[Closed] So the double dip starts here.....

< sighs >

No, the point I was making was that a high street lender was prepared to offer us a mortgage on the strength of a single payslip I.e. Practically zero employment history.

Clearer?

Ed Balls earlier today:

"George osborne needs to stop blaming the weather, and get a plan B"
.
.
.

is that it?! - is that his idea of a strong opposition?! - gee, thanks Ed, you're doing a great job.

he's a perfect replacement for Alan Johnson, they're both morons.

What concerns me is how these policies are consigning a whole cohort of young people to the scrapheap or a future on minimum wages. Increased fees are making poorer potential students debt averse and so that means more people chasing down the wages offered by the private sector. Without government intervention equilibrium will be established at less than full employment. When eventually recruitment does pick up, emplyers will be recruiting new graduates or school leavers and so a whole tranche of people will move through the system having been unable to get into anything recognisable as a career. 'We're all in it together'? KMA

tominalis - in case you missed it earlier

No TJ, I was responding to exactly that quote.

Just because someone is a Nobel Winning Economist does not make them infallible and Grumm's response implied that that was the case. The quote I responded with demonstrated that clearly.

Is this the same Nobel committee that awarded the peace prize to Obama(!?!?)? Or that awarded Liu Xiaobo the peace prize in 2010? They couldn't be, you know, politicised could they? I mean, surely that would somewhat undermine their credibility and thus remove some of the credibility of Grumm's resposte.

Fairy snuff

My reading is that there has been, and will continue to be, insufficient property in the market place compared to the high demand (for socio-economic reasons).

This elevates prices and they continue to inflate until they find a high balance point. This is above an affordable level for many potential buyers. When the banks started offering silly loans, of course some people took them up - it's a sensible risk, because its still a chance to own rather than rent. That further inflated prices, and all banks offered these massive loans to compete with each other. With this saturation of credit, the only way to buy is to take the same risks as every one else, MTFU and jump in.

So I regard this as a systemic problem that relates to two market forces:

1) excessive demand vs insufficient supply of property
2) deregulation of credit, encouraging ever greater risk taking

I see the problem like this: relying on unfettered markets is like
riding a bike with no hands - mostly the bike self corrects, but
crashes are frequent and painful. 🙂

Fairy snuff

I just got a warm feeling inside. 😀

Sorry if I called you priggish over the A&A thing btw, I get all uppity when people start trying to ban things but I was a bit ott.

I don't remeber you being particularly unpleasant - a fair bit of vitriol headed my way. I am sure I was called worse than "prigggish" 🙂

Just because someone is a Nobel Winning Economist does not make them infallible and Grumm's response implied that that was the case. The quote I responded with demonstrated that clearly.

Is this the same Nobel committee that awarded the peace prize to Obama(!?!?)? Or that awarded Liu Xiaobo the peace prize in 2010? They couldn't be, you know, politicised could they? I mean, surely that would somewhat undermine their credibility and thus remove some of the credibility of Grumm's resposte.

No, but they are likely to have a better idea than you or I, and it is starting to look as though they may have been right on this one unfortunately.

Here you go, notorious lefty propagandist Sir Richard Lambert - outgoing head of the CBI:

The government has "taken a series of policy initiatives for political reasons, apparently careless of the damage they might do to business and to job creation", Sir Richard said in his last major speech before his departure on Friday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12267007

No, but they are likely to have a better idea than you or I, and it is starting to look as though they may have been right on this one unfortunately.

You can cherry pick quotes from any number of folk from opposing sides but it doesn't make them right. They are after all, just opinions, predictions of what is going to happen and

I could say if I were feeling contrary that you don't get to be the Governor of the Bank of England without know what is going on and his opinions surely trumps your support for some highly politicised Americans. As it is I think they are all largely self interested shysters who stand to make a huge amount of money whichever way the economies of the world turn because they are so in bed with the govt's.

King stood behind the cuts last May and appears to still do so.

You may respect these Yanks, but it does not automatically mean that those whose points you intend to refute have to.

King stood behind the cuts last May and appears to still do so.

Where did he say that then?

Do you have an alternative suggestion for why the economy appears to be heading back into recession?

I don't think anyone anywhere denies the need for cuts and austerity, however, there are two sides to the equation, one spending less, and the other earning more. To achieve one without the other is not a route to success. Current lot are cutting busily, but failing dismally in the earning bit. Thats the point, any prat can cut everything that moves (an apparently is doing), it takes considerable skill and accumen to do it without killing the economy.

but the tory ideology is that it's [i]our[/i] job to make the money, and pay taxes. it's the government's job not to waste our money.

exports people, it's all about exports. we've learned the hard way that you can't really build an economy by selling packages of our own debt to one another.

actually, i'm not sure we [i]have[/i] learned it, i reckon we'll do it again...

