it.
Oh God, they've been activated.
Quite. I always found that Marion Stamp Dawkins's approach to animal cruelty was the best. She asked the animals what they thought! IIRC she demonstrated that a chicken would put up with a lot of discomfort (e.g. poorer bedding, colder conditions) rather than live in a battery cage.
Another approach is to see what their biochemistry says, such as the famouys study of Exmoor dog hunting of Red Deer by Bateson and Bradshaw, whose abstract is a masterpiece of scientific irony
"When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds."
Try hunting, and then come and tell us what's cruel about it.
Oh God, they've been activated.
Quite. I always found that Marion Stamp Dawkins's approach to animal cruelty was the best. She asked the animals what they thought! IIRC she demonstrated that a chicken would put up with a lot of discomfort (e.g. poorer bedding, colder conditions) rather than live in a battery cage.
Another approach is to see what their biochemistry says, such as the famouys study of Exmoor dog hunting of Red Deer by Bateson and Bradshaw, whose abstract is a masterpiece of scientific irony
"When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds."
On the same basis, when you see that a fox is running away rather than staying to play the game ...
Reynard the spoilsport. One wonders if the need, nay compulsion, for fox hunters to claim no cruelty to the fox betrays a certain defensiveness on the subject.
If Covid-19 was here in December then it would have killed a lot of people than a normal December given how busy the run up to Christmas is and a lot of us spend Christmas indoors with elderly relatives.
Do you think the right is about to split again? At a zenith in its power?
Unlikely. But I read the article as rumblings that there's a gap between what Professor Goodwin thought he was going to get from PM Johnson and what he's going to get. The clue lies in Boris's personality and history.
There are those who accuse Boris of being an instinctive liar. That's not totally fair. He's an incredible seductor. His key skill is the ability to size up his audience and tell them what they want to hear.
It's why he can attract the ladies. It's why he can bounce back from career disasters into new higher roles. It's why he can win elections.
So metropolitan liberals will have been told that Mayor of London Boris is the true Boris. One Nation Conservatives will have been told, with complete insincerity that the Department for International Development was completely safe. Professor Goodwin will have left meetings with a strong impression that Boris got the National Populist agenda and was going to deliver on it. Brexit will be somewhere on the scale of WTO to seamless co-operation, depending on the audience.
As a technique to get the lady, or the job, or the win, it's genius. It's a real talent. The trouble comes after that, when reality intrudes and you have to choose between having your cake and eating it.
And that's why he keeps losing the ladies, and the jobs, and virtually everyone who has had dealings with BoJo ends up regretting it. Whilst Boris as PM might be the exception, is there any reason to think it won't be?
No I don't think there is. You are absolutely correct on this.
The tories' problem is that they can replace Boris with a 'conservative' leader, but will that leader be able to win elections? its risky.
I think maybe they will try instead to turn Boris into a puppet.
Try hunting, and then come and tell us what's cruel about it.
Oh God, they've been activated.
Quite. I always found that Marion Stamp Dawkins's approach to animal cruelty was the best. She asked the animals what they thought! IIRC she demonstrated that a chicken would put up with a lot of discomfort (e.g. poorer bedding, colder conditions) rather than live in a battery cage.
Another approach is to see what their biochemistry says, such as the famouys study of Exmoor dog hunting of Red Deer by Bateson and Bradshaw, whose abstract is a masterpiece of scientific irony
"When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds."
Try hunting, and then come and tell us what's cruel about it.
Oh God, they've been activated.
Quite. I always found that Marion Stamp Dawkins's approach to animal cruelty was the best. She asked the animals what they thought! IIRC she demonstrated that a chicken would put up with a lot of discomfort (e.g. poorer bedding, colder conditions) rather than live in a battery cage.
Another approach is to see what their biochemistry says, such as the famouys study of Exmoor dog hunting of Red Deer by Bateson and Bradshaw, whose abstract is a masterpiece of scientific irony
"When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds."
You don't have to be vegan to think watching an animal being ripped to bits as the centrepiece of a social event is a prick's game.
You have to be a complete prick to pretend to think that is what happens out hunting because it confirms your petty snobberies.
This post has outdated attitudes, language and cultural depictions which may cause offence today.
Your shtick is that you're a man of the world, bin wiv the laydees, fought it out mano a mano in the meanest streets of Basra, and are here to tell us about it. Fair enough, but if you attach all that value to lived experience, I have been hunting a couple of thousand times. You haven't.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
blah blah blah.
You said an "economic crisis" justifies unprecedented spending. I am just pointing out to you that once you say a crisis of one sort or another justifies unprecedented spending then you can't complain if the crisis that is picked is not one you would spend an extra fiver on.
I was talking about countercyclical spending during a recession. If you were too incapable of reading comprehension to understand that I was talking about a recession then I apologise that my point wasn't explained in simple enough words for you to understand.
You decided to talk about countercyclical spending during a recession.
You started off by saying:
"There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis..."
To which I responded that if you are picking and choosing crises that it is ok to borrow for then you can't criticise other governments or views that agree with that principle (albeit you might not agree that their crisis needs money spending on it in the same way as "your" crisis does).
That in italics is not the sentence I wrote.
When someone uses the word "between" there's normally two or more options for it to be between so please quote the full sentence to see what 'economic crisis' was contrasted with. Feel free to snip the rest of the post but if you're going to quote a sentence including the word "difference between" then please include the full sentence to show what it is meant to be between.
If you do that it might aid your reading comprehension.
"There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. "
Is wot u wrote.
Actually it is an illogical statement. You have identified a crisis that is worth excess borrowing. You have therefore accepted that for certain crises (presumably the ones you think justify it) excess borrowing is ok. Whereas there are plenty of crises that are worth excess borrowing.
Only outside of "times of growth" according to that sentence.
Again, you are setting parameters. But the principle that excess spending in times of crisis is justified has been accepted by you.
Absolutely during recessions yes it has. It has for hundreds of years, even before Keynes but especially post-Keynes it has been accepted and I accept that too.
Do you also see how a Labour govt might use the argument that the Conservatives justified spending for "their" crises (Covid-19, recession, etc) so we are going to justify spending for "our" crises (child poverty, libraries, etc).
And because the Cons have already justified it for "their" crises it will be difficult to say "oh but that's not the right kind of crisis"?
If their crises are recessions then yes. If they intend to sort out the deficit after the recession then yes.
If they're using it as an excuse to write blank cheques during growth times then no.
The key word is "crisis". You won't get to define what they think are crises and you have given them a free pass to spend money on whatever crisis they think demands it.
I see there is now proof covid was in Italy from December. I wonder when it really got to the UK? Would we be shocked to find it was in London also months before the first case was recorded?
There is a proven case in France from December too, with no evidence of travel.
@foxy I am convinced that was what my wife had , she went into hospital 31st December after a week of flu like symptoms , dry cough etc, I also had same but mine did not get severe , some fluid in lungs but cleared after a month with antibiotics. Hers went crazy and doctors said they had no clue at time, hopefully they will do antibody tests when she gets CT scan as hospital reopens next month or so. Daughter had same symptoms she got from someone at work who had just returned from Venice. Seemingly they were revisiting recent patients who had pneumonia etc that they had not been able to diagnose.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
blah blah blah.
You said an "economic crisis" justifies unprecedented spending. I am just pointing out to you that once you say a crisis of one sort or another justifies unprecedented spending then you can't complain if the crisis that is picked is not one you would spend an extra fiver on.
I was talking about countercyclical spending during a recession. If you were too incapable of reading comprehension to understand that I was talking about a recession then I apologise that my point wasn't explained in simple enough words for you to understand.
Were you not talking about printing money so as to avoid borrowing money to pay for countercyclical spending?
There might be an easy definition for why that's a good idea now, but wasn't during WWII, and that would ensure it isn't the easy option for any future Chancellor - but I don't see that.
I fear that we will see its use increase until the country reaches what you might call a teachable moment. I only hope it's not too bad.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
And yet Labour "destroyed the public finances" by doing exactly what you are describing. Let's look at the OBR data. Global financial crisis: Borrowing before crisis (2007, % GDP): 2.9% Cyclically adjusted terms: 2.0% Debt before crisis (2007, % GDP): 34.2% Change in debt to GDP ratio 1997-2007: -1.5pp Borrowing at peak (2009): 10.2%. Coronavirus crisis: Borrowing before crisis (2019): 2.8% Cyclically adjusted terms: 1.6% Debt before crisis (2019, % GDP): 79.7% Change in debt to GDP ratio 2009-2019: +16.8pp Borrowing at peak (2020, OBR forecast): 15.2%. So prior to the global financial crisis, Labour had brought down the debt to GDP ratio over the previous ten years and was running a deficit to GDP ratio of about the same size as the one the current government was running going into the current crisis (having presided over a 17pp increase in the debt to GDP ratio over the previous ten years). I am not going to criticise the government for borrowing more, they are doing exactly the right thing. I merely note that Labour did the same thing in 08-09 and were crucified for it by Tories ever since. The level of intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
You're talking absolute nonsense!
Labour had inherited a balanced budget with the deficit coming down to surplus and then chose, for no good reason, to blow the budget out to a budget deficit during growth times. Labour created the deficit from 2002 onwards, that is what caused the problem.
The Tories inherited Labour's economic catastrophe and brought the deficit down.
To claim the Tories had increased the debt to GDP is absolute garbage and shows you to be totally ignorant. The Tories reduced the deficit every year, they didn't create it as Labour had previously. There was no alternative to debt going up unless the Tories had been far more austere ending the deficit overnight.
You keep calling it Labour's economic catastrophe, you're high on your own supply. There was a global financial crisis (the clue is in the word "global"). Could we have been keeping a closer eye on the banks? Sure, but I don't remember the Tories calling for tougher regulation at the time. And again, this was a global problem since banking rules are largely determined at the international level. Yes the deficit was coming down when Labour came in. Why? Because the Tories had mismanaged the economy in the late 1980s, created an unsustainable boom and the resulting recession had crashed the public finances. They were in the process of restoring some semblance of sanity after debt had risen to 37% of GDP by 1996. Labour continued that process so that by 2000 it was running a 1.4% of GDP surplus and debt had fallen to just 27% of GDP (creating concerns that there wouldn't be enough debt to satisfy demands by the financial system). With debt under control and with a dire need for investment in public services, Labour increased borrowing to 2.9% of GDP, which was the average level for the 1979-1996 period so was hardly profligate or dangerous unless you want to accuse Thatcher and Major of that too.
Labour created the deficit to 2.9 which was far too high and profligate and dangerous for that stage of the economic cycle.
That 2.9% was the average level for the 1979-1996 period is meaningless. You need to consider the stage of the economic cycle, during 1979-1996 the deficit generally went down during times of growth and up during recessions. As is sane and sensible.
When the UK went into recession during the 1979-1996 period it did so from a budget surplus allowing the deficit to go back up again and then start coming back down again.
Blowing the deficit up BEFORE the recession is what Labour did that was so catastrophic.
But they didn't blow up the deficit. If you look at the cyclically adjusted primary deficit (to control for cyclical effects), it declined by 1.3pp of GDP between 2004 and 2006. Yes, it widened by 0.8pp of GDP in 2007. But if you think that is blowing the deficit up what do you make of the 1.1pp widening of the deficit in 2019? Do you think the current government was blowing up the deficit before the Covid crisis by letting it increase like that? This may come as a surprise to you, but there is nothing wrong with running a deficit over the course of the cycle, in fact it's essential unless you want the debt to GDP ratio to decline to zero over time - which would be a disaster given the essential role public debt plays in the financial system. Yet when you look at the same cyclically adjusted data
Try hunting, and then come and tell us what's cruel about it.
