All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Depends what you mean by socialism ? All the Labour governments we have had in this country have been Social democratic from the Social reformism tradition of thought.
The major commanding heights of the economy were nationalised by Attlee.
Not the banks I believe ,also the following conservative governments upto the 1980s left these in place.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
True, but they can't be considered socialist. The Heritage foundation rankings (for what such rankings are worth) give them high scores on most other aspects of economic freedom. They certainly have more rational planning and land use policies than we do. See, e.g.
My own take is that countries that are wealthy and well-run, with good education and infrastructure, can afford the economic damage that a large welfare state does. We aren't as good as Sweden or Denmark on education and infrastructure, in particular, so we would be less able to
Mrs May still has a comfortable lead 10 months into her premiership unlike Brown and she represents the views of the public on the key issue of the day, Brexit. A poll last month also had 47% of voters comparing her most closely to Thatcher of former recent PMs and just 11% to Brown. Of course had Brown taken over 6 years into a Labour government and replaced Blair over Iraq as May replaced Cameron 6 years into a Tory government over Brexit he would have comfortably led IDS and beaten Howard in 2005 and probably had a better reputation, much as May comfortably leads Corbyn and will almost certainly beat Labour in 2020 whoever leads them https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/852055843164082176
My thoughts exactly. Blair held on so long that when he finally stepped down and handed over, Brown had got a bit bitter and twisted.
Indeed.
Though I suspect Brown was already bitter and twisted with Blair for getting the leadership in 1995.
I wonder how history would have been different if Brown had challenged John Smith for the leadership in 1992. He would have lost but would have been confirmed as the natural successor to John Smith and would have had a good chance of becoming leader upon his death.
History is littered with 'what if’s’ isn’t it. What if Charles Kennedy had sorted his drinking problem? Or IDS hadn’t been as gung-ho about Iraq as Blair.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
True, but they can't be considered socialist. The Heritage foundation rankings give them high scores on most other aspects of economic freedom. They certainly have more rational planning and land use policies than we do. See, e.g.
My own take is that countries that are wealthy and well-run, with good education and infrastructure, can afford the economic damage that a large welfare state does. We aren't as good as Sweden or Denmark on education and infrastructure, in particular, so we would be less able to
Difference there is that they spread the money thoughout the population a bit , they don't allow the elite to get all the money and leave 50% in the grubber. Their rich people are happy just to be rich and see the rest of the country prosper and get a small share of the pie , unlike here where they cannot stuff enough in their pockets while they don't care a jot about the poorest people other than to sneer at them for being stupid.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Is that a jock? Gordon Brown re-wrote the roles under which banks operate and created the FSA, all these regulations became an ideal breeding ground for crony capitalism, limited competition and massive profits and bonuses for the banksters.
For a while this was fine for the government as the profits pushed up the tax take allowing brown to spend even more.
But these distortions can last long term, and it didn't, the man who clamed to have abolished 'boom and bust' brought started the biggest bust in 80 years.
And government don't 'save the economy', the next generation of taxpayers, have been en-debt, to cover up the mistakes of the past.
Daft comments. The subprime bubble caused the money to run out. Modern capitalism shares many of the same faults of old school Communism. Perverse incentives, poor flow of information and too many superhumans who believe their own hype. You could argue that Brown got infected by it and didn't do enough to stop it, but this was a failure of capitalism and nothing else.
Mr. B, yeah... it was tempting. The problem is that he's got identical machinery to Hamilton, and the latter is rather quick. If the Mercedes is fastest, Hamilton may well win. If the Ferrari is, Vettel may well win.
There's also potential for traffic. The Mercedes seems worse in traffic than other cars.
It is credible, but tight. Vettel at 5 seemed better value to me.
Genuinely have no idea how the top teams will stack up on pace.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Perhaps you could explain why manufacturing output was lower in 2010 than it was in 1997:
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
True, but they can't be considered socialist. The Heritage foundation rankings (for what such rankings are worth) give them high scores on most other aspects of economic freedom. They certainly have more rational planning and land use policies than we do. See, e.g.
My own take is that countries that are wealthy and well-run, with good education and infrastructure, can afford the economic damage that a large welfare state does. We aren't as good as Sweden or Denmark on education and infrastructure, in particular, so we would be less able to
Who wants a utopian socialist state ? I would be quite happy with Scandinavian levels of tax and spend. Even conservatives cannot change the welfare state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
True, but they can't be considered socialist. The Heritage foundation rankings (for what such rankings are worth) give them high scores on most other aspects of economic freedom. They certainly have more rational planning and land use policies than we do. See, e.g.
My own take is that countries that are wealthy and well-run, with good education and infrastructure, can afford the economic damage that a large welfare state does. We aren't as good as Sweden or Denmark on education and infrastructure, in particular, so we would be less able to
Who wants a utopian socialist state ? I would be quite happy with Scandinavian levels of tax and spend. Even conservatives cannot change the welfare state.
Independent Scotland will be one such state.
But we have been told we are too poor and too stupid to go it alone, we need all that charity.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Perhaps you could explain why manufacturing output was lower in 2010 than it was in 1997:
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Perhaps you could explain why manufacturing output was lower in 2010 than it was in 1997:
I should like to apologise to WilliamGlenn for calling him insane last night. As frustrating and unheeding of any inconvenient facts or opinions as I found him, I have no qualification to make such a judgement and allowed my frustration to get the better of me.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust.
Most socialists are young and ideological, as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Lehmann Brothers collapsed, AIG had to be bailed out. General Motors got help from TARP, a $700bn help program, the Irish banks had to be bailed out with a €76bn rescue package. UBS, the Post Office bank in Germany and many, many others across the OECD. 22 out of 24 countries suffered recession.
It was all the fault of the Labour Party !
David Cameron in both conference speeches and the 2010 leadership debates specifically made sure to say it was not all the fault of Labour. He even said not everything they did was bad, and they'd keep the bits that were good.
It was certainly the general impression the Tories wanted to create, that it was all Labour's fault, but they acknowledged it was more complex than that enough times in high profile situations that the Labour party whine that they were being blamed for the entire global mess, does not hold up. It was a counter deflection, arguing against an easier accusation that the true one, a very common political tactic on all sides.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Perhaps you could explain why manufacturing output was lower in 2010 than it was in 1997:
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Perhaps you could explain why manufacturing output was lower in 2010 than it was in 1997:
I always sigh when I hear posters describe politicians as talented, musicians and sportsmen are talented, not politicians.
I suspect when somebody says x or y is talented they really mean they agree with them.
Plenty of politicians are genuinely talented. However it is hard to make judgements as to their talent as the most obvious area is merely presentation skills, and other political things like governmental competence, leadership and vision are harder to quantify.
' With Sir Lynton Crosby’s polling indicating Mrs May would undo David Cameron’s hard work in obliterating the Liberal Democrats in the South West '
Has anyone seen this mystery polling which is contradicted by the opinion polls ?
Of course there's no reason why a LibDem revival wouldn't have occurred if Cameron was still PM - in fact judging by the 2016 local elections it had already happened while Cameron was PM.
I recall some other polling which suggested the LDs would hold on to many of their seats in 2015. How's that going I wonder?
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust.
Most socialists are young and ideological, as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Perhaps you could explain why manufacturing output was lower in 2010 than it was in 1997:
43 dead in Syria today. But no posts here on PB. The "wrong" people died. And Jabhat-Al-Nusra are now our allies !
50 people die in Syria every day, don't they? Every one a horror, every one a sadness. But it's a civil war. They are notoriously nasty. What should we do? Bomb them like Trump?
I say: Leave Well Alone, and maybe hope Assad wins. As the least worst of several deeply evil options.
President Assad is actually the only secular leader left.
I hope Assad wins, even though he is an evil c*nt. The alternatives, for us, and the Syrians, are still worse, remarkably.
Trump is a twat. Putin is shrewd.
I don't think the Optometrist and his fragrant wife are evil. Certainly he had nothing to do with the latest chemical attack, just like the others - there hasn't even been a pretense of an enquiry for that reason.
Clearly you'd be happy with a form of government which involves employing people who are keen to attach to testicles. I'd suggest that's evil. That you don't goes directly to your perverse and pro-Russian morality.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Is that a jock? Gordon Brown re-wrote the roles under which banks operate and created the FSA, all these regulations became an ideal breeding ground for crony capitalism, limited competition and massive profits and bonuses for the banksters.
For a while this was fine for the government as the profits pushed up the tax take allowing brown to spend even more.
But these distortions can last long term, and it didn't, the man who clamed to have abolished 'boom and bust' brought started the biggest bust in 80 years.
And government don't 'save the economy', the next generation of taxpayers, have been en-debt, to cover up the mistakes of the past.
Daft comments. The subprime bubble caused the money to run out. Modern capitalism shares many of the same faults of old school Communism. Perverse incentives, poor flow of information and too many superhumans who believe their own hype. You could argue that Brown got infected by it and didn't do enough to stop it, but this was a failure of capitalism and nothing else.
2 points:
The 'finical crises' started in this with Northern Rock, supposedly regulated by the FSA.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Perhaps you could explain why manufacturing output was lower in 2010 than it was in 1997:
' With Sir Lynton Crosby’s polling indicating Mrs May would undo David Cameron’s hard work in obliterating the Liberal Democrats in the South West '
Has anyone seen this mystery polling which is contradicted by the opinion polls ?