I think the largest part to blame in all of this aftermath is the media. They spend all their time hunting for a scare story and repeating them. Most people I chatted to over Christmas said something along the lines of "ooh what about this unpleasant recession etc, not good is it". Then when questioned had noticed very little, if any, effect of it and were just going off the news reports. Of course people will be less willing to spend at xmas when the media tells everyone the world is hanging in the balance.

but the tory line is that it's our job to make the money, it's the government's job not to waste it.

And that's not a reasonable system? We earn it, give some to the government who try to spend it on what we need and not waste it?

in my simple head:

tory: small government (not much meddling), low taxation, low spending

labour: big government (some meddling), more taxation, more spending.

both of these have their merits*, they both sound perfectly reasonable. but i like things that come from taxing/spending (schools, hostipals, social security, parks, pensions, art galleries and so on).

i honestly don't see the tories as the bad guys, i don't think they're evil, but i prefer a more socialist system.

it's just a shame that the current labour lot seem so completely useless**.

(*lib dems: much like labour but without the union connections)

(** the-wrong-milliband and Ed Balls? - they'll never get elected, or at least i hope so, and i'm sympathetic to the labour cause! - here i am, wanting them to woo me and my vote, and they give me balls.)

Irrelevent who is the blame.

Those who've debts that are large in relation to their income are in deep-trouble. Along with those who've just got debts, but lose their jobs.

Bad buying is IMO a worse an 'offence' than bad selling.

And I don't think it mattered which political party was in power (since 1997-2011), as none/neither would have stopped the 'party' until too late.

in my simple head:

tory: small government (not much meddling), low taxation, low spending

labour: big government (some meddling), more taxation, more spending.

Only it's not true. In 1982 after 3 years of the Tories being in power, the UK tax burden was the highest it has ever been in history.

That year, according to the Adam Smith Institute, "Tax Freedom Day" was on June 15. It has never been that high under any Labour government - old or new.

Don't get tax breaks for the rich confused with a low tax burden........ someone has to pay for the high levels of unemployment under the Tories.

LOL! Simply blaming the last govt then the previous one then the previous previous one, then previous previous previous ones ... I think you should blame the Romans for starting it all.

FFS! The rot started the moment you/the govt feel too smug.

A little stagnation or recession will do good for all. Try to learn that life is hard and that there is no such thing as constant good (economy) otherwise people will remain shite heads.

Labour = create huge public = creating cannibals = in the long run = Shite. Dear Leader loves you.

Tories = try to create huge private sector = but very few effective private sector still left (manufacture what? Where?) even with policy in place because generations of skills degeneration = in the short run = Shite. In the long run = possible good = but probably will be voted out because of massive scandal like mass sex orgies etc or the "poor" (you) will scream abuse at the "slave masters"(govt).

Face it. Maggots can only blame maggots until such time as they turn into flies then they died within a short period of ecstasy. Eric ****ona once said ... the seagulls is flying or some shite but then he is shite.

😈

Ernie
maybe you should add a bit more to your comment on taxation.;

"Gordon Brown’s first Budget, in 1997, introduced a windfall tax on privatised utilities, changed advance corporation tax, raised fuel duties, and phased out mortgage interest relief. The net effect was to raise taxes by £5.96 billion in 1997-98 and by another £6.67 billion in 1998-99 — the equivalent of adding two days to Tax Freedom Day in 1997 and another two days in 1998.

Stealth taxes. Stealth taxes are a hallmark feature of the Brown years. One such example from the 2002 and 2003 Budgets was the increase in employee National Insurance contributions. In 2002, Mr Brown announced that as of a year later, these would rise from 10% to 11%, which sounded modest enough. But his plan was to levy the extra 1% on all pay, not just that between the upper and lower earnings limits. The matter was glossed over in the 2003, leaving many people puzzled as to why they suddenly seemed to have less take-home pay.

But eventually the penny dropped both with the public and the press, and from 2003 onwards, Mr Brown attempted fewer stealth taxes. Yet in late 2006 he returned to form, announcing a doubling of Air Passenger Duty, which would raise another £1 billion for the Treasury – in Tax Freedom Day terms, one-third of a day's extra work for all of us. Future budgets will reveal whether this is just a one-off attempt to capitalise on 'green' sentiments, or a return to stealth taxes."

Where did you copy and paste that from. Stealth taxes my arse

Taxpayer alliance? Sounds like their sort of lunacy.

Teh fact we might be tipping into recession again as teh long predicted double dip is nothing to do with Browns tax rises abut to do with Cameron cuts. basic facts. You can debate about how much the cuts are needed but cuts cause drop GDP - its a basic fact.

Ernie
maybe you should add a bit more to your comment on taxation.

No, I'll let you do that, since it's completely irrelevant to the point which was being made.

I repeat, the UK tax burden was higher under Thatcher than it was under Brown......even according to the Adam Smith Institute.