Oh God, they've been activated.
Quite. I always found that Marion Stamp Dawkins's approach to animal cruelty was the best. She asked the animals what they thought! IIRC she demonstrated that a chicken would put up with a lot of discomfort (e.g. poorer bedding, colder conditions) rather than live in a battery cage.
Another approach is to see what their biochemistry says, such as the famouys study of Exmoor dog hunting of Red Deer by Bateson and Bradshaw, whose abstract is a masterpiece of scientific irony
"When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds."
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
blah blah blah.
You said an "economic crisis" justifies unprecedented spending. I am just pointing out to you that once you say a crisis of one sort or another justifies unprecedented spending then you can't complain if the crisis that is picked is not one you would spend an extra fiver on.
I was talking about countercyclical spending during a recession. If you were too incapable of reading comprehension to understand that I was talking about a recession then I apologise that my point wasn't explained in simple enough words for you to understand.
You decided to talk about countercyclical spending during a recession.
You started off by saying:
"There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis..."
To which I responded that if you are picking and choosing crises that it is ok to borrow for then you can't criticise other governments or views that agree with that principle (albeit you might not agree that their crisis needs money spending on it in the same way as "your" crisis does).
That in italics is not the sentence I wrote.
When someone uses the word "between" there's normally two or more options for it to be between so please quote the full sentence to see what 'economic crisis' was contrasted with. Feel free to snip the rest of the post but if you're going to quote a sentence including the word "difference between" then please include the full sentence to show what it is meant to be between.
If you do that it might aid your reading comprehension.
"There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. "
Is wot u wrote.
Actually it is an illogical statement. You have identified a crisis that is worth excess borrowing. You have therefore accepted that for certain crises (presumably the ones you think justify it) excess borrowing is ok. Whereas there are plenty of crises that are worth excess borrowing.
Only outside of "times of growth" according to that sentence.
Again, you are setting parameters. But the principle that excess spending in times of crisis is justified has been accepted by you.
Absolutely during recessions yes it has. It has for hundreds of years, even before Keynes but especially post-Keynes it has been accepted and I accept that too.
Do you also see how a Labour govt might use the argument that the Conservatives justified spending for "their" crises (Covid-19, recession, etc) so we are going to justify spending for "our" crises (child poverty, libraries, etc).
And because the Cons have already justified it for "their" crises it will be difficult to say "oh but that's not the right kind of crisis"?
If their crises are recessions then yes. If they intend to sort out the deficit after the recession then yes.
If they're using it as an excuse to write blank cheques during growth times then no.
The key word is "crisis". You won't get to define what they think are crises and you have given them a free pass to spend money on whatever crisis they think demands it.
No I haven't. The key word is "growth", during times of growth there is no justification in expanding the deficit.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
In a recession all progressives become Keynesians. During periods of growth, they stop being Keynesians.
I am not sure I would describe Philip as a progressive lol. Reactionary contrarian perhaps.
I'm not a progressive, I'm a libertarian.
I'm not who Malmesbury was referring to though, [I think] he was agreeing with me.
You proved yesterday you are not a libertarian or a liberal (small l). You said you are against countrysports (bloodsports as you call them). To be a true liberal, or even more so, a libertarian you need to oppose laws that restrict the rights of individuals even if you morally disapprove. To be a libertarian you would also need to be in favour of a massive relaxation of gun laws back to pre-1914 levels. So, sorry to disappoint you, you are neither. Reactionary contrarian fits you. Wear it with pride!
I think Nigel has skewered you on this one Philip TBF. I too would have expected you to be opposed to the state banning of country sports on libertarian grounds.
Sports that don't involve animal cruelty absolutely I'm opposed to banning. If you want to go hurling, or play polo or croquet or roll cheese down hills or whatever other country pursuits you may find interesting then I couldn't care less.
I do not approve of lifting bans on animal cruelty. If I saw someone torturing a cat or dog I don't think that needs to be legal in order to be libertarian.
As I said, fox hunting is not cruel.
I don't agree.
But do you accept that if it is cruel then its reasonable for it to be banned?
Or do you think eg a pet owner should be able to torture their pet without the law getting involved? I don't and I don't think that's a liberal policy.
You are perfectly at liberty to think it's cruel. As are vegetarians to think firing a bolt into a cow's head is cruel. I think the issue here is not to want to impose your views on others.
Not the vegetarian on eating meat, not you on hunting.
That surely is the mark of a libertarian.
I don't know any libertarians that think its OK to torture cats and dogs and that all laws on animal cruelty should be abolished. There might be some, but again there's a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist.
Why are you talking about cats and dogs. We were talking about hunting. Which was found to be not cruel. And yet you want to abolish it.
Oh of course _you_ think hunting is cruel but as a libertarian you should not want to abolish it just because you have a personal view on it. cf vegetarians.
I see there is now proof covid was in Italy from December. I wonder when it really got to the UK? Would we be shocked to find it was in London also months before the first case was recorded?
There is a proven case in France from December too, with no evidence of travel.
@foxy I am convinced that was what my wife had , she went into hospital 31st December after a week of flu like symptoms , dry cough etc, I also had same but mine did not get severe , some fluid in lungs but cleared after a month with antibiotics. Hers went crazy and doctors said they had no clue at time, hopefully they will do antibody tests when she gets CT scan as hospital reopens next month or so. Daughter had same symptoms she got from someone at work who had just returned from Venice. Seemingly they were revisiting recent patients who had pneumonia etc that they had not been able to diagnose.
It is possible, particularly with an Italian link (a lot of designer gear is made by Chinese illegals).
There are a lot of similar bugs though. I tested antibody negative, as have a number of colleagues who had similar viral symptoms. Antibody testing should give an answer one way or the other.
Try hunting, and then come and tell us what's cruel about it.
Oh God, they've been activated.
Quite. I always found that Marion Stamp Dawkins's approach to animal cruelty was the best. She asked the animals what they thought! IIRC she demonstrated that a chicken would put up with a lot of discomfort (e.g. poorer bedding, colder conditions) rather than live in a battery cage.
Another approach is to see what their biochemistry says, such as the famouys study of Exmoor dog hunting of Red Deer by Bateson and Bradshaw, whose abstract is a masterpiece of scientific irony
"When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds."
On the same basis, when you see that a fox is running away rather than staying to play the game ...
Reynard the spoilsport. One wonders if the need, nay compulsion, for fox hunters to claim no cruelty to the fox betrays a certain defensiveness on the subject.
Nah. I could discuss this all day. After an exhaustive enquiry hunting was found to be not cruel.
Hence your or my view on whether it is cruel is unimportant.
Trump is on the wrong side of Twitter again, this time for posting a fake CNN video and then denouncing fake news. The way he uses the word "fake" suggests more than a personality disorder.
Imagine what he might say if his Tulsa rally spreads SARS-Cov2 and kills people. "Fakes!" "Crisis actors!"
We seem to be eliminating various methods of (usual) spread.
Fleeting passing outdoors - Not particularly likely Sitting with your mates outdoors - Seems to be mainly OK Moving around indoors (Shopping) whilst trying to maintain a 2 metre distance - You'd be unlucky Mass gathering outdoors - Doesn't look to have taken R over 1.
Which really only leaves larger gatherings indoors. By elimination they pretty much MUST be superspreader events !
Hospitals no.1, I`d suggest
Difficult to eliminate hospitals though.
I don't know. Of course it depends where you start from. In my wife's hospital (in NRW), there has been only one known case of transmission within the hospital - a nurse who got it from a patient without symptoms who came in for something else. They were pretty well organised - made everyone in the hospital wear at least a surgical mask early on, started testing everyone coming into the hospital for any reason early on, separated the Covid cases, suspected Covid cases, and probably not Covid cases early on with separate entrances etc. Had enough PPE, regular testing of staff with no symptoms. It helps that the test results come back reasonable quickly - same day or next day.
Now they have zero Covid patients in the hospital - but very busy with the non-Covid patients again.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
In a recession all progressives become Keynesians. During periods of growth, they stop being Keynesians.
I am not sure I would describe Philip as a progressive lol. Reactionary contrarian perhaps.
I'm not a progressive, I'm a libertarian.
I'm not who Malmesbury was referring to though, [I think] he was agreeing with me.
You proved yesterday you are not a libertarian or a liberal (small l). You said you are against countrysports (bloodsports as you call them). To be a true liberal, or even more so, a libertarian you need to oppose laws that restrict the rights of individuals even if you morally disapprove. To be a libertarian you would also need to be in favour of a massive relaxation of gun laws back to pre-1914 levels. So, sorry to disappoint you, you are neither. Reactionary contrarian fits you. Wear it with pride!
I think Nigel has skewered you on this one Philip TBF. I too would have expected you to be opposed to the state banning of country sports on libertarian grounds.
Sports that don't involve animal cruelty absolutely I'm opposed to banning. If you want to go hurling, or play polo or croquet or roll cheese down hills or whatever other country pursuits you may find interesting then I couldn't care less.
I do not approve of lifting bans on animal cruelty. If I saw someone torturing a cat or dog I don't think that needs to be legal in order to be libertarian.
As I said, fox hunting is not cruel.
I don't agree.
But do you accept that if it is cruel then its reasonable for it to be banned?
Or do you think eg a pet owner should be able to torture their pet without the law getting involved? I don't and I don't think that's a liberal policy.
You are perfectly at liberty to think it's cruel. As are vegetarians to think firing a bolt into a cow's head is cruel. I think the issue here is not to want to impose your views on others.
Not the vegetarian on eating meat, not you on hunting.
That surely is the mark of a libertarian.
I don't know any libertarians that think its OK to torture cats and dogs and that all laws on animal cruelty should be abolished. There might be some, but again there's a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist.
Why are you talking about cats and dogs. We were talking about hunting. Which was found to be not cruel. And yet you want to abolish it.
Oh of course _you_ think hunting is cruel but as a libertarian you should not want to abolish it just because you have a personal view on it. cf vegetarians.
If hunt supporters are reduced to appealing to libertarian consistency, then they really are in desperate straits...
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
And yet Labour "destroyed the public finances" by doing exactly what you are describing. Let's look at the OBR data. Global financial crisis: Borrowing before crisis (2007, % GDP): 2.9% Cyclically adjusted terms: 2.0% Debt before crisis (2007, % GDP): 34.2% Change in debt to GDP ratio 1997-2007: -1.5pp Borrowing at peak (2009): 10.2%. Coronavirus crisis: Borrowing before crisis (2019): 2.8% Cyclically adjusted terms: 1.6% Debt before crisis (2019, % GDP): 79.7% Change in debt to GDP ratio 2009-2019: +16.8pp Borrowing at peak (2020, OBR forecast): 15.2%. So prior to the global financial crisis, Labour had brought down the debt to GDP ratio over the previous ten years and was running a deficit to GDP ratio of about the same size as the one the current government was running going into the current crisis (having presided over a 17pp increase in the debt to GDP ratio over the previous ten years). I am not going to criticise the government for borrowing more, they are doing exactly the right thing. I merely note that Labour did the same thing in 08-09 and were crucified for it by Tories ever since. The level of intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
You're talking absolute nonsense!
Labour had inherited a balanced budget with the deficit coming down to surplus and then chose, for no good reason, to blow the budget out to a budget deficit during growth times. Labour created the deficit from 2002 onwards, that is what caused the problem.
The Tories inherited Labour's economic catastrophe and brought the deficit down.
To claim the Tories had increased the debt to GDP is absolute garbage and shows you to be totally ignorant. The Tories reduced the deficit every year, they didn't create it as Labour had previously. There was no alternative to debt going up unless the Tories had been far more austere ending the deficit overnight.