Of course there's no reason why a LibDem revival wouldn't have occurred if Cameron was still PM - in fact judging by the 2016 local elections it had already happened while Cameron was PM.
I recall some other polling which suggested the LDs would hold on to many of their seats in 2015. How's that going I wonder?
From October 2014:
' The big figures are that the coalition partners are level pegging on 32% each which represents a swing from LD to CON since GE2010 of just 2%. This is the best performance by Clegg’s party in any polling and will give heart to his beleaguered party as delegates gather in Glasgow for their party conference – an event that had to be put back from its usual mid-September because of the IndyRef.
With current Lib Dem seats it is very hard to find common trends. In some places they are doing poorly while in other defences there is a CON to LD swing since GE2010. The most interesting feature and one that will concern Tory planners is that the polling shows that once again LAB voters are ready to switch to stop the Tories. 22% said they’d do so in this latest round. That’s based on looking at the two-stage voting intention question which Lord A uses. An initial one and then a second asking responders to focus on their particular seat. So we can see from the data the scale of change.
That the LDs might be winning back some of this vote is critical because much of the Lib Dem success in previous CON battles has been down to persuading LAB voters that their best interest lay in switching.
With relations between the coalition partners inevitably getting worse as we get nearer to polling day the easier it will be for the Lib Dems to win over more tacticals which is why I’m expecting the party do do better in terms of seats than even the latest Ashcroft polling suggests. '
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust.
Most socialists are young and ideological, as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
Despite popular misconception Scandinavian countries are very free market,
1. Nether Sweden or Denmark have minimum wages 2. It is very easy to sack a pore worker especially in Denmark 3. Over the last 20 years corporate taxis have been lower in Denmark and Sweden than most of the rest of Europe. 4. Both Denmark and Sweden have parent chose in education Sweden has 900 for profit 'free schools' in Denmark 40% of children go to 'free schools' 5. taxes, any taxes are bad, but the real problem is spending and borrowing, Denmark and Sweden only spend a small bit more than UK, and borrow less!
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Is that a jock? Gordon Brown re-wrote the roles under which banks operate and created the FSA, all these regulations became an ideal breeding ground for crony capitalism, limited competition and massive profits and bonuses for the banksters.
For a while this was fine for the government as the profits pushed up the tax take allowing brown to spend even more.
But these distortions can last long term, and it didn't, the man who clamed to have abolished 'boom and bust' brought started the biggest bust in 80 years.
And government don't 'save the economy', the next generation of taxpayers, have been en-debt, to cover up the mistakes of the past.
Daft comments. The subprime bubble caused the money to run out. Modern capitalism shares many of the same faults of old school Communism. Perverse incentives, poor flow of information and too many superhumans who believe their own hype. You could argue that Brown got infected by it and didn't do enough to stop it, but this was a failure of capitalism and nothing else.
2 points:
The 'finical crises' started in this with Northern Rock, supposedly regulated by the FSA.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
The UK recession began six months before Lehmann crashed.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Perhaps you could explain why manufacturing output was lower in 2010 than it was in 1997:
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Is that a jock? Gordon Brown re-wrote the roles under which banks operate and created the FSA, all these regulations became an ideal breeding ground for crony capitalism, limited competition and massive profits and bonuses for the banksters.
For a while this was fine for the government as the profits pushed up the tax take allowing brown to spend even more.
But these distortions can last long term, and it didn't, the man who clamed to have abolished 'boom and bust' brought started the biggest bust in 80 years.
And government don't 'save the economy', the next generation of taxpayers, have been en-debt, to cover up the mistakes of the past.
Daft comments. The subprime bubble caused the money to run out. Modern capitalism shares many of the same faults of old school Communism. Perverse incentives, poor flow of information and too many superhumans who believe their own hype. You could argue that Brown got infected by it and didn't do enough to stop it, but this was a failure of capitalism and nothing else.
2 points:
The 'finical crises' started in this with Northern Rock, supposedly regulated by the FSA.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
The ratings agencies were highly culpable in all this. They rated subprime junk loans as 'A' grade.
Mrs May still has a comfortable lead 10 months into her premiership unlike Brown and she represents the views of the public on the key issue of the day, Brexit. A poll last month also had 47% of voters comparing her most closely to Thatcher of former recent PMs and just 11% to Brown. Of course had Brown taken over 6 years into a Labour government and replaced Blair over Iraq as May replaced Cameron 6 years into a Tory government over Brexit he would have comfortably led IDS and beaten Howard in 2005 and probably had a better reputation, much as May comfortably leads Corbyn and will almost certainly beat Labour in 2020 whoever leads them https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/852055843164082176
My thoughts exactly. Blair held on so long that when he finally stepped down and handed over, Brown had got a bit bitter and twisted.
Yes, if May was taking over after a third Cameron victory in 2020 as Brown did after a third Blair victory then it would have been more difficult for her, especially if Labour then picked an electable leader as the Tories picked Cameron
As the saying goes ones getting one racist candidate advocating the kid napping of the first minister is unfortunate, to get 7 is a narrative the papers can sink their teeth into.
I'm not sure where the Scottish Defence League (SDL) fits in to the map of extremism - but seeing the EDL marching with them in Wishaw leaves me a bit confused !!
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Is that a jock? Gordon Brown re-wrote the roles under which banks operate and created the FSA, all these regulations became an ideal breeding ground for crony capitalism, limited competition and massive profits and bonuses for the banksters.
For a while this was fine for the government as the profits pushed up the tax take allowing brown to spend even more.
But these distortions can last long term, and it didn't, the man who clamed to have abolished 'boom and bust' brought started the biggest bust in 80 years.
And government don't 'save the economy', the next generation of taxpayers, have been en-debt, to cover up the mistakes of the past.
Daft comments. The subprime bubble caused the money to run out. Modern capitalism shares many of the same faults of old school Communism. Perverse incentives, poor flow of information and too many superhumans who believe their own hype. You could argue that Brown got infected by it and didn't do enough to stop it, but this was a failure of capitalism and nothing else.
2 points:
The 'finical crises' started in this with Northern Rock, supposedly regulated by the FSA.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
The ratings agencies were highly culpable in all this. They rated subprime junk loans as 'A' grade.
Yes, but the ratings agencies where coming under regulatory presser to do that.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
True, but they can't be considered socialist. The Heritage foundation rankings (for what such rankings are worth) give them high scores on most other aspects of economic freedom. They certainly have more rational planning and land use policies than we do. See, e.g.
My own take is that countries that are wealthy and well-run, with good education and infrastructure, can afford the economic damage that a large welfare state does. We aren't as good as Sweden or Denmark on education and infrastructure, in particular, so we would be less able to
Who wants a utopian socialist state ? I would be quite happy with Scandinavian levels of tax and spend. Even conservatives cannot change the welfare state.
Independent Scotland will be one such state.
A hypothetical ndependent Scotland would have to be more like an Irish tiger economy to survive
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust.
Most socialists are young and ideological, as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
Despite popular misconception Scandinavian countries are very free market,
1. Nether Sweden or Denmark have minimum wages 2. It is very easy to sack a pore worker especially in Denmark 3. Over the last 20 years corporate taxis have been lower in Denmark and Sweden than most of the rest of Europe. 4. Both Denmark and Sweden have parent chose in education Sweden has 900 for profit 'free schools' in Denmark 40% of children go to 'free schools' 5. taxes, any taxes are bad, but the real problem is spending and borrowing, Denmark and Sweden only spend a small bit more than UK, and borrow less!
I could go on, but to keep it short I stop there.
In Scandinavia a minimum wage is effectively created by bargaining between unions and employers
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust.
Most socialists are young and ideological, as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
Despite popular misconception Scandinavian countries are very free market,
1. Nether Sweden or Denmark have minimum wages 2. It is very easy to sack a pore worker especially in Denmark 3. Over the last 20 years corporate taxis have been lower in Denmark and Sweden than most of the rest of Europe. 4. Both Denmark and Sweden have parent chose in education Sweden has 900 for profit 'free schools' in Denmark 40% of children go to 'free schools' 5. taxes, any taxes are bad, but the real problem is spending and borrowing, Denmark and Sweden only spend a small bit more than UK, and borrow less!
I could go on, but to keep it short I stop there.
In Scandinavia a minimum wage is effectively created by bargaining between unions and employers
That's probably what Barbara Castle aimed at in 'In Place of Strife'. Very, very long ago.
Her attempt failed. Another woman who took over had other ideas, mostly involving scorched-earth policies and total surrender of 'the enemy'.
Easter is taken extremely seriously here in the Philippines, especially in rural areas such as where I live, not a chocolate egg or fluffy bunny in sight. I am pleased to say that the taste of the locals here does not run to getting themselves nailed to crosses, but if that's your bag its certainly available in other provinces. Midnight masses have been observed as churches once again opened to the faithful (almost everyone). The especially devote were up at 4am for further ceremonies. Easter processions have happened, and everyone has retired to their family homes for a lot of food and conviviality.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Not this fallacy again.
No the recession was triggered by the banks but they are NOT the reason the money ran out. Recessions and downturns happen they are part of the economic cycle. Also known as boom and bust. If it wasn't the banks it would have been something else.
The problem is not that we entered a downturn. It's that we entered a downturn with the spending taps already on full, the deficit already high and the credit card maxed out.
Downturns happen on average once a decade. 8 years before the financial crisis was the dotcom bubble bursting but as the then Iron Chancellor has been keeping spending under control we were able to ride it out. A decade earlier was the last recession but we'd again gone into that recession with a small surplus so able to ride it out much easier.
Had the government been running a small surplus in 2007 then we could have taken the financial crisis in our stride. It would have been unpleasant still but not the disaster we actually faced.
The scary fact is that we are now a decade from the last downturn. One is now due and we are still fixing the deficit from the last one.
It wasn't the banks that made our deficit it was hubris. To believe that it was possible to defeat Boom And Bust was hubris.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust.
Most socialists are young and ideological, as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
Despite popular misconception Scandinavian countries are very free market,
1. Nether Sweden or Denmark have minimum wages 2. It is very easy to sack a pore worker especially in Denmark 3. Over the last 20 years corporate taxis have been lower in Denmark and Sweden than most of the rest of Europe. 4. Both Denmark and Sweden have parent chose in education Sweden has 900 for profit 'free schools' in Denmark 40% of children go to 'free schools' 5. taxes, any taxes are bad, but the real problem is spending and borrowing, Denmark and Sweden only spend a small bit more than UK, and borrow less!
I could go on, but to keep it short I stop there.
In Scandinavia a minimum wage is effectively created by bargaining between unions and employers
That's probably what Barbara Castle aimed at in 'In Place of Strife'. Very, very long ago.
Her attempt failed. Another woman who took over had other ideas, mostly involving scorched-earth policies and total surrender of 'the enemy'.
Though now even the Tories support a 'living wage'
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Is that a jock? Gordon Brown re-wrote the roles under which banks operate and created the FSA, all these regulations became an ideal breeding ground for crony capitalism, limited competition and massive profits and bonuses for the banksters.
For a while this was fine for the government as the profits pushed up the tax take allowing brown to spend even more.
But these distortions can last long term, and it didn't, the man who clamed to have abolished 'boom and bust' brought started the biggest bust in 80 years.
And government don't 'save the economy', the next generation of taxpayers, have been en-debt, to cover up the mistakes of the past.
Daft comments. The subprime bubble caused the money to run out. Modern capitalism shares many of the same faults of old school Communism. Perverse incentives, poor flow of information and too many superhumans who believe their own hype. You could argue that Brown got infected by it and didn't do enough to stop it, but this was a failure of capitalism and nothing else.
2 points:
The 'finical crises' started in this with Northern Rock, supposedly regulated by the FSA.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
The ratings agencies were highly culpable in all this. They rated subprime junk loans as 'A' grade.
Yes, but the ratings agencies where coming under regulatory presser to do that.
Commerical pressure probably focused their minds more.
The 'finical crises' started in this with Northern Rock, supposedly regulated by the FSA.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
I don't think the Subprime Crisis had just a single cause. Here are some of the causes:
1. Government pressure to allow everyone to own a home. 2. Fannie and Freddie's guarantees. 3. The fact that house prices had never gone down nationwide in the US, and therefore mortgage lending was a 'sure thing'. 4. Securitisation, which meant that the people originating the loan had no skin in the game. 5. The ratings agencies who seemed to believe that there was no correlation between the individual loans in portfolios. 6. The Federal Reserve pumping money into the US economy around the millenium, and then following the bursting of the TMT bubble. 7. The long housing boom. 8. Low documentation loans. 9. Adjustable rate mortgages with insanely low teaser rates sold to people who only looked at initial payments. 10. CLOs where you took a bunch of different 'junk tiers', put them together, and created new investment grader paper. 11. Hedge funds who levered up so they owned $10 of mortgage debt for every $1 invested in their funds.
It's worth remembering that demand for mortgage debt (from pension funds and the like) was so great that Goldman Sachs was selling synthetic mortgage debt.
9. Adjustable rate mortgages with insanely low teaser rates sold to people who only looked at initial payments.
Low income people had for years been rolling over their teaser rate mortages as the teaser rate expired, when money got tight the banks withdrew the teaser rates and lots of people that had been living (literally) on fantasy rates, suddenly found there was no available mortage they could afford. The video clips of whole estates in some parts of the USA being effectively abandoned because no one on them could afford to roll over their mortgage are quite shocking.
The 'finical crises' started in this with Northern Rock, supposedly regulated by the FSA.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
I don't think the Subprime Crisis had just a single cause. Here are some of the causes:
1. Government pressure to allow everyone to own a home. 2. Fannie and Freddie's guarantees. 3. The fact that house prices had never gone down nationwide in the US, and therefore mortgage lending was a 'sure thing'. 4. Securitisation, which meant that the people originating the loan had no skin in the game. 5. The ratings agencies who seemed to believe that there was no correlation between the individual loans in portfolios. 6. The Federal Reserve pumping money into the US economy around the millenium, and then following the bursting of the TMT bubble. 7. The long housing boom. 8. Low documentation loans. 9. Adjustable rate mortgages with insanely low teaser rates sold to people who only looked at initial payments. 10. CLOs where you took a bunch of different 'junk tiers', put them together, and created new investment grader paper. 11. Hedge funds who levered up so they owned $10 of mortgage debt for every $1 invested in their funds.
It's worth remembering that demand for mortgage debt (from pension funds and the like) was so great that Goldman Sachs was selling synthetic mortgage debt.
So not socialism as the cause then. Who'd have thunk it. I would add that very few people had a clue what was going on as it was all wrapped up in jargon, designed to obscure.
In the end, the money definitely ran out. These guys just can't help gambling with other people's money.
The 'finical crises' started in this with Northern Rock, supposedly regulated by the FSA.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
I don't think the Subprime Crisis had just a single cause. Here are some of the causes:
1. Government pressure to allow everyone to own a home. 2. Fannie and Freddie's guarantees. 3. The fact that house prices had never gone down nationwide in the US, and therefore mortgage lending was a 'sure thing'. 4. Securitisation, which meant that the people originating the loan had no skin in the game. 5. The ratings agencies who seemed to believe that there was no correlation between the individual loans in portfolios. 6. The Federal Reserve pumping money into the US economy around the millenium, and then following the bursting of the TMT bubble. 7. The long housing boom. 8. Low documentation loans. 9. Adjustable rate mortgages with insanely low teaser rates sold to people who only looked at initial payments. 10. CLOs where you took a bunch of different 'junk tiers', put them together, and created new investment grader paper. 11. Hedge funds who levered up so they owned $10 of mortgage debt for every $1 invested in their funds.
It's worth remembering that demand for mortgage debt (from pension funds and the like) was so great that Goldman Sachs was selling synthetic mortgage debt.
Rcs1000, I basically agree assessments, just to me most of theses are proximate courses, with the underling presser coming from government/regulators creating multiple simultaneous distortions, that would eventually bust.
I guess the 48ers will have to change their name...
ORB had 55-45 before the referendum and they don't seem to have published the tables yet. The more interesting thing is their finding that people are more worried about the economy.
Weirdly they seem to have a Scottish section for which they have published the tables.
The UK appears to want its Union cake and to eat it, believing Tessy should delay a referendum, seeing Scotland leaving the UK as a price worth paying for Brexit, but opposing Scottish independence.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK? Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice* Fun with subsamples!
Mrs May still has a comfortable lead 10 months into her premiership unlike Brown and she represents the views of the public on the key issue of the day, Brexit. A poll last month also had 47% of voters comparing her most closely to Thatcher of former recent PMs and just 11% to Brown. Of course had Brown taken over 6 years into a Labour government and replaced Blair over Iraq as May replaced Cameron 6 years into a Tory government over Brexit he would have comfortably led IDS and beaten Howard in 2005 and probably had a better reputation, much as May comfortably leads Corbyn and will almost certainly beat Labour in 2020 whoever leads them https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/852055843164082176
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Downturns happen on average once a decade.
So by that reckoning we are due another downturn in the next 12 months or so.
How do you feel we are placed to handle it this time around?
9. Adjustable rate mortgages with insanely low teaser rates sold to people who only looked at initial payments.
In this respect, the H2B scheme is similar to the subprime mortgage scandal. At least the people being lent the money actually have decent incomes, but it's still an inbuilt interest rate rise five years later. The first loans are due to reach their five year terms this year, and given that you repay 20% (or whatever you were lent) of the current value of the property, some people will be in for a nasty shock.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust.
Most socialists are young and ideological, as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
Despite popular misconception Scandinavian countries are very free market,
1. Nether Sweden or Denmark have minimum wages 2. It is very easy to sack a pore worker especially in Denmark 3. Over the last 20 years corporate taxis have been lower in Denmark and Sweden than most of the rest of Europe. 4. Both Denmark and Sweden have parent chose in education Sweden has 900 for profit 'free schools' in Denmark 40% of children go to 'free schools' 5. taxes, any taxes are bad, but the real problem is spending and borrowing, Denmark and Sweden only spend a small bit more than UK, and borrow less!
I could go on, but to keep it short I stop there.