You keep calling it Labour's economic catastrophe, you're high on your own supply. There was a global financial crisis (the clue is in the word "global"). Could we have been keeping a closer eye on the banks? Sure, but I don't remember the Tories calling for tougher regulation at the time. And again, this was a global problem since banking rules are largely determined at the international level. Yes the deficit was coming down when Labour came in. Why? Because the Tories had mismanaged the economy in the late 1980s, created an unsustainable boom and the resulting recession had crashed the public finances. They were in the process of restoring some semblance of sanity after debt had risen to 37% of GDP by 1996. Labour continued that process so that by 2000 it was running a 1.4% of GDP surplus and debt had fallen to just 27% of GDP (creating concerns that there wouldn't be enough debt to satisfy demands by the financial system). With debt under control and with a dire need for investment in public services, Labour increased borrowing to 2.9% of GDP, which was the average level for the 1979-1996 period so was hardly profligate or dangerous unless you want to accuse Thatcher and Major of that too.
Labour created the deficit to 2.9 which was far too high and profligate and dangerous for that stage of the economic cycle.
That 2.9% was the average level for the 1979-1996 period is meaningless. You need to consider the stage of the economic cycle, during 1979-1996 the deficit generally went down during times of growth and up during recessions. As is sane and sensible.
When the UK went into recession during the 1979-1996 period it did so from a budget surplus allowing the deficit to go back up again and then start coming back down again.
Blowing the deficit up BEFORE the recession is what Labour did that was so catastrophic.
But they didn't blow up the deficit. If you look at the cyclically adjusted primary deficit (to control for cyclical effects), it declined by 1.3pp of GDP between 2004 and 2006. Yes, it widened by 0.8pp of GDP in 2007. But if you think that is blowing the deficit up what do you make of the 1.1pp widening of the deficit in 2019? Do you think the current government was blowing up the deficit before the Covid crisis by letting it increase like that? This may come as a surprise to you, but there is nothing wrong with running a deficit over the course of the cycle, in fact it's essential unless you want the debt to GDP ratio to decline to zero over time - which would be a disaster given the essential role public debt plays in the financial system. Yet when you look at the same cyclically adjusted data
What's your citation please for those cyclically adjusted figures?
The UK deficit was blown up BEFORE the recession, which was inexcusable economic mismanagement by Labour.
Yes running a deficit over the course of the cycle is reasonable. However 2002-2007 was pre-recession not post-recession. That was the time to be paying down the debt not blowing it up which left us completely exposed when the recession inevitably came.
Thankfully 2010-2019 the Tories didn't make that mistake and reduced the deficit.
You don't have to be vegan to think watching an animal being ripped to bits as the centrepiece of a social event is a prick's game.
There's no moral distinction between a pack of wolves hunting prey in the Yukon, and hounds doing the same with foxes in the English countryside too (as, indeed, do the foxes).
I think the objection revolves around the fact that humans enjoy it.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
In a recession all progressives become Keynesians. During periods of growth, they stop being Keynesians.
I am not sure I would describe Philip as a progressive lol. Reactionary contrarian perhaps.
I'm not a progressive, I'm a libertarian.
I'm not who Malmesbury was referring to though, [I think] he was agreeing with me.
You proved yesterday you are not a libertarian or a liberal (small l). You said you are against countrysports (bloodsports as you call them). To be a true liberal, or even more so, a libertarian you need to oppose laws that restrict the rights of individuals even if you morally disapprove. To be a libertarian you would also need to be in favour of a massive relaxation of gun laws back to pre-1914 levels. So, sorry to disappoint you, you are neither. Reactionary contrarian fits you. Wear it with pride!
I think Nigel has skewered you on this one Philip TBF. I too would have expected you to be opposed to the state banning of country sports on libertarian grounds.
Sports that don't involve animal cruelty absolutely I'm opposed to banning. If you want to go hurling, or play polo or croquet or roll cheese down hills or whatever other country pursuits you may find interesting then I couldn't care less.
I do not approve of lifting bans on animal cruelty. If I saw someone torturing a cat or dog I don't think that needs to be legal in order to be libertarian.
As I said, fox hunting is not cruel.
I don't agree.
But do you accept that if it is cruel then its reasonable for it to be banned?
Or do you think eg a pet owner should be able to torture their pet without the law getting involved? I don't and I don't think that's a liberal policy.
You are perfectly at liberty to think it's cruel. As are vegetarians to think firing a bolt into a cow's head is cruel. I think the issue here is not to want to impose your views on others.
Not the vegetarian on eating meat, not you on hunting.
That surely is the mark of a libertarian.
I don't know any libertarians that think its OK to torture cats and dogs and that all laws on animal cruelty should be abolished. There might be some, but again there's a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist.
Why are you talking about cats and dogs. We were talking about hunting. Which was found to be not cruel. And yet you want to abolish it.
Oh of course _you_ think hunting is cruel but as a libertarian you should not want to abolish it just because you have a personal view on it. cf vegetarians.
Hunting was not found to be not cruel. You claimed it was not cruel.
I'm talking about cats and dogs because if you wish to make a libertarian argument that cruelty to animals is OK then why draw the line at cruelty to foxes? Why not cruelty to cats and dogs?
Either you believe banning cruelty to animals is OK or you don't as a point of principle. I do. Fox hunting is no different philosophically to torturing cats and dogs then for me. I lose no sleep over it being illegal.
Do you think the right is about to split again? At a zenith in its power?
Unlikely. But I read the article as rumblings that there's a gap between what Professor Goodwin thought he was going to get from PM Johnson and what he's going to get. The clue lies in Boris's personality and history.
There are those who accuse Boris of being an instinctive liar. That's not totally fair. He's an incredible seductor. His key skill is the ability to size up his audience and tell them what they want to hear.
It's why he can attract the ladies. It's why he can bounce back from career disasters into new higher roles. It's why he can win elections.
So metropolitan liberals will have been told that Mayor of London Boris is the true Boris. One Nation Conservatives will have been told, with complete insincerity that the Department for International Development was completely safe. Professor Goodwin will have left meetings with a strong impression that Boris got the National Populist agenda and was going to deliver on it. Brexit will be somewhere on the scale of WTO to seamless co-operation, depending on the audience.
As a technique to get the lady, or the job, or the win, it's genius. It's a real talent. The trouble comes after that, when reality intrudes and you have to choose between having your cake and eating it.
And that's why he keeps losing the ladies, and the jobs, and virtually everyone who has had dealings with BoJo ends up regretting it. Whilst Boris as PM might be the exception, is there any reason to think it won't be?
Your shtick is that you're a man of the world, bin wiv the laydees, fought it out mano a mano in the meanest streets of Basra, and are here to tell us about it. Fair enough, but if you attach all that value to lived experience, I have been hunting a couple of thousand times. You haven't.
I've never rimmed Elton John but I am pretty sure I wouldn't be into it.
Try hunting, and then come and tell us what's cruel about it.
Oh God, they've been activated.
Quite. I always found that Marion Stamp Dawkins's approach to animal cruelty was the best. She asked the animals what they thought! IIRC she demonstrated that a chicken would put up with a lot of discomfort (e.g. poorer bedding, colder conditions) rather than live in a battery cage.
Another approach is to see what their biochemistry says, such as the famouys study of Exmoor dog hunting of Red Deer by Bateson and Bradshaw, whose abstract is a masterpiece of scientific irony
"When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds."
You don't have to be vegan to think watching an animal being ripped to bits as the centrepiece of a social event is a prick's game.
There's no moral distinction between a pack of wolves hunting prey in the Yukon, and hounds doing the same with foxes in the English countryside too (as, indeed, do the foxes).
I think the objection revolves around the fact that humans enjoy it.
Indeed if wild hounds did that then that would be nature in action.
If hunt supporters are reduced to appealing to libertarian consistency, then they really are in desperate straits...
I'm appealing to Philip's inner logician which seems to have gone walkies both about spending and hunting.
No it hasn't, I'm being consistent.
Deficit spending during a recession is something I've always accepted. I never objected to Brown borrowing in 2007/08. It was his increasing the deficit from 2002 to 2007 that I have always objected to.
Former rugby league and union favourite Martin Offiah has welcomed the Rugby Football Union's decision to review the use of the song Swing Low, Sweet Chariot - but does not want it banned.
Try hunting, and then come and tell us what's cruel about it.
Oh God, they've been activated.
Quite. I always found that Marion Stamp Dawkins's approach to animal cruelty was the best. She asked the animals what they thought! IIRC she demonstrated that a chicken would put up with a lot of discomfort (e.g. poorer bedding, colder conditions) rather than live in a battery cage.
Another approach is to see what their biochemistry says, such as the famouys study of Exmoor dog hunting of Red Deer by Bateson and Bradshaw, whose abstract is a masterpiece of scientific irony
"When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds."
On the same basis, when you see that a fox is running away rather than staying to play the game ...
Reynard the spoilsport. One wonders if the need, nay compulsion, for fox hunters to claim no cruelty to the fox betrays a certain defensiveness on the subject.
Nah. I could discuss this all day. After an exhaustive enquiry hunting was found to be not cruel.
Hence your or my view on whether it is cruel is unimportant.
'After an exhaustive enquiry hunting was found to be not cruel.
I'm so relaxed about this that I'm going to discuss it all day.
Fox hunting isn't cruel. Fox hunting isn't cruel. Fox hunting isn't cruel. Fox hunting isn't cruel. Fox hunting isn't cruel. Fox hunting isn't cruel. Fox hunting isn't cruel. Fox hunting isn't cruel. (cont.)'
You don't have to be vegan to think watching an animal being ripped to bits as the centrepiece of a social event is a prick's game.
There's no moral distinction between a pack of wolves hunting prey in the Yukon, and hounds doing the same with foxes in the English countryside too (as, indeed, do the foxes).
I think the objection revolves around the fact that humans enjoy it.
Indeed if wild hounds did that then that would be nature in action.
I'm not aware that the original wild species which gave rise to Canis familiaris are native to NW Europe. The hounds themselves, never mind the packs and the deliberately created landscape of e.g. Leicestershire, are highly unnatural.
Hunting was not found to be not cruel. You claimed it was not cruel.
I'm talking about cats and dogs because if you wish to make a libertarian argument that cruelty to animals is OK then why draw the line at cruelty to foxes? Why not cruelty to cats and dogs?
Either you believe banning cruelty to animals is OK or you don't as a point of principle. I do. Fox hunting is no different philosophically to torturing cats and dogs then for me. I lose no sleep over it being illegal.
If hunt supporters are reduced to appealing to libertarian consistency, then they really are in desperate straits...
I'm appealing to Philip's inner logician which seems to have gone walkies both about spending and hunting.
No it hasn't, I'm being consistent.
Deficit spending during a recession is something I've always accepted. I never objected to Brown borrowing in 2007/08. It was his increasing the deficit from 2002 to 2007 that I have always objected to.
Exactly. There was no need for deficits to be increasing, at a time of record economic growth and tax revenues. There was always going to be a recession at the end of it, despite someone claiming to have abolished the economic cycle - and we are still recovering from the legacy of that prolificacy, nearly two decades on.
Your shtick is that you're a man of the world, bin wiv the laydees, fought it out mano a mano in the meanest streets of Basra, and are here to tell us about it. Fair enough, but if you attach all that value to lived experience, I have been hunting a couple of thousand times. You haven't.
I've never rimmed Elton John but I am pretty sure I wouldn't be into it.
Your shtick is that you're a man of the world, bin wiv the laydees, fought it out mano a mano in the meanest streets of Basra, and are here to tell us about it. Fair enough, but if you attach all that value to lived experience, I have been hunting a couple of thousand times. You haven't.
I've never rimmed Elton John but I am pretty sure I wouldn't be into it.