In Scandinavia a minimum wage is effectively created by bargaining between unions and employers
That's probably what Barbara Castle aimed at in 'In Place of Strife'. Very, very long ago.
Her attempt failed. Another woman who took over had other ideas, mostly involving scorched-earth policies and total surrender of 'the enemy'.
Though now even the Tories support a 'living wage'
Yes they always move eventually they might even agree to everyone getting a basic income.Especially when many middle class jobs become obsolete.However they never lead just follow on issues like this.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Downturns happen on average once a decade.
So by that reckoning we are due another downturn in the next 12 months or so.
How do you feel we are placed to handle it this time around?
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Depends what you mean by socialism ? All the Labour governments we have had in this country have been Social democratic from the Social reformism tradition of thought.
Indeed - and many would say that socialism worked pretty well during World War 2 and its aftermath. Even the Tories were desperate to abandon reliance on the private sector during that emergency!
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Downturns happen on average once a decade.
So by that reckoning we are due another downturn in the next 12 months or so.
How do you feel we are placed to handle it this time around?
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Not this fallacy again.
No the recession was triggered by the banks but they are NOT the reason the money ran out. Recessions and downturns happen they are part of the economic cycle. Also known as boom and bust. If it wasn't the banks it would have been something else.
The problem is not that we entered a downturn. It's that we entered a downturn with the spending taps already on full, the deficit already high and the credit card maxed out.
Downturns happen on average once a decade. 8 years before the financial crisis was the dotcom bubble bursting but as the then Iron Chancellor has been keeping spending under control we were able to ride it out. A decade earlier was the last recession but we'd again gone into that recession with a small surplus so able to ride it out much easier.
Had the government been running a small surplus in 2007 then we could have taken the financial crisis in our stride. It would have been unpleasant still but not the disaster we actually faced.
The scary fact is that we are now a decade from the last downturn. One is now due and we are still fixing the deficit from the last one.
It wasn't the banks that made our deficit it was hubris. To believe that it was possible to defeat Boom And Bust was hubris.
The economic adviser to UBS said later that 1982-2007 had been a credit bubble to beat all others
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust.
Most socialists are young and ideological, as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
Despite popular misconception Scandinavian countries are very free market,
1. Nether Sweden or Denmark have minimum wages 2. It is very easy to sack a pore worker especially in Denmark 3. Over the last 20 years corporate taxis have been lower in Denmark and Sweden than most of the rest of Europe. 4. Both Denmark and Sweden have parent chose in education Sweden has 900 for profit 'free schools' in Denmark 40% of children go to 'free schools' 5. taxes, any taxes are bad, but the real problem is spending and borrowing, Denmark and Sweden only spend a small bit more than UK, and borrow less!
I could go on, but to keep it short I stop there.
In Scandinavia a minimum wage is effectively created by bargaining between unions and employers
That's probably what Barbara Castle aimed at in 'In Place of Strife'. Very, very long ago.
Her attempt failed. Another woman who took over had other ideas, mostly involving scorched-earth policies and total surrender of 'the enemy'.
Though now even the Tories support a 'living wage'
9. Adjustable rate mortgages with insanely low teaser rates sold to people who only looked at initial payments.
Low income people had for years been rolling over their teaser rate mortages as the teaser rate expired, when money got tight the banks withdrew the teaser rates and lots of people that had been living (literally) on fantasy rates, suddenly found there was no available mortage they could afford. The video clips of whole estates in some parts of the USA being effectively abandoned because no one on them could afford to roll over their mortgage are quite shocking.
9. Adjustable rate mortgages with insanely low teaser rates sold to people who only looked at initial payments.
In this respect, the H2B scheme is similar to the subprime mortgage scandal. At least the people being lent the money actually have decent incomes, but it's still an inbuilt interest rate rise five years later. The first loans are due to reach their five year terms this year, and given that you repay 20% (or whatever you were lent) of the current value of the property, some people will be in for a nasty shock.
As people say at the top of every bubble, things are different this time...
Though because of the L shapped recovery from the last recession the next recession is probably still a year or two away. Gordon didn't so much abolish boom and bust as amplify it.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Downturns happen on average once a decade.
So by that reckoning we are due another downturn in the next 12 months or so.
How do you feel we are placed to handle it this time around?
Poorly
And Brexit will get the blame.
Juncker and Tusk will get the blame, that is what comedy villians are there for
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust.
Most socialists are young and ideological, as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
Despite popular misconception Scandinavian countries are very free market,
1. Nether Sweden or Denmark have minimum wages 2. It is very easy to sack a pore worker especially in Denmark 3. Over the last 20 years corporate taxis have been lower in Denmark and Sweden than most of the rest of Europe. 4. Both Denmark and Sweden have parent chose in education Sweden has 900 for profit 'free schools' in Denmark 40% of children go to 'free schools' 5. taxes, any taxes are bad, but the real problem is spending and borrowing, Denmark and Sweden only spend a small bit more than UK, and borrow less!
I could go on, but to keep it short I stop there.
In Scandinavia a minimum wage is effectively created by bargaining between unions and employers
well sort of, the bargaining you talk of is ultimately a function of supply and demand, not government wish full thinking, so I don't really have a problem with it.
But it can also be overhyped, in Denmark the number of people covered by such arrangements has been falling and is now down to about 13% of all workers. I am less familiar with the systems in Sweden, but I expect it to be similar.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust.
Most socialists are young and ideological, as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
Despite popular misconception Scandinavian countries are very free market,
1. Nether Sweden or Denmark have minimum wages 2. It is very easy to sack a pore worker especially in Denmark 3. Over the last 20 years corporate taxis have been lower and borrow less!
I could go on, but to keep it short I stop there.
In Scandinavia a minimum wage is effectively created by bargaining between unions and employers
That's probably what Barbara Castle aimed at in 'In Place of Strife'. Very, very long ago.
Her attempt failed. Another woman who took over had other ideas, mostly involving scorched-earth policies and total surrender of 'the enemy'.
Though now even the Tories support a 'living wage'
Yes they always move eventually they might even agree to everyone getting a basic income.Especially when many middle class jobs become obsolete.However they never lead just follow on issues like this.
Despite being a Tory I would certainly support a universal basic income if automation starts to remove large numbers of full time, permanent jobs indeed in Finland the centre right government is experimenting with a basic income now
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Downturns happen on average once a decade.
So by that reckoning we are due another downturn in the next 12 months or so.
How do you feel we are placed to handle it this time around?
Poorly
And Brexit will get the blame.
Juncker and Tusk will get the blame, that is what comedy villians are there for
The only triumphalist message left will be to claim credit for the EU's success because 'it was Brexit that made them get their act together'.
' With Sir Lynton Crosby’s polling indicating Mrs May would undo David Cameron’s hard work in obliterating the Liberal Democrats in the South West '
Has anyone seen this mystery polling which is contradicted by the opinion polls ?
Of course there's no reason why a LibDem revival wouldn't have occurred if Cameron was still PM - in fact judging by the 2016 local elections it had already happened while Cameron was PM.
I recall some other polling which suggested the LDs would hold on to many of their seats in 2015. How's that going I wonder?
From October 2014:
' The big figures are that the coalition partners are level pegging on 32% each which represents a swing from LD to CON since GE2010 of just 2%. This is the best performance by Clegg’s party in any polling and will give heart to his beleaguered party as delegates gather in Glasgow for their party conference – an event that had to be put back from its usual mid-September because of the IndyRef.
With current Lib Dem seats it is very hard to find common trends. In some places they are doing poorly while in other defences there is a CON to LD swing since GE2010. The most interesting feature and one that will concern Tory planners is that the polling shows that once again LAB voters are ready to switch to stop the Tories. 22% said they’d do so in this latest round. That’s based on looking at the two-stage voting intention question which Lord A uses. An initial one and then a second asking responders to focus on their particular seat. So we can see from the data the scale of change.
That the LDs might be winning back some of this vote is critical because much of the Lib Dem success in previous CON battles has been down to persuading LAB voters that their best interest lay in switching.
With relations between the coalition partners inevitably getting worse as we get nearer to polling day the easier it will be for the Lib Dems to win over more tacticals which is why I’m expecting the party do do better in terms of seats than even the latest Ashcroft polling suggests. '
Hopefully nobody followed that advice from OGH with their own money.
The willingness of Labour voters to vote tactically again in such seats probably owes a fair bit to Corbyn. Replacing him with a more credible leader would be likely to switch those voters back to Labour and ironically help the Tories to hold on to many of the seats being referred to>
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust.
Most socialists are young and ideological, as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
Despite popular misconception Scandinavian countries are very free market,
1. Nether Sweden or Denmark have minimum wages 2. It is very easy to sack a pore worker especially in Denmark 3. Over the last 20 years corporate taxis have been lower in Denmark and Sweden than most of the rest of Europe. 4. Both Denmark and Sweden have parent chose in education Sweden has 900 for profit 'free schools' in Denmark 40% of children go to 'free schools' 5. taxes, any taxes are bad, but the real problem is spending and borrowing, Denmark and Sweden only spend a small bit more than UK, and borrow less!
I could go on, but to keep it short I stop there.