Do you think the right is about to split again? At a zenith in its power?
Unlikely. But I read the article as rumblings that there's a gap between what Professor Goodwin thought he was going to get from PM Johnson and what he's going to get. The clue lies in Boris's personality and history.
There are those who accuse Boris of being an instinctive liar. That's not totally fair. He's an incredible seductor. His key skill is the ability to size up his audience and tell them what they want to hear.
It's why he can attract the ladies. It's why he can bounce back from career disasters into new higher roles. It's why he can win elections.
So metropolitan liberals will have been told that Mayor of London Boris is the true Boris. One Nation Conservatives will have been told, with complete insincerity that the Department for International Development was completely safe. Professor Goodwin will have left meetings with a strong impression that Boris got the National Populist agenda and was going to deliver on it. Brexit will be somewhere on the scale of WTO to seamless co-operation, depending on the audience.
As a technique to get the lady, or the job, or the win, it's genius. It's a real talent. The trouble comes after that, when reality intrudes and you have to choose between having your cake and eating it.
And that's why he keeps losing the ladies, and the jobs, and virtually everyone who has had dealings with BoJo ends up regretting it. Whilst Boris as PM might be the exception, is there any reason to think it won't be?
No I don't think there is. You are absolutely correct on this.
The tories' problem is that they can replace Boris with a 'conservative' leader, but will that leader be able to win elections? its risky.
I think maybe they will try instead to turn Boris into a puppet.
You're probably right.
It's the Zaphod Beebleborox solution; find someone who enjoys Being The Leader so much that he doesn't notice that someone else is actually exercising all the power. There are a couple of potential problems.
One is the one the Goodwin article is about- if the point of Boris is basically to be a puppet, who gets to insert their hand in... well, wherever the hand needs to be inserted. There can only be one, and it's back to the Unherd Nationalist Populist / Spectator Jetsetting Global Liberal divide again.
The other is that even a puppet leader needs a degree in internal plausibility. To quote from Yes, Prime Minister:
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the world stage.
Sir Richard Wharton : People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober, and say the lines they're given in the right order."
At the moment, he doesn't look much like an actor, does he?
Do you think the right is about to split again? At a zenith in its power?
Unlikely. But I read the article as rumblings that there's a gap between what Professor Goodwin thought he was going to get from PM Johnson and what he's going to get. The clue lies in Boris's personality and history.
There are those who accuse Boris of being an instinctive liar. That's not totally fair. He's an incredible seductor. His key skill is the ability to size up his audience and tell them what they want to hear.
It's why he can attract the ladies. It's why he can bounce back from career disasters into new higher roles. It's why he can win elections.
So metropolitan liberals will have been told that Mayor of London Boris is the true Boris. One Nation Conservatives will have been told, with complete insincerity that the Department for International Development was completely safe. Professor Goodwin will have left meetings with a strong impression that Boris got the National Populist agenda and was going to deliver on it. Brexit will be somewhere on the scale of WTO to seamless co-operation, depending on the audience.
As a technique to get the lady, or the job, or the win, it's genius. It's a real talent. The trouble comes after that, when reality intrudes and you have to choose between having your cake and eating it.
And that's why he keeps losing the ladies, and the jobs, and virtually everyone who has had dealings with BoJo ends up regretting it. Whilst Boris as PM might be the exception, is there any reason to think it won't be?
You don't have to be vegan to think watching an animal being ripped to bits as the centrepiece of a social event is a prick's game.
There's no moral distinction between a pack of wolves hunting prey in the Yukon, and hounds doing the same with foxes in the English countryside too (as, indeed, do the foxes).
I think the objection revolves around the fact that humans enjoy it.
In general, I don't consider hunting with dogs to be cruel. One can use dogs to kill rabbits but not mink or foxes, which is pretty odd.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
And yet Labour "destroyed the public finances" by doing exactly what you are describing. Let's look at the OBR data. Global financial crisis: Borrowing before crisis (2007, % GDP): 2.9% Cyclically adjusted terms: 2.0% Debt before crisis (2007, % GDP): 34.2% Change in debt to GDP ratio 1997-2007: -1.5pp Borrowing at peak (2009): 10.2%. Coronavirus crisis: Borrowing before crisis (2019): 2.8% Cyclically adjusted terms: 1.6% Debt before crisis (2019, % GDP): 79.7% Change in debt to GDP ratio 2009-2019: +16.8pp Borrowing at peak (2020, OBR forecast): 15.2%. So prior to the global financial crisis, Labour had brought down the debt to GDP ratio over the previous ten years and was running a deficit to GDP ratio of about the same size as the one the current government was running going into the current crisis (having presided over a 17pp increase in the debt to GDP ratio over the previous ten years). I am not going to criticise the government for borrowing more, they are doing exactly the right thing. I merely note that Labour did the same thing in 08-09 and were crucified for it by Tories ever since. The level of intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
You're talking absolute nonsense!
Labour had inherited a balanced budget with the deficit coming down to surplus and then chose, for no good reason, to blow the budget out to a budget deficit during growth times. Labour created the deficit from 2002 onwards, that is what caused the problem.
The Tories inherited Labour's economic catastrophe and brought the deficit down.
To claim the Tories had increased the debt to GDP is absolute garbage and shows you to be totally ignorant. The Tories reduced the deficit every year, they didn't create it as Labour had previously. There was no alternative to debt going up unless the Tories had been far more austere ending the deficit overnight.
You keep calling it Labour's economic catastrophe, you're high on your own supply. There was a global financial crisis (the clue is in the word "global"). Could we have been keeping a closer eye on the banks? Sure, but I don't remember the Tories calling for tougher regulation at the time. And again, this was a global problem since banking rules are largely determined at the international level. Yes the deficit was coming down when Labour came in. Why? Because the Tories had mismanaged the economy in the late 1980s, created an unsustainable boom and the resulting recession had crashed the public finances. They were in the process of restoring some semblance of sanity after debt had risen to 37% of GDP by 1996. Labour continued that process so that by 2000 it was running a 1.4% of GDP surplus and debt had fallen to just 27% of GDP (creating concerns that there wouldn't be enough debt to satisfy demands by the financial system). With debt under control and with a dire need for investment in public services, Labour increased borrowing to 2.9% of GDP, which was the average level for the 1979-1996 period so was hardly profligate or dangerous unless you want to accuse Thatcher and Major of that too.
Labour created the deficit to 2.9 which was far too high and profligate and dangerous for that stage of the economic cycle.
That 2.9% was the average level for the 1979-1996 period is meaningless. You need to consider the stage of the economic cycle, during 1979-1996 the deficit generally went down during times of growth and up during recessions. As is sane and sensible.
When the UK went into recession during the 1979-1996 period it did so from a budget surplus allowing the deficit to go back up again and then start coming back down again.
Blowing the deficit up BEFORE the recession is what Labour did that was so catastrophic.
But they didn't blow up the deficit. If you look at the cyclically adjusted primary deficit (to control for cyclical effects), it declined by 1.3pp of GDP between 2004 and 2006. Yes, it widened by 0.8pp of GDP in 2007. But if you think that is blowing the deficit up what do you make of the 1.1pp widening of the deficit in 2019? Do you think the current government was blowing up the deficit before the Covid crisis by letting it increase like that? This may come as a surprise to you, but there is nothing wrong with running a deficit over the course of the cycle, in fact it's essential unless you want the debt to GDP ratio to decline to zero over time - which would be a disaster given the essential role public debt plays in the financial system. Yet when you look at the same cyclically adjusted data
What's your citation please for those cyclically adjusted figures?
The UK deficit was blown up BEFORE the recession, which was inexcusable economic mismanagement by Labour.
Yes running a deficit over the course of the cycle is reasonable. However 2002-2007 was pre-recession not post-recession. That was the time to be paying down the debt not blowing it up which left us completely exposed when the recession inevitably came.
Thankfully 2010-2019 the Tories didn't make that mistake and reduced the deficit.
The cyclically adjusted primary deficit data are from the OBR, you will find them on their website. The point is that Labour had already paid down the debt prior to 2001, to the point where it was less than 27% of GDP. (If it had gone down much more, the financial system would have run out of sterling safe assets - in fact the shortage of safe assets globally was one of the reasons for the explosion of financial engineering that helped to cause the GFC). It subsequently increased to 34% of GDP by 2007, which was still lower than the level it had inherited in 1997. And most of that increase occurred during 2001-04. I'm afraid the data don't really support your script. I know that Labour has lost the popular narrative on this. But I would expect better informed discussion on this forum.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
In a recession all progressives become Keynesians. During periods of growth, they stop being Keynesians.
I am not sure I would describe Philip as a progressive lol. Reactionary contrarian perhaps.
I'm not a progressive, I'm a libertarian.
I'm not who Malmesbury was referring to though, [I think] he was agreeing with me.
You proved yesterday you are not a libertarian or a liberal (small l). You said you are against countrysports (bloodsports as you call them). To be a true liberal, or even more so, a libertarian you need to oppose laws that restrict the rights of individuals even if you morally disapprove. To be a libertarian you would also need to be in favour of a massive relaxation of gun laws back to pre-1914 levels. So, sorry to disappoint you, you are neither. Reactionary contrarian fits you. Wear it with pride!
I think Nigel has skewered you on this one Philip TBF. I too would have expected you to be opposed to the state banning of country sports on libertarian grounds.
Sports that don't involve animal cruelty absolutely I'm opposed to banning. If you want to go hurling, or play polo or croquet or roll cheese down hills or whatever other country pursuits you may find interesting then I couldn't care less.
I do not approve of lifting bans on animal cruelty. If I saw someone torturing a cat or dog I don't think that needs to be legal in order to be libertarian.
As I said, fox hunting is not cruel.
I don't agree.
But do you accept that if it is cruel then its reasonable for it to be banned?
Or do you think eg a pet owner should be able to torture their pet without the law getting involved? I don't and I don't think that's a liberal policy.
You are perfectly at liberty to think it's cruel. As are vegetarians to think firing a bolt into a cow's head is cruel. I think the issue here is not to want to impose your views on others.
Not the vegetarian on eating meat, not you on hunting.
That surely is the mark of a libertarian.
I don't know any libertarians that think its OK to torture cats and dogs and that all laws on animal cruelty should be abolished. There might be some, but again there's a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist.
Why are you talking about cats and dogs. We were talking about hunting. Which was found to be not cruel. And yet you want to abolish it.
Oh of course _you_ think hunting is cruel but as a libertarian you should not want to abolish it just because you have a personal view on it. cf vegetarians.
If hunt supporters are reduced to appealing to libertarian consistency, then they really are in desperate straits...
Absolutely not, it has always been the backbone of the argument. I wanna do it, nobody stops me; you don't wanna do it, nobody makes you.
Your shtick is that you're a man of the world, bin wiv the laydees, fought it out mano a mano in the meanest streets of Basra, and are here to tell us about it. Fair enough, but if you attach all that value to lived experience, I have been hunting a couple of thousand times. You haven't.
I've never rimmed Elton John but I am pretty sure I wouldn't be into it.
That's not the question, the question is whether you should fetter Mr Furnish's right to do so. The answer is no.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
In a recession all progressives become Keynesians. During periods of growth, they stop being Keynesians.
I am not sure I would describe Philip as a progressive lol. Reactionary contrarian perhaps.
I'm not a progressive, I'm a libertarian.
I'm not who Malmesbury was referring to though, [I think] he was agreeing with me.
You proved yesterday you are not a libertarian or a liberal (small l). You said you are against countrysports (bloodsports as you call them). To be a true liberal, or even more so, a libertarian you need to oppose laws that restrict the rights of individuals even if you morally disapprove. To be a libertarian you would also need to be in favour of a massive relaxation of gun laws back to pre-1914 levels. So, sorry to disappoint you, you are neither. Reactionary contrarian fits you. Wear it with pride!