In Scandinavia a minimum wage is effectively created by bargaining between unions and employers
That's probably what Barbara Castle aimed at in 'In Place of Strife'. Very, very long ago.
Her attempt failed. Another woman who took over had other ideas, mostly involving scorched-earth policies and total surrender of 'the enemy'.
Though now even the Tories support a 'living wage'
I almost cried, when Osborn announced that, so so sad.
As Hayek observed there as socialists in all partys!
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Perhaps you could explain why manufacturing output was lower in 2010 than it was in 1997:
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Is that a jock? Gordon Brown re-wrote the roles under which banks operate and created the FSA, all these regulations became an ideal breeding ground for crony capitalism, limited competition and massive profits and bonuses for the banksters.
For a while this was fine for the government as the profits pushed up the tax take allowing brown to spend even more.
But these distortions can last long term, and it didn't, the man who clamed to have abolished 'boom and bust' brought started the biggest bust in 80 years.
And government don't 'save the economy', the next generation of taxpayers, have been en-debt, to cover up the mistakes of the past.
Daft comments. The subprime bubble caused the money to run out. Modern capitalism shares many of the same faults of old school Communism. Perverse incentives, poor flow of information and too many superhumans who believe their own hype. You could argue that Brown got infected by it and didn't do enough to stop it, but this was a failure of capitalism and nothing else.
2 points:
The 'finical crises' started in this with Northern Rock, supposedly regulated by the FSA.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
The ratings agencies were highly culpable in all this. They rated subprime junk loans as 'A' grade.
Mrs May still has a comfortable lead 10 months into her premiership unlike Brown and she represents the views of the public on the key issue of the day, Brexit. A poll last month also had 47% of voters comparing her most closely to Thatcher of former recent PMs and just 11% to Brown. Of course had Brown taken over 6 years into a Labour government and replaced Blair over Iraq as May replaced Cameron 6 years into a Tory government over Brexit he would have comfortably led IDS and beaten Howard in 2005 and probably had a better reputation, much as May comfortably leads Corbyn and will almost certainly beat Labour in 2020 whoever leads them https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/852055843164082176
My thoughts exactly. Blair held on so long that when he finally stepped down and handed over, Brown had got a bit bitter and twisted.
Indeed.
Though I suspect Brown was already bitter and twisted with Blair for getting the leadership in 1995.
I wonder how history would have been different if Brown had challenged John Smith for the leadership in 1992. He would have lost but would have been confirmed as the natural successor to John Smith and would have had a good chance of becoming leader upon his death.
A better counterfactual would have been a contest rather than coronation post Blair.
Or Bryan Gould winning the leadership in 92 on his anti-ERM, anti Maastricht platform. The 94 leadership contest would not have occurred.
Despite being a Tory I would certainly support a universal basic income if automation starts to remove large numbers of full time, permanent jobs indeed in Finland the centre right government is experimenting with a basic income now
I have yet to see any credible figure as to how UBI can remotely be afforded with a tax base that is going to be remotely acceptable to the electorate and leave our economy any chance of being competitive.
46 million adults in the UK. A £80/week (wholly inadequate) would cost around 190bn a year, pretty close to the whole social security budget, which it would in no way replace.
I am not totally adverse to the principle, but utterly against taking on more uncosted open-ended commitments that will be impossible to repeal, and guaranteed to grow substantially over time.
' With Sir Lynton Crosby’s polling indicating Mrs May would undo David Cameron’s hard work in obliterating the Liberal Democrats in the South West '
Has anyone seen this mystery polling which is contradicted by the opinion polls ?
Of course there's no reason why a LibDem revival wouldn't have occurred if Cameron was still PM - in fact judging by the 2016 local elections it had already happened while Cameron was PM.
I recall some other polling which suggested the LDs would hold on to many of their seats in 2015. How's that going I wonder?
From October 2014:
' The big figures are that the coalition partners are level pegging on 32% each which represents a swing from LD to CON since GE2010 of just 2%. This is the best performance by Clegg’s party in any polling and will give heart to his beleaguered party as delegates gather in Glasgow for their party conference – an event that had to be put back from its usual mid-September because of the IndyRef.
With current Lib Dem seats it is very hard to find common trends. In some places they are doing poorly while in other defences there is a CON to LD swing since GE2010. The most interesting feature and one that will concern Tory planners is that the polling shows that once again LAB voters are ready to switch to stop the Tories. 22% said they’d do so in this latest round. That’s based on looking at the two-stage voting intention question which Lord A uses. An initial one and then a second asking responders to focus on their particular seat. So we can see from the data the scale of change.
That the LDs might be winning back some of this vote is critical because much of the Lib Dem success in previous CON battles has been down to persuading LAB voters that their best interest lay in switching.
With relations between the coalition partners inevitably getting worse as we get nearer to polling day the easier it will be for the Lib Dems to win over more tacticals which is why I’m expecting the party do do better in terms of seats than even the latest Ashcroft polling suggests. '
I guess the 48ers will have to change their name...
ORB had 55-45 before the referendum and they don't seem to have published the tables yet. The more interesting thing is their finding that people are more worried about the economy.
Weirdly they seem to have a Scottish section for which they have published the tables.
The UK appears to want its Union cake and to eat it, believing Tessy should delay a referendum, seeing Scotland leaving the UK as a price worth paying for Brexit, but opposing Scottish independence.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK? Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice* Fun with subsamples!
Scotland
Support 58.7%
Oppose 41.3%
Even if a subsample (and contrary to most polls still showing No ahead) interestingly it also shows significantly more Scots want Davidson and May to lead any future No campaign in a hypothetical future indyref2 than do Brown, Darling, Corbyn or a celebrity like Rowling
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust.
Most socialists are young and ideological, as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
Despite popular misconception Scandinavian countries are very free market,
1. Nether Sweden or Denmark have minimum wages 2. It is very easy to sack a pore worker especially in Denmark 3. Over the last 20 years corporate taxis have been lower and borrow less!
I could go on, but to keep it short I stop there.
In Scandinavia a minimum wage is effectively created by bargaining between unions and employers
That's probably what Barbara Castle aimed at in 'In Place of Strife'. Very, very long ago.
Her attempt failed. Another woman who took over had other ideas, mostly involving scorched-earth policies and total surrender of 'the enemy'.
Though now even the Tories support a 'living wage'
Yes they always move eventually they might even agree to everyone getting a basic income.Especially when many middle class jobs become obsolete.However they never lead just follow on issues like this.
Despite being a Tory I would certainly support a universal basic income if automation starts to remove large numbers of full time, permanent jobs indeed in Finland the centre right government is experimenting with a basic income now
Despite (perhaps even because) of automation employment rates are at all time highs.
Mrs May still has a comfortable lead 10 months into her premiership unlike Brown and she represents the views of the public on the key issue of the day, Brexit. A poll last month also had 47% of voters comparing her most closely to Thatcher of former recent PMs and just 11% to Brown. Of course had Brown taken over 6 years into a Labour government and replaced Blair over Iraq as May replaced Cameron 6 years into a Tory government over Brexit he would have comfortably led IDS and beaten Howard in 2005 and probably had a better reputation, much as May comfortably leads Corbyn and will almost certainly beat Labour in 2020 whoever leads them https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/852055843164082176
My thoughts exactly. Blair held on so long that when he finally stepped down and handed over, Brown had got a bit bitter and twisted.
Indeed.
Though I suspect Brown was already bitter and twisted with Blair for getting the leadership in 1995.
I wonder how history would have been different if Brown had challenged John Smith for the leadership in 1992. He would have lost but would have been confirmed as the natural successor to John Smith and would have had a good chance of becoming leader upon his death.
A better counterfactual would have been a contest rather than coronation post Blair.
Or Bryan Gould winning the leadership in 92 on his anti-ERM, anti Maastricht platform. The 94 leadership contest would not have occurred.
Some good counterfactuals that would have radically changed UK politics.
John Smith living to fight and win in 1997 Robin Cook living to contest the Labour leadership election in 2007
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Downturns happen on average once a decade.
So by that reckoning we are due another downturn in the next 12 months or so.
How do you feel we are placed to handle it this time around?
The Debt/GDP ratio is well below the 120% level when Harold Macmillan informed the nation that it had 'never had it so good'! Moroever a Budget Deficit of circa 3% of GDP should be sustainable.
' With Sir Lynton Crosby’s polling indicating Mrs May would undo David Cameron’s hard work in obliterating the Liberal Democrats in the South West '
Has anyone seen this mystery polling which is contradicted by the opinion polls ?
Of course there's no reason why a LibDem revival wouldn't have occurred if Cameron was still PM - in fact judging by the 2016 local elections it had already happened while Cameron was PM.
I recall some other polling which suggested the LDs would hold on to many of their seats in 2015. How's that going I wonder?
From October 2014:
' The big figures are that the coalition partners are level pegging on 32% each which represents a swing from LD to CON since GE2010 of just 2%. This is the best performance by Clegg’s party in any polling and will give heart to his beleaguered party as delegates gather in Glasgow for their party conference – an event that had to be put back from its usual mid-September because of the IndyRef.