I think Nigel has skewered you on this one Philip TBF. I too would have expected you to be opposed to the state banning of country sports on libertarian grounds.
Sports that don't involve animal cruelty absolutely I'm opposed to banning. If you want to go hurling, or play polo or croquet or roll cheese down hills or whatever other country pursuits you may find interesting then I couldn't care less.
I do not approve of lifting bans on animal cruelty. If I saw someone torturing a cat or dog I don't think that needs to be legal in order to be libertarian.
As I said, fox hunting is not cruel.
I don't agree.
But do you accept that if it is cruel then its reasonable for it to be banned?
Or do you think eg a pet owner should be able to torture their pet without the law getting involved? I don't and I don't think that's a liberal policy.
You are perfectly at liberty to think it's cruel. As are vegetarians to think firing a bolt into a cow's head is cruel. I think the issue here is not to want to impose your views on others.
Not the vegetarian on eating meat, not you on hunting.
That surely is the mark of a libertarian.
I don't know any libertarians that think its OK to torture cats and dogs and that all laws on animal cruelty should be abolished. There might be some, but again there's a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist.
Why are you talking about cats and dogs. We were talking about hunting. Which was found to be not cruel. And yet you want to abolish it.
Oh of course _you_ think hunting is cruel but as a libertarian you should not want to abolish it just because you have a personal view on it. cf vegetarians.
If hunt supporters are reduced to appealing to libertarian consistency, then they really are in desperate straits...
Absolutely not, it has always been the backbone of the argument. I wanna do it, nobody stops me; you don't wanna do it, nobody makes you.
Can the fox give it bollocks too, if he doesn't fancy it?
If hunt supporters are reduced to appealing to libertarian consistency, then they really are in desperate straits...
I'm appealing to Philip's inner logician which seems to have gone walkies both about spending and hunting.
No it hasn't, I'm being consistent.
Deficit spending during a recession is something I've always accepted. I never objected to Brown borrowing in 2007/08. It was his increasing the deficit from 2002 to 2007 that I have always objected to.
Same here - Labour overspent I know we agree about this.
My point is that right now the Cons are spending a large amount and justifying it because we are in crisis times. Actually you did say economic crisis but I bet if we ask any member of cabinet they would name it the Covid-19 crisis.
So we have a crisis here that the government thinks justifies excess spending.
My relatively simple point is that people can't complain if the next government says "here is a crisis in XXX and we have to spend excessively on it."
From 2000 to 2009 the deficit widened annually on that metric.
From 2012 to 2019 on the other hand the deficit narrowed annually on that metric.
Labour's mismanagement of the economy was inexcusable.
2009 was the year of the GFC so that's like blaming the Tories for the current blow out in the deficit, which you are supporting and I agree with you. It's just cheap politics to blame government's when they do the right thing like run a massive deficit in response to a big exogenous negative shock.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
And yet Labour "destroyed the public finances" by doing exactly what you are describing. Let's look at the OBR data. Global financial crisis: Borrowing before crisis (2007, % GDP): 2.9% Cyclically adjusted terms: 2.0% Debt before crisis (2007, % GDP): 34.2% Change in debt to GDP ratio 1997-2007: -1.5pp Borrowing at peak (2009): 10.2%. Coronavirus crisis: Borrowing before crisis (2019): 2.8% Cyclically adjusted terms: 1.6% Debt before crisis (2019, % GDP): 79.7% Change in debt to GDP ratio 2009-2019: +16.8pp Borrowing at peak (2020, OBR forecast): 15.2%. So prior to the global financial crisis, Labour had brought down the debt to GDP ratio over the previous ten years and was running a deficit to GDP ratio of about the same size as the one the current government was running going into the current crisis (having presided over a 17pp increase in the debt to GDP ratio over the previous ten years). I am not going to criticise the government for borrowing more, they are doing exactly the right thing. I merely note that Labour did the same thing in 08-09 and were crucified for it by Tories ever since. The level of intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
You're talking absolute nonsense!
Labour had inherited a balanced budget with the deficit coming down to surplus and then chose, for no good reason, to blow the budget out to a budget deficit during growth times. Labour created the deficit from 2002 onwards, that is what caused the problem.
The Tories inherited Labour's economic catastrophe and brought the deficit down.
To claim the Tories had increased the debt to GDP is absolute garbage and shows you to be totally ignorant. The Tories reduced the deficit every year, they didn't create it as Labour had previously. There was no alternative to debt going up unless the Tories had been far more austere ending the deficit overnight.
You keep calling it Labour's economic catastrophe, you're high on your own supply. There was a global financial crisis (the clue is in the word "global"). Could we have been keeping a closer eye on the banks? Sure, but I don't remember the Tories calling for tougher regulation at the time. And again, this was a global problem since banking rules are largely determined at the international level. Yes the deficit was coming down when Labour came in. Why? Because the Tories had mismanaged the economy in the late 1980s, created an unsustainable boom and the resulting recession had crashed the public finances. They were in the process of restoring some semblance of sanity after debt had risen to 37% of GDP by 1996. Labour continued that process so that by 2000 it was running a 1.4% of GDP surplus and debt had fallen to just 27% of GDP (creating concerns that there wouldn't be enough debt to satisfy demands by the financial system). With debt under control and with a dire need for investment in public services, Labour increased borrowing to 2.9% of GDP, which was the average level for the 1979-1996 period so was hardly profligate or dangerous unless you want to accuse Thatcher and Major of that too.
Labour created the deficit to 2.9 which was far too high and profligate and dangerous for that stage of the economic cycle.
That 2.9% was the average level for the 1979-1996 period is meaningless. You need to consider the stage of the economic cycle, during 1979-1996 the deficit generally went down during times of growth and up during recessions. As is sane and sensible.
When the UK went into recession during the 1979-1996 period it did so from a budget surplus allowing the deficit to go back up again and then start coming back down again.
Blowing the deficit up BEFORE the recession is what Labour did that was so catastrophic.
But they didn't blow up the deficit. If you look at the cyclically adjusted primary deficit (to control for cyclical effects), it declined by 1.3pp of GDP between 2004 and 2006. Yes, it widened by 0.8pp of GDP in 2007. But if you think that is blowing the deficit up what do you make of the 1.1pp widening of the deficit in 2019? Do you think the current government was blowing up the deficit before the Covid crisis by letting it increase like that? This may come as a surprise to you, but there is nothing wrong with running a deficit over the course of the cycle, in fact it's essential unless you want the debt to GDP ratio to decline to zero over time - which would be a disaster given the essential role public debt plays in the financial system. Yet when you look at the same cyclically adjusted data
What's your citation please for those cyclically adjusted figures?
The UK deficit was blown up BEFORE the recession, which was inexcusable economic mismanagement by Labour.
Yes running a deficit over the course of the cycle is reasonable. However 2002-2007 was pre-recession not post-recession. That was the time to be paying down the debt not blowing it up which left us completely exposed when the recession inevitably came.
Thankfully 2010-2019 the Tories didn't make that mistake and reduced the deficit.
The cyclically adjusted primary deficit data are from the OBR, you will find them on their website. The point is that Labour had already paid down the debt prior to 2001, to the point where it was less than 27% of GDP. (If it had gone down much more, the financial system would have run out of sterling safe assets - in fact the shortage of safe assets globally was one of the reasons for the explosion of financial engineering that helped to cause the GFC). It subsequently increased to 34% of GDP by 2007, which was still lower than the level it had inherited in 1997. And most of that increase occurred during 2001-04. I'm afraid the data don't really support your script. I know that Labour has lost the popular narrative on this. But I would expect better informed discussion on this forum.
You are confusing deficit and debt. You need to learn the difference between the two. That helps explain why you seem to erroneously believe the Tories are responsible for the debt going up during their tenure.
Blowing up the deficit before 2007 was grossly irresponsible and the UK has paid the price for that.
Your shtick is that you're a man of the world, bin wiv the laydees, fought it out mano a mano in the meanest streets of Basra, and are here to tell us about it. Fair enough, but if you attach all that value to lived experience, I have been hunting a couple of thousand times. You haven't.
I've never rimmed Elton John but I am pretty sure I wouldn't be into it.
That's not the question, the question is whether you should fetter Mr Furnish's right to do so. The answer is no.
I don't mind what you do to a fox as long as you get its consent first.
From 2000 to 2009 the deficit widened annually on that metric.
From 2012 to 2019 on the other hand the deficit narrowed annually on that metric.
Labour's mismanagement of the economy was inexcusable.
2009 was the year of the GFC so that's like blaming the Tories for the current blow out in the deficit, which you are supporting and I agree with you. It's just cheap politics to blame government's when they do the right thing like run a massive deficit in response to a big exogenous negative shock.
The GFC was 2007-08 and the deficit was already being blown up before then was my point. Every single year before then, hence the utterly irresponsible 2.9% overspend in before the crisis hit.
Deficit spending during the recession was defendable. There was no excuse to increase the deficit before then.
Trump is on the wrong side of Twitter again, this time for posting a fake CNN video and then denouncing fake news. The way he uses the word "fake" suggests more than a personality disorder.
Imagine what he might say if his Tulsa rally spreads SARS-Cov2 and kills people. "Fakes!" "Crisis actors!"
We seem to be eliminating various methods of (usual) spread.
Fleeting passing outdoors - Not particularly likely Sitting with your mates outdoors - Seems to be mainly OK Moving around indoors (Shopping) whilst trying to maintain a 2 metre distance - You'd be unlucky Mass gathering outdoors - Doesn't look to have taken R over 1.
Which really only leaves larger gatherings indoors. By elimination they pretty much MUST be superspreader events !
Hospitals no.1, I`d suggest
Difficult to eliminate hospitals though.
I don't know. Of course it depends where you start from. In my wife's hospital (in NRW), there has been only one known case of transmission within the hospital - a nurse who got it from a patient without symptoms who came in for something else. They were pretty well organised - made everyone in the hospital wear at least a surgical mask early on, started testing everyone coming into the hospital for any reason early on, separated the Covid cases, suspected Covid cases, and probably not Covid cases early on with separate entrances etc. Had enough PPE, regular testing of staff with no symptoms. It helps that the test results come back reasonable quickly - same day or next day.
Now they have zero Covid patients in the hospital - but very busy with the non-Covid patients again.
In the UK about 10% of swab confirmed Covid-19 infections are hospital acquired. That would be something like 30 000 infections.
But do you accept that if it is cruel then its reasonable for it to be banned?
Or do you think eg a pet owner should be able to torture their pet without the law getting involved? I don't and I don't think that's a liberal policy.
It's the balance between the right of people to enjoy whatever pleases them against the right of the fox not to be torn to pieces by hounds. Tending to the liberal I would award it (just) to the hunters. I might agree with Oscar Wilde that these are the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable. Other people's unspeakability is none of my business.
If hunt supporters are reduced to appealing to libertarian consistency, then they really are in desperate straits...
I'm appealing to Philip's inner logician which seems to have gone walkies both about spending and hunting.
No it hasn't, I'm being consistent.
Deficit spending during a recession is something I've always accepted. I never objected to Brown borrowing in 2007/08. It was his increasing the deficit from 2002 to 2007 that I have always objected to.
Same here - Labour overspent I know we agree about this.
My point is that right now the Cons are spending a large amount and justifying it because we are in crisis times. Actually you did say economic crisis but I bet if we ask any member of cabinet they would name it the Covid-19 crisis.
So we have a crisis here that the government thinks justifies excess spending.
My relatively simple point is that people can't complain if the next government says "here is a crisis in XXX and we have to spend excessively on it."
Its a free country. I can and will complain about any government blowing up the deficit during times of economic growth. It is irresponsible whoever does it.
If they wish to complain about the Tories responding to COVID19 they're free to do so if they want.
Your shtick is that you're a man of the world, bin wiv the laydees, fought it out mano a mano in the meanest streets of Basra, and are here to tell us about it. Fair enough, but if you attach all that value to lived experience, I have been hunting a couple of thousand times. You haven't.
I've never rimmed Elton John but I am pretty sure I wouldn't be into it.
That's not the question, the question is whether you should fetter Mr Furnish's right to do so. The answer is no.
I don't mind what you do to a fox as long as you get its consent first.
I believe that in certain hunting cultures prayers and thanks are given to the prey in return for its life. I might soften my attitude to the feudal reenactment cosplayers if they bend a knee to the fox before setting off.
The cyclically adjusted primary deficit data are from the OBR, you will find them on their website. The point is that Labour had already paid down the debt prior to 2001, to the point where it was less than 27% of GDP. (If it had gone down much more, the financial system would have run out of sterling safe assets - in fact the shortage of safe assets globally was one of the reasons for the explosion of financial engineering that helped to cause the GFC). It subsequently increased to 34% of GDP by 2007, which was still lower than the level it had inherited in 1997. And most of that increase occurred during 2001-04. I'm afraid the data don't really support your script. I know that Labour has lost the popular narrative on this. But I would expect better informed discussion on this forum.
I have friends who are senior, high profile Labour economists (perhaps you are one of the latter, if not the former although maybe...).
They agree that Labour spent too much at a time of unprecedented receipts from eg the housing market, the City, and consumption taxes (because everyone was feeling rich because the value of their houses was going up). Lab introduced several measures around mortgages and inflation which exacerbated this.
There was a kernel of truth in the charge of non-roof fixing. And it was accepted by very bright Lab types although of course once the narrative had established itself, there was no way they could argue anything other than they hadn't overspent.
Do you think the right is about to split again? At a zenith in its power?
Unlikely. But I read the article as rumblings that there's a gap between what Professor Goodwin thought he was going to get from PM Johnson and what he's going to get. The clue lies in Boris's personality and history.
There are those who accuse Boris of being an instinctive liar. That's not totally fair. He's an incredible seductor. His key skill is the ability to size up his audience and tell them what they want to hear.
It's why he can attract the ladies. It's why he can bounce back from career disasters into new higher roles. It's why he can win elections.
So metropolitan liberals will have been told that Mayor of London Boris is the true Boris. One Nation Conservatives will have been told, with complete insincerity that the Department for International Development was completely safe. Professor Goodwin will have left meetings with a strong impression that Boris got the National Populist agenda and was going to deliver on it. Brexit will be somewhere on the scale of WTO to seamless co-operation, depending on the audience.
As a technique to get the lady, or the job, or the win, it's genius. It's a real talent. The trouble comes after that, when reality intrudes and you have to choose between having your cake and eating it.
And that's why he keeps losing the ladies, and the jobs, and virtually everyone who has had dealings with BoJo ends up regretting it. Whilst Boris as PM might be the exception, is there any reason to think it won't be?
Brilliant post.
I only agree up to a point.
Let's re-assess Boris's life next to this post. He will be married for a third time this year. In the last 33 years he will have spent a matter of weeks as an unmarried man. His last marriage lasted 27 years, despite his having had children by another woman during it, and numerous known affairs.
In his career, he was sacked for lying in the first weeks of his journalistic career and since then has had a steady relationship in various roles with a single newspaper group for over 30 years. He retained that relationship despite at one point promising to not go into politics, then to renege on it and did both at the same time.
In politics, his moves have been all within the party, he has had a constant political career for around 20 years.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
In a recession all progressives become Keynesians. During periods of growth, they stop being Keynesians.
I am not sure I would describe Philip as a progressive lol. Reactionary contrarian perhaps.
I'm not a progressive, I'm a libertarian.
I'm not who Malmesbury was referring to though, [I think] he was agreeing with me.
You proved yesterday you are not a libertarian or a liberal (small l). You said you are against countrysports (bloodsports as you call them). To be a true liberal, or even more so, a libertarian you need to oppose laws that restrict the rights of individuals even if you morally disapprove. To be a libertarian you would also need to be in favour of a massive relaxation of gun laws back to pre-1914 levels. So, sorry to disappoint you, you are neither. Reactionary contrarian fits you. Wear it with pride!
I think Nigel has skewered you on this one Philip TBF. I too would have expected you to be opposed to the state banning of country sports on libertarian grounds.
Sports that don't involve animal cruelty absolutely I'm opposed to banning. If you want to go hurling, or play polo or croquet or roll cheese down hills or whatever other country pursuits you may find interesting then I couldn't care less.
I do not approve of lifting bans on animal cruelty. If I saw someone torturing a cat or dog I don't think that needs to be legal in order to be libertarian.
As I said, fox hunting is not cruel.
I don't agree.
But do you accept that if it is cruel then its reasonable for it to be banned?
Or do you think eg a pet owner should be able to torture their pet without the law getting involved? I don't and I don't think that's a liberal policy.
You are perfectly at liberty to think it's cruel. As are vegetarians to think firing a bolt into a cow's head is cruel. I think the issue here is not to want to impose your views on others.
Not the vegetarian on eating meat, not you on hunting.
That surely is the mark of a libertarian.
I don't know any libertarians that think its OK to torture cats and dogs and that all laws on animal cruelty should be abolished. There might be some, but again there's a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist.
Why are you talking about cats and dogs. We were talking about hunting. Which was found to be not cruel. And yet you want to abolish it.
Oh of course _you_ think hunting is cruel but as a libertarian you should not want to abolish it just because you have a personal view on it. cf vegetarians.
If hunt supporters are reduced to appealing to libertarian consistency, then they really are in desperate straits...
Absolutely not, it has always been the backbone of the argument. I wanna do it, nobody stops me; you don't wanna do it, nobody makes you.
Can the fox give it bollocks too, if he doesn't fancy it?
I don't think vermin in general are allowed the choice in these matters.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
And yet Labour "destroyed the public finances" by doing exactly what you are describing. Let's look at the OBR data. Global financial crisis: Borrowing before crisis (2007, % GDP): 2.9% Cyclically adjusted terms: 2.0% Debt before crisis (2007, % GDP): 34.2% Change in debt to GDP ratio 1997-2007: -1.5pp Borrowing at peak (2009): 10.2%. Coronavirus crisis: Borrowing before crisis (2019): 2.8% Cyclically adjusted terms: 1.6% Debt before crisis (2019, % GDP): 79.7% Change in debt to GDP ratio 2009-2019: +16.8pp Borrowing at peak (2020, OBR forecast): 15.2%. So prior to the global financial crisis, Labour had brought down the debt to GDP ratio over the previous ten years and was running a deficit to GDP ratio of about the same size as the one the current government was running going into the current crisis (having presided over a 17pp increase in the debt to GDP ratio over the previous ten years). I am not going to criticise the government for borrowing more, they are doing exactly the right thing. I merely note that Labour did the same thing in 08-09 and were crucified for it by Tories ever since. The level of intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
You're talking absolute nonsense!
Labour had inherited a balanced budget with the deficit coming down to surplus and then chose, for no good reason, to blow the budget out to a budget deficit during growth times. Labour created the deficit from 2002 onwards, that is what caused the problem.
The Tories inherited Labour's economic catastrophe and brought the deficit down.
To claim the Tories had increased the debt to GDP is absolute garbage and shows you to be totally ignorant. The Tories reduced the deficit every year, they didn't create it as Labour had previously. There was no alternative to debt going up unless the Tories had been far more austere ending the deficit overnight.
You keep calling it Labour's economic catastrophe, you're high on your own supply. There was a global financial crisis (the clue is in the word "global"). Could we have been keeping a closer eye on the banks? Sure, but I don't remember the Tories calling for tougher regulation at the time. And again, this was a global problem since banking rules are largely determined at the international level. Yes the deficit was coming down when Labour came in. Why? Because the Tories had mismanaged the economy in the late 1980s, created an unsustainable boom and the resulting recession had crashed the public finances. They were in the process of restoring some semblance of sanity after debt had risen to 37% of GDP by 1996. Labour continued that process so that by 2000 it was running a 1.4% of GDP surplus and debt had fallen to just 27% of GDP (creating concerns that there wouldn't be enough debt to satisfy demands by the financial system). With debt under control and with a dire need for investment in public services, Labour increased borrowing to 2.9% of GDP, which was the average level for the 1979-1996 period so was hardly profligate or dangerous unless you want to accuse Thatcher and Major of that too.
Labour created the deficit to 2.9 which was far too high and profligate and dangerous for that stage of the economic cycle.
That 2.9% was the average level for the 1979-1996 period is meaningless. You need to consider the stage of the economic cycle, during 1979-1996 the deficit generally went down during times of growth and up during recessions. As is sane and sensible.
When the UK went into recession during the 1979-1996 period it did so from a budget surplus allowing the deficit to go back up again and then start coming back down again.
Blowing the deficit up BEFORE the recession is what Labour did that was so catastrophic.
But they didn't blow up the deficit. If you look at the cyclically adjusted primary deficit (to control for cyclical effects), it declined by 1.3pp of GDP between 2004 and 2006. Yes, it widened by 0.8pp of GDP in 2007. But if you think that is blowing the deficit up what do you make of the 1.1pp widening of the deficit in 2019? Do you think the current government was blowing up the deficit before the Covid crisis by letting it increase like that? This may come as a surprise to you, but there is nothing wrong with running a deficit over the course of the cycle, in fact it's essential unless you want the debt to GDP ratio to decline to zero over time - which would be a disaster given the essential role public debt plays in the financial system. Yet when you look at the same cyclically adjusted data
What's your citation please for those cyclically adjusted figures?
The UK deficit was blown up BEFORE the recession, which was inexcusable economic mismanagement by Labour.
Yes running a deficit over the course of the cycle is reasonable. However 2002-2007 was pre-recession not post-recession. That was the time to be paying down the debt not blowing it up which left us completely exposed when the recession inevitably came.
Thankfully 2010-2019 the Tories didn't make that mistake and reduced the deficit.
The cyclically adjusted primary deficit data are from the OBR, you will find them on their website. The point is that Labour had already paid down the debt prior to 2001, to the point where it was less than 27% of GDP. (If it had gone down much more, the financial system would have run out of sterling safe assets - in fact the shortage of safe assets globally was one of the reasons for the explosion of financial engineering that helped to cause the GFC). It subsequently increased to 34% of GDP by 2007, which was still lower than the level it had inherited in 1997. And most of that increase occurred during 2001-04. I'm afraid the data don't really support your script. I know that Labour has lost the popular narrative on this. But I would expect better informed discussion on this forum.
You are confusing deficit and debt. You need to learn the difference between the two. That helps explain why you seem to erroneously believe the Tories are responsible for the debt going up during their tenure.
Blowing up the deficit before 2007 was grossly irresponsible and the UK has paid the price for that.
Ha ha, thanks for the economics lesson. I think if you read my posts you will see clearly that I understand the distinction pretty well, perhaps unsurprisingly as I am a macroeconomist. You keep saying Labour blew up the deficit before 2007, despite the fact that I have shown you that it was not increasing rapidly in 2007 and was at levels considered perfectly safe (so much so that the current government was running a deficit of the same size last year), while the level of debt in 2007 was smaller as a % of GDP than in 1997 when Labour came into power.
Do you think the right is about to split again? At a zenith in its power?