With current Lib Dem seats it is very hard to find common trends. In some places they are doing poorly while in other defences there is a CON to LD swing since GE2010. The most interesting feature and one that will concern Tory planners is that the polling shows that once again LAB voters are ready to switch to stop the Tories. 22% said they’d do so in this latest round. That’s based on looking at the two-stage voting intention question which Lord A uses. An initial one and then a second asking responders to focus on their particular seat. So we can see from the data the scale of change.
That the LDs might be winning back some of this vote is critical because much of the Lib Dem success in previous CON battles has been down to persuading LAB voters that their best interest lay in switching.
With relations between the coalition partners inevitably getting worse as we get nearer to polling day the easier it will be for the Lib Dems to win over more tacticals which is why I’m expecting the party do do better in terms of seats than even the latest Ashcroft polling suggests. '
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust.
Most socialists are young and ideological, as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
Amongst the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world are the Scandinavian countries where the tax take is about 45% of the GDP.
Despite popular misconception Scandinavian countries are very free market,
1. Nether Sweden or Denmark have minimum wages 2. It is very easy to sack a pore worker especially in Denmark 3. Over the last 20 years corporate taxis have been lower in Denmark and Sweden than most of the rest of Europe. 4. Both Denmark and Sweden have parent chose in education Sweden has 900 for profit 'free schools' in Denmark 40% of children go to 'free schools' 5. taxes, any taxes are bad, but the real problem is spending and borrowing, Denmark and Sweden only spend a small bit more than UK, and borrow less!
I could go on, but to keep it short I stop there.
In Scandinavia a minimum wage is effectively created by bargaining between unions and employers
That's probably what Barbara Castle aimed at in 'In Place of Strife'. Very, very long ago.
Her attempt failed. Another woman who took over had other ideas, mostly involving scorched-earth policies and total surrender of 'the enemy'.
Though now even the Tories support a 'living wage'
I almost cried, when Osborn announced that, so so sad.
As Hayek observed there as socialists in all partys!
The Tories are not really a libertarian party, indeed UKIP in 2010 and Orange Book LDs in 2015 had more claim to be libertarian than Cameroon Tories and May is certainly not libertarian
No the recession was triggered by the banks but they are NOT the reason the money ran out. Recessions and downturns happen they are part of the economic cycle. Also known as boom and bust. If it wasn't the banks it would have been something else.
The problem is not that we entered a downturn. It's that we entered a downturn with the spending taps already on full, the deficit already high and the credit card maxed out.
Downturns happen on average once a decade. 8 years before the financial crisis was the dotcom bubble bursting but as the then Iron Chancellor has been keeping spending under control we were able to ride it out. A decade earlier was the last recession but we'd again gone into that recession with a small surplus so able to ride it out much easier.
Had the government been running a small surplus in 2007 then we could have taken the financial crisis in our stride. It would have been unpleasant still but not the disaster we actually faced.
The scary fact is that we are now a decade from the last downturn. One is now due and we are still fixing the deficit from the last one.
It wasn't the banks that made our deficit it was hubris. To believe that it was possible to defeat Boom And Bust was hubris.
About the only thing correct in this post is the last sentence. On the eve of the financial crisis our deficit was small, the recession was caused by banks, had we been running a small surplus in 2007 essentially nothing would have been different... Other countries like Ireland and Spain were running surpluses but were also hit very hard by the financial crisis.
Edit: just to add (unpopularly I'm sure) i think it is possible and indeed desirable to defeat boom and bust. By that i mean there will still be downturns and recessions... But they should be gentle and nowhere near as dramatic as 2007/8.
Despite being a Tory I would certainly support a universal basic income if automation starts to remove large numbers of full time, permanent jobs indeed in Finland the centre right government is experimenting with a basic income now
I have yet to see any credible figure as to how UBI can remotely be afforded with a tax base that is going to be remotely acceptable to the electorate and leave our economy any chance of being competitive.
46 million adults in the UK. A £80/week (wholly inadequate) would cost around 190bn a year, pretty close to the whole social security budget, which it would in no way replace.
I am not totally adverse to the principle, but utterly against taking on more uncosted open-ended commitments that will be impossible to repeal, and guaranteed to grow substantially over time.
I oppose it at the moment with unemployment reasonably low but if large numbers of full time jobs get replaced by robots without replacement I would support the idea funded by a tax on those same robots and every developed nation would have to consider doing the same, not just the UK
No the recession was triggered by the banks but they are NOT the reason the money ran out. Recessions and downturns happen they are part of the economic cycle. Also known as boom and bust. If it wasn't the banks it would have been something else.
The problem is not that we entered a downturn. It's that we entered a downturn with the spending taps already on full, the deficit already high and the credit card maxed out.
Downturns happen on average once a decade. 8 years before the financial crisis was the dotcom bubble bursting but as the then Iron Chancellor has been keeping spending under control we were able to ride it out. A decade earlier was the last recession but we'd again gone into that recession with a small surplus so able to ride it out much easier.
Had the government been running a small surplus in 2007 then we could have taken the financial crisis in our stride. It would have been unpleasant still but not the disaster we actually faced.
The scary fact is that we are now a decade from the last downturn. One is now due and we are still fixing the deficit from the last one.
It wasn't the banks that made our deficit it was hubris. To believe that it was possible to defeat Boom And Bust was hubris.
About the only thing correct in this post is the last sentence. On the eve of the financial crisis our deficit was small, the recession was caused by banks, had we been running a small surplus in 2007 essentially nothing would have been different... Other countries like Ireland and Spain were running surpluses but were also hit very hard by the financial crisis.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
It also occurred at a time a socialist pronounced he had ended boom and bust.
Most socialists are young and ideological, as they get older they change their minds.
Of course I'm happy to hear examples of a prosperous, peaceful, happy socialist state.
I could go on, but to keep it short I stop there.
In Scandinavia a minimum wage is effectively created by bargaining between unions and employers
scorched-earth policies and total surrender of 'the enemy'.
Though now even the Tories support a 'living wage'
Yes they always move eventually they might even agree to everyone getting a basic income.Especially when many middle class jobs become obsolete.However they never lead just follow on issues like this.
Despite being a Tory I would certainly support a universal basic income if automation starts to remove large numbers of full time, permanent jobs indeed in Finland the centre right government is experimenting with a basic income now
Despite (perhaps even because) of automation employment rates are at all time highs.
I am supportive a Universal basic Income (or negative income tax) but for me its not because of some new economic fad i.e. automation.
Its because it:
Supports the principle of equality before the law, Brings incentives back in to line with value, Reduces bureaucracy and fraud, Reduces the power of government to reward special interest groups.
Question for Welsh PBers: Assuming that (at some undefined point) Scotland becomes independent and Ireland reunifies, would you be content for the remaining state to go back to being called simply the Kingdom of England?
' With Sir Lynton Crosby’s polling indicating Mrs May would undo David Cameron’s hard work in obliterating the Liberal Democrats in the South West '
Has anyone seen this mystery polling which is contradicted by the opinion polls ?
Of course there's no reason why a LibDem revival wouldn't have occurred if Cameron was still PM - in fact judging by the 2016 local elections it had already happened while Cameron was PM.
I recall some other polling which suggested the LDs would hold on to many of their seats in 2015. How's that going I wonder?
From October 2014:
' The big figures are that the coalition partners are level pegging on 32% each which represents a swing from LD to CON since GE2010 of just 2%. This is the best performance by Clegg’s party in any polling and will give heart to his beleaguered party as delegates gather in Glasgow for their party conference – an event that had to be put back from its usual mid-September because of the IndyRef.
With current Lib Dem seats it is very hard to find common trends. In some places they are doing poorly while in other defences there is a CON to LD swing since GE2010. The most interesting feature and one that will concern Tory planners is that the polling shows that once again LAB voters are ready to switch to stop the Tories. 22% said they’d do so in this latest round. That’s based on looking at the two-stage voting intention question which Lord A uses. An initial one and then a second asking responders to focus on their particular seat. So we can see from the data the scale of change.
That the LDs might be winning back some of this vote is critical because much of the Lib Dem success in previous CON battles has been down to persuading LAB voters that their best interest lay in switching.
With relations between the coalition partners inevitably getting worse as we get nearer to polling day the easier it will be for the Lib Dems to win over more tacticals which is why I’m expecting the party do do better in terms of seats than even the latest Ashcroft polling suggests. '
No the recession was triggered by the banks but they are NOT the reason the money ran out. Recessions and downturns happen they are part of the economic cycle. Also known as boom and bust. If it wasn't the banks it would have been something else.
The problem is not that we entered a downturn. It's that we entered a downturn with the spending taps already on full, the deficit already high and the credit card maxed out.
Downturns happen on average once a decade. 8 years before the financial crisis was the dotcom bubble bursting but as the then Iron Chancellor has been keeping spending under control we were able to ride it out. A decade earlier was the last recession but we'd again gone into that recession with a small surplus so able to ride it out much easier.
Had the government been running a small surplus in 2007 then we could have taken the financial crisis in our stride. It would have been unpleasant still but not the disaster we actually faced.
The scary fact is that we are now a decade from the last downturn. One is now due and we are still fixing the deficit from the last one.
It wasn't the banks that made our deficit it was hubris. To believe that it was possible to defeat Boom And Bust was hubris.