Unlikely. But I read the article as rumblings that there's a gap between what Professor Goodwin thought he was going to get from PM Johnson and what he's going to get. The clue lies in Boris's personality and history.
There are those who accuse Boris of being an instinctive liar. That's not totally fair. He's an incredible seductor. His key skill is the ability to size up his audience and tell them what they want to hear.
It's why he can attract the ladies. It's why he can bounce back from career disasters into new higher roles. It's why he can win elections.
So metropolitan liberals will have been told that Mayor of London Boris is the true Boris. One Nation Conservatives will have been told, with complete insincerity that the Department for International Development was completely safe. Professor Goodwin will have left meetings with a strong impression that Boris got the National Populist agenda and was going to deliver on it. Brexit will be somewhere on the scale of WTO to seamless co-operation, depending on the audience.
As a technique to get the lady, or the job, or the win, it's genius. It's a real talent. The trouble comes after that, when reality intrudes and you have to choose between having your cake and eating it.
And that's why he keeps losing the ladies, and the jobs, and virtually everyone who has had dealings with BoJo ends up regretting it. Whilst Boris as PM might be the exception, is there any reason to think it won't be?
Brilliant post.
I only agree up to a point.
Let's re-assess Boris's life next to this post. He will be married for a third time this year. In the last 33 years he will have spent a matter of weeks as an unmarried man. His last marriage lasted 27 years, despite his having had children by another woman during it, and numerous known affairs.
In his career, he was sacked for lying in the first weeks of his journalistic career and since then has had a steady relationship in various roles with a single newspaper group for over 30 years. He retained that relationship despite at one point promising to not go into politics, then to renege on it and did both at the same time.
In politics, his moves have been all within the party, he has had a constant political career for around 20 years.
To continue, much as Boris has been unfaithful in various aspects of his life, his CV is not of someone who cuts and runs after having been unfaithful. Rather he clings on and waits for the tide to turn.
I thing his ability to play one thing off against the other is seriously underestimated at the moment, I don't see someone likely to just walk away from being PM.
Hunting was not found to be not cruel. You claimed it was not cruel.
I'm talking about cats and dogs because if you wish to make a libertarian argument that cruelty to animals is OK then why draw the line at cruelty to foxes? Why not cruelty to cats and dogs?
Either you believe banning cruelty to animals is OK or you don't as a point of principle. I do. Fox hunting is no different philosophically to torturing cats and dogs then for me. I lose no sleep over it being illegal.
Well, technically you're both right. It was not found to be cruel, or not cruel. The conclusion was that the data could not support definite conclusions, although Burns gave it as his view that it 'seriously compromises' the welfare of the quarry.
Ha ha, thanks for the economics lesson. I think if you read my posts you will see clearly that I understand the distinction pretty well, perhaps unsurprisingly as I am a macroeconomist. You keep saying Labour blew up the deficit before 2007, despite the fact that I have shown you that it was not increasing rapidly in 2007 and was at levels considered perfectly safe (so much so that the current government was running a deficit of the same size last year), while the level of debt in 2007 was smaller as a % of GDP than in 1997 when Labour came into power.
You're a macroeconomist? That explains everything.
Hunting was not found to be not cruel. You claimed it was not cruel.
I'm talking about cats and dogs because if you wish to make a libertarian argument that cruelty to animals is OK then why draw the line at cruelty to foxes? Why not cruelty to cats and dogs?
Either you believe banning cruelty to animals is OK or you don't as a point of principle. I do. Fox hunting is no different philosophically to torturing cats and dogs then for me. I lose no sleep over it being illegal.
Well, technically you're both right. It was not found to be cruel, or not cruel. The conclusion was that the data could not support definite conclusions, although Burns gave it as his view that it 'seriously compromises' the welfare of the quarry.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession has been accepted for centuries.
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
And yet Labour "destroyed the public finances" by doing exactly what you are describing. Let's look at the OBR data. Global financial crisis: Borrowing before crisis (2007, % GDP): 2.9% Cyclically adjusted terms: 2.0% Debt before crisis (2007, % GDP): 34.2% Change in debt to GDP ratio 1997-2007: -1.5pp Borrowing at peak (2009): 10.2%. Coronavirus crisis: Borrowing before crisis (2019): 2.8% Cyclically adjusted terms: 1.6% Debt before crisis (2019, % GDP): 79.7% Change in debt to GDP ratio 2009-2019: +16.8pp Borrowing at peak (2020, OBR forecast): 15.2%. So prior to the global financial crisis, Labour had brought down the debt to GDP ratio over the previous ten years and was running a deficit to GDP ratio of about the same size as the one the current government was running going into the current crisis (having presided over a 17pp increase in the debt to GDP ratio over the previous ten years). I am not going to criticise the government for borrowing more, they are doing exactly the right thing. I merely note that Labour did the same thing in 08-09 and were crucified for it by Tories ever since. The level of intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
You're talking absolute nonsense!
Labour had inherited a balanced budget with the deficit coming down to surplus and then chose, for no good reason, to blow the budget out to a budget deficit during growth times. Labour created the deficit from 2002 onwards, that is what caused the problem.
The Tories inherited Labour's economic catastrophe and brought the deficit down.
To claim the Tories had increased the debt to GDP is absolute garbage and shows you to be totally ignorant. The Tories reduced the deficit every year, they didn't create it as Labour had previously. There was no alternative to debt going up unless the Tories had been far more austere ending the deficit overnight.
You keep calling it Labour's economic catastrophe, you're high on your own supply. There was a global financial crisis (the clue is in the word "global"). Could we have been keeping a closer eye on the banks? Sure, but I don't remember the Tories calling for tougher regulation at the time. And again, this was a global problem since banking rules are largely determined at the international level. Yes the deficit was coming down when Labour came in. Why? Because the Tories had mismanaged the economy in the late 1980s, created an unsustainable boom and the resulting recession had crashed the public finances. They were in the process of restoring some semblance of sanity after debt had risen to 37% of GDP by 1996. Labour continued that process so that by 2000 it was running a 1.4% of GDP surplus and debt had fallen to just 27% of GDP (creating concerns that there wouldn't be enough debt to satisfy demands by the financial system). With debt under control and with a dire need for investment in public services, Labour increased borrowing to 2.9% of GDP, which was the average level for the 1979-1996 period so was hardly profligate or dangerous unless you want to accuse Thatcher and Major of that too.
Labour created the deficit to 2.9 which was far too high and profligate and dangerous for that stage of the economic cycle.
That 2.9% was the average level for the 1979-1996 period is meaningless. You need to consider the stage of the economic cycle, during 1979-1996 the deficit generally went down during times of growth and up during recessions. As is sane and sensible.
When the UK went into recession during the 1979-1996 period it did so from a budget surplus allowing the deficit to go back up again and then start coming back down again.
Blowing the deficit up BEFORE the recession is what Labour did that was so catastrophic.
But they didn't blow up the deficit. If you look at the cyclically adjusted primary deficit (to control for cyclical effects), it declined by 1.3pp of GDP between 2004 and 2006. Yes, it widened by 0.8pp of GDP in 2007. But if you think that is blowing the deficit up what do you make of the 1.1pp widening of the deficit in 2019? Do you think the current government was blowing up the deficit before the Covid crisis by letting it increase like that? This may come as a surprise to you, but there is nothing wrong with running a deficit over the course of the cycle, in fact it's essential unless you want the debt to GDP ratio to decline to zero over time - which would be a disaster given the essential role public debt plays in the financial system. Yet when you look at the same cyclically adjusted data
What's your citation please for those cyclically adjusted figures?
The UK deficit was blown up BEFORE the recession, which was inexcusable economic mismanagement by Labour.
Yes running a deficit over the course of the cycle is reasonable. However 2002-2007 was pre-recession not post-recession. That was the time to be paying down the debt not blowing it up which left us completely exposed when the recession inevitably came.
Thankfully 2010-2019 the Tories didn't make that mistake and reduced the deficit.
The cyclically adjusted primary deficit data are from the OBR, you will find them on their website. The point is that Labour had already paid down the debt prior to 2001, to the point where it was less than 27% of GDP. (If it had gone down much more, the financial system would have run out of sterling safe assets - in fact the shortage of safe assets globally was one of the reasons for the explosion of financial engineering that helped to cause the GFC). It subsequently increased to 34% of GDP by 2007, which was still lower than the level it had inherited in 1997. And most of that increase occurred during 2001-04. I'm afraid the data don't really support your script. I know that Labour has lost the popular narrative on this. But I would expect better informed discussion on this forum.
You are confusing deficit and debt. You need to learn the difference between the two. That helps explain why you seem to erroneously believe the Tories are responsible for the debt going up during their tenure.
Blowing up the deficit before 2007 was grossly irresponsible and the UK has paid the price for that.
Ha ha, thanks for the economics lesson. I think if you read my posts you will see clearly that I understand the distinction pretty well, perhaps unsurprisingly as I am a macroeconomist. You keep saying Labour blew up the deficit before 2007, despite the fact that I have shown you that it was not increasing rapidly in 2007 and was at levels considered perfectly safe (so much so that the current government was running a deficit of the same size last year), while the level of debt in 2007 was smaller as a % of GDP than in 1997 when Labour came into power.
Do you think the right is about to split again? At a zenith in its power?
Unlikely. But I read the article as rumblings that there's a gap between what Professor Goodwin thought he was going to get from PM Johnson and what he's going to get. The clue lies in Boris's personality and history.
There are those who accuse Boris of being an instinctive liar. That's not totally fair. He's an incredible seductor. His key skill is the ability to size up his audience and tell them what they want to hear.
It's why he can attract the ladies. It's why he can bounce back from career disasters into new higher roles. It's why he can win elections.
So metropolitan liberals will have been told that Mayor of London Boris is the true Boris. One Nation Conservatives will have been told, with complete insincerity that the Department for International Development was completely safe. Professor Goodwin will have left meetings with a strong impression that Boris got the National Populist agenda and was going to deliver on it. Brexit will be somewhere on the scale of WTO to seamless co-operation, depending on the audience.
As a technique to get the lady, or the job, or the win, it's genius. It's a real talent. The trouble comes after that, when reality intrudes and you have to choose between having your cake and eating it.
And that's why he keeps losing the ladies, and the jobs, and virtually everyone who has had dealings with BoJo ends up regretting it. Whilst Boris as PM might be the exception, is there any reason to think it won't be?
Interesting. Are those identifying as Jewish perhaps more likely to actually attend religious gatherings (apparently quite a risky practice) than those identifying as Christian? My wife and parents would all answer Christian rather than no religion if asked, but none of them attend church outside weddings, baptisms and funerals.
Do you think the right is about to split again? At a zenith in its power?
Unlikely. But I read the article as rumblings that there's a gap between what Professor Goodwin thought he was going to get from PM Johnson and what he's going to get. The clue lies in Boris's personality and history.
There are those who accuse Boris of being an instinctive liar. That's not totally fair. He's an incredible seductor. His key skill is the ability to size up his audience and tell them what they want to hear.
It's why he can attract the ladies. It's why he can bounce back from career disasters into new higher roles. It's why he can win elections.
So metropolitan liberals will have been told that Mayor of London Boris is the true Boris. One Nation Conservatives will have been told, with complete insincerity that the Department for International Development was completely safe. Professor Goodwin will have left meetings with a strong impression that Boris got the National Populist agenda and was going to deliver on it. Brexit will be somewhere on the scale of WTO to seamless co-operation, depending on the audience.
As a technique to get the lady, or the job, or the win, it's genius. It's a real talent. The trouble comes after that, when reality intrudes and you have to choose between having your cake and eating it.
And that's why he keeps losing the ladies, and the jobs, and virtually everyone who has had dealings with BoJo ends up regretting it. Whilst Boris as PM might be the exception, is there any reason to think it won't be?