About the only thing correct in this post is the last sentence. On the eve of the financial crisis our deficit was small, the recession was caused by banks, had we been running a small surplus in 2007 essentially nothing would have been different... Other countries like Ireland and Spain were running surpluses but were also hit very hard by the financial crisis.
Absolutely correct!
That must be why Brown claimed we were "best placed"
Except he must have misspoke as we were "worst placed"
Mrs May still has a comfortable lead 10 months into her premiership unlike Brown and she represents the views of the public on the key issue of the day, Brexit. A poll last month also had 47% of voters comparing her most closely to Thatcher of former recent PMs and just 11% to Brown. Of course had Brown taken over 6 years into a Labour government and replaced Blair over Iraq as May replaced Cameron 6 years into a Tory government over Brexit he would have comfortably led IDS and beaten Howard in 2005 and probably had a better reputation, much as May comfortably leads Corbyn and will almost certainly beat Labour in 2020 whoever leads them https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/852055843164082176
My thoughts exactly. Blair held on so long that when he finally stepped down and handed over, Brown had got a bit bitter and twisted.
Indeed.
Though I suspect Brown was already bitter and twisted with Blair for getting the leadership in 1995.
I wonder how history would have been different if Brown had challenged John Smith for the leadership in 1992. He would have lost but would have been confirmed as the natural successor to John Smith and would have had a good chance of becoming leader upon his death.
A better counterfactual would have been a contest rather than coronation post Blair.
Or Bryan Gould winning the leadership in 92 on his anti-ERM, anti Maastricht platform. The 94 leadership contest would not have occurred.
Some good counterfactuals that would have radically changed UK politics.
John Smith living to fight and win in 1997 Robin Cook living to contest the Labour leadership election in 2007
Possible more significant though.
Gore winning in 2000 9/11 not happening
Blair finding the cojones to fire Brown at any point before 2007.
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Downturns happen on average once a decade.
So by that reckoning we are due another downturn in the next 12 months or so.
How do you feel we are placed to handle it this time around?
The Debt/GDP ratio is well below the 120% level when Harold Macmillan informed the nation that it had 'never had it so good'! Moroever a Budget Deficit of circa 3% of GDP should be sustainable.
"should be"
What do you base that on?
Lets say we run that deficit for another 15 years.
What will total debt be then and what will our interest payments be (assuming no change in borrowing rates from today)
What could we have spent those interest payments on instead? - you know stuff like schools and teachers perhaps
Despite being a Tory I would certainly support a universal basic income if automation starts to remove large numbers of full time, permanent jobs indeed in Finland the centre right government is experimenting with a basic income now
I have yet to see any credible figure as to how UBI can remotely be afforded with a tax base that is going to be remotely acceptable to the electorate and leave our economy any chance of being competitive.
46 million adults in the UK. A £80/week (wholly inadequate) would cost around 190bn a year, pretty close to the whole social security budget, which it would in no way replace.
I am not totally adverse to the principle, but utterly against taking on more uncosted open-ended commitments that will be impossible to repeal, and guaranteed to grow substantially over time.
I oppose it at the moment with unemployment reasonably low but if large numbers of full time jobs get replaced by robots without replacement I would support the idea funded by a tax on those same robots and every developed nation would have to consider doing the same, not just the UK
At which point those robots (and jobs) that remain will move to the developing countries who will welcome them with open arms (and no taxes).
All the talk about Corbyn is irrelevant, after decades of experimenting with socialism in its various guises around the world its been proven not to work - the money always runs out.
Only the young and impressionable are left clinging to the raft.
Absolutely, but each time its different, each time we are tolled that socialism done this new way, which normally means with a new 'leader' will be different. but it never is.
Hmmm. Let's not forget that last time the money ran out it was due to casino capitalism. And government intervention saved the economy.
Downturns happen on average once a decade.
So by that reckoning we are due another downturn in the next 12 months or so.
How do you feel we are placed to handle it this time around?
The Debt/GDP ratio is well below the 120% level when Harold Macmillan informed the nation that it had 'never had it so good'! Moroever a Budget Deficit of circa 3% of GDP should be sustainable.
"should be"
What do you base that on?
Lets say we run that deficit for another 15 years.
What will total debt be then and what will our interest payments be (assuming no change in borrowing rates from today)
What could we have spent those interest payments on instead? - you know stuff like schools and teachers perhaps
A permanent budget deficit is tolerable if growth is high enough and inflation exists. It matters less than the percentage of debt as a proportion of GDP.
I guess the 48ers will have to change their name...
ORB had 55-45 before the referendum and they don't seem to have published the tables yet. The more interesting thing is their finding that people are more worried about the economy.
Weirdly they seem to have a Scottish section for which they have published the tables.
The UK appears to want its Union cake and to eat it, believing Tessy should delay a referendum, seeing Scotland leaving the UK as a price worth paying for Brexit, but opposing Scottish independence.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK? Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice* Fun with subsamples!
Scotland
Support 58.7%
Oppose 41.3%
Even if a subsample (and contrary to most polls still showing No ahead) interestingly it also shows significantly more Scots want Davidson and May to lead any future No campaign in a hypothetical future indyref2 than do Brown, Darling, Corbyn or a celebrity like Rowling
FWIW the Unionist/MSN/Luvvie BT alliance was a one time deal - If there is another IndyRef I don't see there being a cohesive BT campaign, which goes along way to explaining TM's resistance. The back drop of a potential generation of Tory rule would be an interesting dynamic and focus the minds of SLAB and SLID, irrespective of their current positions.
That must be why Brown claimed we were "best placed"
Except he must have misspoke as we were "worst placed"
Given the importance of banking to our economy - clearly we weren't best placed. Gordon Brown actually responded very well to the financial crisis - i think history will judge him much more favourably than Cameron/Osbourne on the economy.
9. Adjustable rate mortgages with insanely low teaser rates sold to people who only looked at initial payments.
In this respect, the H2B scheme is similar to the subprime mortgage scandal. At least the people being lent the money actually have decent incomes, but it's still an inbuilt interest rate rise five years later. The first loans are due to reach their five year terms this year, and given that you repay 20% (or whatever you were lent) of the current value of the property, some people will be in for a nasty shock.
You do not repay the loan in year 5.
You just start paying interest on the government loan; the principal is repaid when the house is sold.
I guess the 48ers will have to change their name...
ORB had 55-45 before the referendum and they don't seem to have published the tables yet. The more interesting thing is their finding that people are more worried about the economy.
Weirdly they seem to have a Scottish section for which they have published the tables.
The UK appears to want its Union cake and to eat it, believing Tessy should delay a referendum, seeing Scotland leaving the UK as a price worth paying for Brexit, but opposing Scottish independence.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK? Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice* Fun with subsamples!
Scotland
Support 58.7%
Oppose 41.3%
Even if a subsample (and contrary to most polls still showing No ahead) interestingly it also shows significantly more Scots want Davidson and May to lead any future No campaign in a hypothetical future indyref2 than do Brown, Darling, Corbyn or a celebrity like Rowling
FWIW the Unionist/MSN/Luvvie BT alliance was a one time deal - If there is another IndyRef I don't see there being a cohesive BT campaign, which goes along way to explaining TM's resistance. The back drop of a potential generation of Tory rule would be an interesting dynamic and focus the minds of SLAB and SLID, irrespective of their current positions.
Yes, I think the remenants of SLAB and SLD cannot afford to be dancing to the Con tune.
Despite being a Tory I would certainly support a universal basic income if automation starts to remove large numbers of full time, permanent jobs indeed in Finland the centre right government is experimenting with a basic income now
I have yet to see any credible figure as to how UBI can remotely be afforded with a tax base that is going to be remotely acceptable to the electorate and leave our economy any chance of being competitive.
46 million adults in the UK. A £80/week (wholly inadequate) would cost around 190bn a year, pretty close to the whole social security budget, which it would in no way replace.
I am not totally adverse to the principle, but utterly against taking on more uncosted open-ended commitments that will be impossible to repeal, and guaranteed to grow substantially over time.
I oppose it at the moment with unemployment reasonably low but if large numbers of full time jobs get replaced by robots without replacement I would support the idea funded by a tax on those same robots and every developed nation would have to consider doing the same, not just the UK
Lets us for the moment change the name and call robots machines. For the best part of three hundred years jobs done by humans have been replaced by machines. The result has been throughout more, and more interesting, jobs, and higher standards of living. Why should these new machines produce a result that is different?
The idea of taxing machines seems daft to me. What people who suggest this seem to want is higher taxes on companies that try and innovate to produce better things at a lower cost. That will not end well.
Comments
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden
My own take is that countries that are wealthy and well-run, with good education and infrastructure, can afford the economic damage that a large welfare state does. We aren't as good as Sweden or Denmark on education and infrastructure, in particular, so we would be less able to
(Which one might see disappear by the first corner, of course.)
https://youtu.be/lTyZAul60ok
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden
My own take is that countries that are wealthy and well-run, with good education and infrastructure, can afford the economic damage that a large welfare state does. We aren't as good as Sweden or Denmark on education and infrastructure, in particular, so we would be less able to
Difference there is that they spread the money thoughout the population a bit , they don't allow the elite to get all the money and leave 50% in the grubber. Their rich people are happy just to be rich and see the rest of the country prosper and get a small share of the pie , unlike here where they cannot stuff enough in their pockets while they don't care a jot about the poorest people other than to sneer at them for being stupid.