Brilliant post.
I only agree up to a point.
Let's re-assess Boris's life next to this post. He will be married for a third time this year. In the last 33 years he will have spent a matter of weeks as an unmarried man. His last marriage lasted 27 years, despite his having had children by another woman during it, and numerous known affairs.
In his career, he was sacked for lying in the first weeks of his journalistic career and since then has had a steady relationship in various roles with a single newspaper group for over 30 years. He retained that relationship despite at one point promising to not go into politics, then to renege on it and did both at the same time.
In politics, his moves have been all within the party, he has had a constant political career for around 20 years.
To continue, much as Boris has been unfaithful in various aspects of his life, his CV is not of someone who cuts and runs after having been unfaithful. Rather he clings on and waits for the tide to turn.
I thing his ability to play one thing off against the other is seriously underestimated at the moment, I don't see someone likely to just walk away from being PM.
Sorry, editing problems, having to multipost here.
His way of being in life has led him to believe, possibly justifiable in cakeism. His quote on Trump - there'll be all sorts of chaos, all sorts of breakdowns - is a description of the MO his own chaotic life has made necessary.
He has three further long term relationships to deal with in his role as PM - party, public and EU, all of them hot/cold relationships that he has maintained for large portions of his adult life. How long before any of those bodies make a break with him. History suggests he is an able stringer, so probably a while.
Adam Boulton on Sky very grumpy that the threat level has gone down from 4 to 3
Do these journalists really want the economy to collapse, or is it more their hatred of Brexit and some perverse hope that the worse things get the better for their obession with the EU
Contrary view on Donald Trump: his son does have a point. He has delivered, or at least visibly tried to deliver, on almost all aspects of his manifesto.
There were lots of people before he was elected who said he didn't really mean some of the wackier stuff, and would be a typical republican businessman in office.
Turns out he did. That won't have gone unnoticed by his base, and it's why I think there is a solid floor to his support.
Oh and @OnlyLivingBoy keeps referring to the UK running a similar deficit last year without noting of course that was from a very different starting point. The deficit worsened for years under Brown before the recession, the deficit improved for years under the Tories before the recession.
Labour pre-recession: UK cyclically adjusted primary deficit 2002: -0.50% UK cyclically adjusted primary deficit 2007: -3.54%
Tories pre-recession: UK cyclically adjusted primary deficit 2012: -3.87% UK cyclically adjusted primary deficit 2019: -0.63%
I support one of these and not the other for good reason!
Adam Boulton on Sky very grumpy that the threat level has gone down from 4 to 3
Do these journalists really want the economy to collaps, or is it more their hatred of Brexit and some perverse hope that the worse things get the better for their obession with the EU
Fat Head is grumpy day in day out, it is a well known symptom of Brexit Derangement Syndrome.
Contrary view on Donald Trump: his son does have a point. He has delivered, or at least visibly tried to deliver, on almost all aspects of his manifesto.
There were lots of people before he was elected who said he didn't really mean some of the wackier stuff, and would be a typical republican businessman in office.
Turns out he did. That won't have gone unnoticed by his base, and it's why I think there is a solid floor to his support.
The key is the floaters.
That's why he's loved by his base, but I think there is a not insignificant element who voted for him in 2016 hoping that he would be a typical republican businessman in office.
Those are voters who normally wouldn't be floaters but are now in play.
Comments
Not the vegetarian on eating meat, not you on hunting.
That surely is the mark of a libertarian.
In good news from Milan though:
https://twitter.com/DrMCecconi/status/1273676620281323529?s=09
We would have seen a lot of spikes then.
The new advert for British Summer Tourism is out:
https://youtu.be/I-59CDeIBhA
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53094134
Another approach is to see what their biochemistry says, such as the famouys study of Exmoor dog hunting of Red Deer by Bateson and Bradshaw, whose abstract is a masterpiece of scientific irony
"When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1688740/pdf/9447728.pdf
On the same basis, when you see that a fox is running away rather than staying to play the game ...
But then we are also seeing an interesting pattern in the US. Massive protests, California new cases peaking, Florida the same, Orgeon / Washington state up as well.....NYC nothing.
It really is like if 20% of your population get this, you have a level of community immunity.
Not that ive ever been stag hunting.
And because the Cons have already justified it for "their" crises it will be difficult to say "oh but that's not the right kind of crisis"?
If they're using it as an excuse to write blank cheques during growth times then no.
The gold standard ONS would have picked that up.
The tories' problem is that they can replace Boris with a 'conservative' leader, but will that leader be able to win elections? its risky.
I think maybe they will try instead to turn Boris into a puppet.
Daughter had same symptoms she got from someone at work who had just returned from Venice. Seemingly they were revisiting recent patients who had pneumonia etc that they had not been able to diagnose.
There might be an easy definition for why that's a good idea now, but wasn't during WWII, and that would ensure it isn't the easy option for any future Chancellor - but I don't see that.
I fear that we will see its use increase until the country reaches what you might call a teachable moment. I only hope it's not too bad.
This may come as a surprise to you, but there is nothing wrong with running a deficit over the course of the cycle, in fact it's essential unless you want the debt to GDP ratio to decline to zero over time - which would be a disaster given the essential role public debt plays in the financial system.
Yet when you look at the same cyclically adjusted data
Oh of course _you_ think hunting is cruel but as a libertarian you should not want to abolish it just because you have a personal view on it. cf vegetarians.
There are a lot of similar bugs though. I tested antibody negative, as have a number of colleagues who had similar viral symptoms. Antibody testing should give an answer one way or the other.
Hence your or my view on whether it is cruel is unimportant.
Now they have zero Covid patients in the hospital - but very busy with the non-Covid patients again.
The UK deficit was blown up BEFORE the recession, which was inexcusable economic mismanagement by Labour.
Yes running a deficit over the course of the cycle is reasonable. However 2002-2007 was pre-recession not post-recession. That was the time to be paying down the debt not blowing it up which left us completely exposed when the recession inevitably came.
Thankfully 2010-2019 the Tories didn't make that mistake and reduced the deficit.
I think the objection revolves around the fact that humans enjoy it.
I'm talking about cats and dogs because if you wish to make a libertarian argument that cruelty to animals is OK then why draw the line at cruelty to foxes? Why not cruelty to cats and dogs?
Either you believe banning cruelty to animals is OK or you don't as a point of principle. I do. Fox hunting is no different philosophically to torturing cats and dogs then for me. I lose no sleep over it being illegal.
Deficit spending during a recession is something I've always accepted. I never objected to Brown borrowing in 2007/08. It was his increasing the deficit from 2002 to 2007 that I have always objected to.
Martin Offiah backs Swing Low, Sweet Chariot review
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/53096584
I'm so relaxed about this that I'm going to discuss it all day.
Fox hunting isn't cruel.
Fox hunting isn't cruel.
Fox hunting isn't cruel.
Fox hunting isn't cruel.
Fox hunting isn't cruel.
Fox hunting isn't cruel.
Fox hunting isn't cruel.
Fox hunting isn't cruel.
(cont.)'
Shouts from afar: "Wheel out the Burns"
Okay then.
"Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."
It's the Zaphod Beebleborox solution; find someone who enjoys Being The Leader so much that he doesn't notice that someone else is actually exercising all the power. There are a couple of potential problems.
One is the one the Goodwin article is about- if the point of Boris is basically to be a puppet, who gets to insert their hand in... well, wherever the hand needs to be inserted. There can only be one, and it's back to the Unherd Nationalist Populist / Spectator Jetsetting Global Liberal divide again.
The other is that even a puppet leader needs a degree in internal plausibility. To quote from Yes, Prime Minister:
"Sir Humphrey Appleby : You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the world stage.
Sir Richard Wharton : People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober, and say the lines they're given in the right order."
At the moment, he doesn't look much like an actor, does he?
From 2000 to 2009 the deficit widened annually on that metric.
From 2012 to 2019 on the other hand the deficit narrowed annually on that metric.
Labour's mismanagement of the economy was inexcusable.
I'm afraid the data don't really support your script. I know that Labour has lost the popular narrative on this. But I would expect better informed discussion on this forum.
My point is that right now the Cons are spending a large amount and justifying it because we are in crisis times. Actually you did say economic crisis but I bet if we ask any member of cabinet they would name it the Covid-19 crisis.
So we have a crisis here that the government thinks justifies excess spending.
My relatively simple point is that people can't complain if the next government says "here is a crisis in XXX and we have to spend excessively on it."
Blowing up the deficit before 2007 was grossly irresponsible and the UK has paid the price for that.
Deficit spending during the recession was defendable. There was no excuse to increase the deficit before then.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-18/extent-of-covid-19-spread-in-england-hospitals-not-shared-with-nhs-trusts-itv-news-reveals/
If they wish to complain about the Tories responding to COVID19 they're free to do so if they want.
They agree that Labour spent too much at a time of unprecedented receipts from eg the housing market, the City, and consumption taxes (because everyone was feeling rich because the value of their houses was going up). Lab introduced several measures around mortgages and inflation which exacerbated this.
There was a kernel of truth in the charge of non-roof fixing. And it was accepted by very bright Lab types although of course once the narrative had established itself, there was no way they could argue anything other than they hadn't overspent.
Let's re-assess Boris's life next to this post. He will be married for a third time this year. In the last 33 years he will have spent a matter of weeks as an unmarried man. His last marriage lasted 27 years, despite his having had children by another woman during it, and numerous known affairs.
In his career, he was sacked for lying in the first weeks of his journalistic career and since then has had a steady relationship in various roles with a single newspaper group for over 30 years. He retained that relationship despite at one point promising to not go into politics, then to renege on it and did both at the same time.
In politics, his moves have been all within the party, he has had a constant political career for around 20 years.
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1273903097375531020
You keep saying Labour blew up the deficit before 2007, despite the fact that I have shown you that it was not increasing rapidly in 2007 and was at levels considered perfectly safe (so much so that the current government was running a deficit of the same size last year), while the level of debt in 2007 was smaller as a % of GDP than in 1997 when Labour came into power.
I thing his ability to play one thing off against the other is seriously underestimated at the moment, I don't see someone likely to just walk away from being PM.
UK cyclically adjusted primary deficit 2002: -0.50%
UK cyclically adjusted primary deficit 2007 (before GFC): -3.54%
Brown increased the deficit before the GFC hit.
His way of being in life has led him to believe, possibly justifiable in cakeism. His quote on Trump - there'll be all sorts of chaos, all sorts of breakdowns - is a description of the MO his own chaotic life has made necessary.
He has three further long term relationships to deal with in his role as PM - party, public and EU, all of them hot/cold relationships that he has maintained for large portions of his adult life. How long before any of those bodies make a break with him. History suggests he is an able stringer, so probably a while.
https://twitter.com/TrevorPTweets/status/1273852003551232002?s=20
Do these journalists really want the economy to collapse, or is it more their hatred of Brexit and some perverse hope that the worse things get the better for their obession with the EU
There were lots of people before he was elected who said he didn't really mean some of the wackier stuff, and would be a typical republican businessman in office.
Turns out he did. That won't have gone unnoticed by his base, and it's why I think there is a solid floor to his support.
The key is the floaters.
Labour pre-recession:
UK cyclically adjusted primary deficit 2002: -0.50%
UK cyclically adjusted primary deficit 2007: -3.54%
Tories pre-recession:
UK cyclically adjusted primary deficit 2012: -3.87%
UK cyclically adjusted primary deficit 2019: -0.63%
I support one of these and not the other for good reason!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53106673
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8438387/New-coronavirus-outbreak-reported-UK-meat-processing-plant.html
Those are voters who normally wouldn't be floaters but are now in play.