There's also potential for traffic. The Mercedes seems worse in traffic than other cars.
It is credible, but tight. Vettel at 5 seemed better value to me.
Genuinely have no idea how the top teams will stack up on pace.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/timeseries/k22a/diop
Quite an achievement.
1945-1951 manufacturing output increases
1951-1964 manufacturing output increases
1964-1970 manufacturing output increases
1970-1974 manufacturing output increases
1974-1979 manufacturing output increases
1979-1997 manufacturing output increases
1997-2010 manufacturing output falls
2010-2017 manufacturing output increases
Independent Scotland will be one such state.
Labour's open door immigration policy.
Top trolling.
It was certainly the general impression the Tories wanted to create, that it was all Labour's fault, but they acknowledged it was more complex than that enough times in high profile situations that the Labour party whine that they were being blamed for the entire global mess, does not hold up. It was a counter deflection, arguing against an easier accusation that the true one, a very common political tactic on all sides.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/timeseries/k222/diop
but not in the manufacturing data.
Clearly you'd be happy with a form of government which involves employing people who are keen to attach to testicles. I'd suggest that's evil. That you don't goes directly to your perverse and pro-Russian morality.
The 'finical crises' started in this with Northern Rock, supposedly regulated by the FSA.
The Subprime bubble was created by US government presser on the banks to lend to more 'disadvantaged groups'
Now has there been a change in the supply of labour during the last ten years ?
' The big figures are that the coalition partners are level pegging on 32% each which represents a swing from LD to CON since GE2010 of just 2%. This is the best performance by Clegg’s party in any polling and will give heart to his beleaguered party as delegates gather in Glasgow for their party conference – an event that had to be put back from its usual mid-September because of the IndyRef.
With current Lib Dem seats it is very hard to find common trends. In some places they are doing poorly while in other defences there is a CON to LD swing since GE2010.
The most interesting feature and one that will concern Tory planners is that the polling shows that once again LAB voters are ready to switch to stop the Tories. 22% said they’d do so in this latest round.
That’s based on looking at the two-stage voting intention question which Lord A uses. An initial one and then a second asking responders to focus on their particular seat. So we can see from the data the scale of change.
That the LDs might be winning back some of this vote is critical because much of the Lib Dem success in previous CON battles has been down to persuading LAB voters that their best interest lay in switching.
With relations between the coalition partners inevitably getting worse as we get nearer to polling day the easier it will be for the Lib Dems to win over more tacticals which is why I’m expecting the party do do better in terms of seats than even the latest Ashcroft polling suggests. '
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/10/04/con-wants-the-lds-to-flourish-in-lab-con-marginals-but-not-in-seats-the-yellows-are-defending-unfortunately-the-opposite-is-the-case/
Hopefully nobody followed that advice from OGH with their own money.
1. Nether Sweden or Denmark have minimum wages
2. It is very easy to sack a pore worker especially in Denmark
3. Over the last 20 years corporate taxis have been lower in Denmark and Sweden than most of the rest of Europe.
4. Both Denmark and Sweden have parent chose in education Sweden has 900 for profit 'free schools' in Denmark 40% of children go to 'free schools'
5. taxes, any taxes are bad, but the real problem is spending and borrowing, Denmark and Sweden only spend a small bit more than UK, and borrow less!
I could go on, but to keep it short I stop there.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/outrage-hate-filled-neo-nazi-10234713
Her attempt failed. Another woman who took over had other ideas, mostly involving scorched-earth policies and total surrender of 'the enemy'.
Easter is taken extremely seriously here in the Philippines, especially in rural areas such as where I live, not a chocolate egg or fluffy bunny in sight. I am pleased to say that the taste of the locals here does not run to getting themselves nailed to crosses, but if that's your bag its certainly available in other provinces. Midnight masses have been observed as churches once again opened to the faithful (almost everyone). The especially devote were up at 4am for further ceremonies. Easter processions have happened, and everyone has retired to their family homes for a lot of food and conviviality.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39612095
No the recession was triggered by the banks but they are NOT the reason the money ran out. Recessions and downturns happen they are part of the economic cycle. Also known as boom and bust. If it wasn't the banks it would have been something else.
The problem is not that we entered a downturn. It's that we entered a downturn with the spending taps already on full, the deficit already high and the credit card maxed out.
Downturns happen on average once a decade. 8 years before the financial crisis was the dotcom bubble bursting but as the then Iron Chancellor has been keeping spending under control we were able to ride it out. A decade earlier was the last recession but we'd again gone into that recession with a small surplus so able to ride it out much easier.
Had the government been running a small surplus in 2007 then we could have taken the financial crisis in our stride. It would have been unpleasant still but not the disaster we actually faced.
The scary fact is that we are now a decade from the last downturn. One is now due and we are still fixing the deficit from the last one.
It wasn't the banks that made our deficit it was hubris. To believe that it was possible to defeat Boom And Bust was hubris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xZx1lf2tvs
1. Government pressure to allow everyone to own a home.
2. Fannie and Freddie's guarantees.
3. The fact that house prices had never gone down nationwide in the US, and therefore mortgage lending was a 'sure thing'.
4. Securitisation, which meant that the people originating the loan had no skin in the game.
5. The ratings agencies who seemed to believe that there was no correlation between the individual loans in portfolios.
6. The Federal Reserve pumping money into the US economy around the millenium, and then following the bursting of the TMT bubble.
7. The long housing boom.
8. Low documentation loans.
9. Adjustable rate mortgages with insanely low teaser rates sold to people who only looked at initial payments.
10. CLOs where you took a bunch of different 'junk tiers', put them together, and created new investment grader paper.
11. Hedge funds who levered up so they owned $10 of mortgage debt for every $1 invested in their funds.
It's worth remembering that demand for mortgage debt (from pension funds and the like) was so great that Goldman Sachs was selling synthetic mortgage debt.
In the end, the money definitely ran out. These guys just can't help gambling with other people's money.
http://tinyurl.com/mcr759t
The UK appears to want its Union cake and to eat it, believing Tessy should delay a referendum, seeing Scotland leaving the UK as a price worth paying for Brexit, but opposing Scottish independence.
Q.1 Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming an independent country and leaving the UK?
Base: All respondents.
UK total
Support 40.8%
Oppose 59.2%
*Puts on Sheldon Cooper voice*
Fun with subsamples!
Scotland
Support 58.7%
Oppose 41.3%
How do you feel we are placed to handle it this time around?
Also, how's socialism working out for Venezuela?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/3366527/George-Magnus-the-man-who-predicted-the-sub-prime-crisis-would-lead-to-recession-profile.html
Though because of the L shapped recovery from the last recession the next recession is probably still a year or two away. Gordon didn't so much abolish boom and bust as amplify it.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/bahrain-pre-race-2017.html
Race starts at 4pm UK time. Could be rather tasty.
well sort of, the bargaining you talk of is ultimately a function of supply and demand, not government wish full thinking, so I don't really have a problem with it.
But it can also be overhyped, in Denmark the number of people covered by such arrangements has been falling and is now down to about 13% of all workers. I am less familiar with the systems in Sweden, but I expect it to be similar.
Sir Lynton Crosby does some polling for the Conservative Party and for the last couple of days pb is full of comments about the evil of Gordon Brown.
As Hayek observed there as socialists in all partys!
https://www.ft.com/content/912d85e8-2d75-11de-9eba-00144feabdc0
Or Bryan Gould winning the leadership in 92 on his anti-ERM, anti Maastricht platform. The 94 leadership contest would not have occurred.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhE_68GMJIk
46 million adults in the UK. A £80/week (wholly inadequate) would cost around 190bn a year, pretty close to the whole social security budget, which it would in no way replace.
I am not totally adverse to the principle, but utterly against taking on more uncosted open-ended commitments that will be impossible to repeal, and guaranteed to grow substantially over time.
John Smith living to fight and win in 1997
Robin Cook living to contest the Labour leadership election in 2007
Possible more significant though.
Gore winning in 2000
9/11 not happening
On the eve of the financial crisis our deficit was small, the recession was caused by banks, had we been running a small surplus in 2007 essentially nothing would have been different... Other countries like Ireland and Spain were running surpluses but were also hit very hard by the financial crisis.
Edit: just to add (unpopularly I'm sure) i think it is possible and indeed desirable to defeat boom and bust. By that i mean there will still be downturns and recessions... But they should be gentle and nowhere near as dramatic as 2007/8.
Except he must have misspoke as we were "worst placed"
What do you base that on?
Lets say we run that deficit for another 15 years.
What will total debt be then and what will our interest payments be (assuming no change in borrowing rates from today)
What could we have spent those interest payments on instead? - you know stuff like schools and teachers perhaps
It's all gone very quiet over there now.
Wonder why
PS - I have some bog roll to barter comrades.
Gordon Brown actually responded very well to the financial crisis - i think history will judge him much more favourably than Cameron/Osbourne on the economy.
You just start paying interest on the government loan; the principal is repaid when the house is sold.
The idea of taxing machines seems daft to me. What people who suggest this seem to want is higher taxes on companies that try and innovate to produce better things at a lower cost. That will not end well.