Yet in late 2006 he returned to form, announcing a doubling of Air Passenger Duty, which would raise another £1 billion for the Treasury – in Tax Freedom Day terms, one-third of a day's extra work for all of us

Tax Freedom Day 1982 = June 15

Tax Freedom Day 2006 = June 4

Facts vs Tory myths

Labour = Huge public sector = Cannibals = Fact.

Tories = Creating private sector = Sex orgies = Fact.

Labour + Tories = They step on you maggots!

You decide.

😆

lib dems - cannibal sex orgies with whips?

Is this the same Nobel committee that awarded the peace prize to Obama(!?!?)? Or that awarded Liu Xiaobo the peace prize in 2010? They couldn't be, you know, politicised could they

Ernie
you are skipping by all that the adam smith institute is publishing
yes 82 was the high point of TFD, but it was coming down, and then started rising again under Labour.

The current levels are unsustainable and the new vat increase isnt helping, etc etc, but dont just post odd figures up without showing the bigger picture, it dosent help the discussion

bottom line back on topic is that we arent in a double dip recession, the tax burden wont help us get out of recession and spending cuts wont help either, but the bottom line is that if the government had not started to make savage cuts to govt spending then we would be facing a run on the pound and the country going for a bail out just like Ireland has just done and that has destroyed their economy for a decade or so.
but it all comes down to this obsession with material wealth that we all have so labour or tory are not going to solve the problem.

just reading from the ASI a piece called On Borrowed Time.

Its interesting reading, probably far too right wing for most people, but some ideas that seem very plausible.

Does anyone really care about the economy so long as they can pay their own mortgage and bills?

but dont just post odd figures up without showing the bigger picture, it dosent help the discussion

Well I think you need to look at what I was responding to :

in my simple head:

tory: small government (not much meddling), low taxation, low spending

labour: big government (some meddling), more taxation, more spending.

Clearly that is both a false, and simplistic, statement. Which, even though you clearly would prefer that I didn't, I will challenge.

But you want a bigger picture to help the discussion ? OK, I'll give you a bigger picture.

The Tories are back in power, so the tax burden is rising. In 2010 Tax Freedom Day was on May 27, in 2011 it will be on May 30. And I know you like the Adam Smith Institute's Tax Freedom Day, because you tried to use it as a stick to beat Gordon Brown.

The Tories are not the party of low taxation, they are however the party of big myths.

Ernie
as I see it the tax burden is rising to pay off a massive government debt.
Just as in 1979.
see the similarity.
now I dont disagree with you that taxes are rising.
however I do disagree with you on the tories being a high tax party.
I think that their goal is to reduce tax and thus reduce the role of the state (less tax needed to pay for a smaller government)
Thats the ideology anyway.
however, we as a country are going to be totally f@*ked, if we dont stop borrowing money, both on an individual level and govt level.

I personaly cant see that happening as we as a nation want everything we see and we are too stupid to stop. Govts want to stay in power so they pander to the people and give money away.
big myths, I think you will find that both parties are the party of big myths.
As for a stick to beat Gordon Brown, I think Labour borrowed it to beat him themselves.

So Ernie - you appear to be suggesting that the tax burden during Thatchers first term, when she was still cleaning up the mess inherited from Labour, was higher than later in her rule... interesting 😉

Personally I believe that prat on the BBC is to blame, with his stupd blog. He should be ceremonially thrown off Westminster Bridge.

however I do disagree with you on the tories being a high tax party.
I think that their goal is to reduce tax and thus reduce the role of the state (less tax needed to pay for a smaller government)

That is their intention - but the practice is that their disastrous handling of the economy means tax has to rise. This is the lesson from history.

however I do disagree with you on the tories being a high tax party.

And yet I never said that did I ?

Do try and read my posts if you want to comment on them.

I said that the Tories are not the "low tax" party which their highly successful myth says they are.

The Tories simply move the tax burden onto poorer people without reducing it significantly. In fact they often [i]increase[/i] the tax burden. Including when under Thatcher, they increased to it to its highest level ever, in history.

There are not any fundamental differences between the economic polices of the Tories and Labour.

Where did he say that then?

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10109518 ]Here[/url]

Do you have an alternative suggestion for why the economy appears to be heading back into recession?

We did technically come out of recession briefly but that was not to say all was rosy, Gordon was predicting a double dip recession long before the coalition got anywhere near government. He also knew the scale of the cuts that would have to be made but that didn't stop him spending and borrowing a fortune in the run up to the election to try and cling on to his doomed premiership. If anything the labour governments actions have made the recession longer and more painful by spending when everyone knew they should be cutting.

I can't stand any of the major political parties but to blame our current state of affairs on the coalition is daft. Gordon and Tony did nothing to reverse Thatchers legacy, in fact they pushed the Thatcherite policies and the continuity between this government and the last shows no signs of being any less pronounced.

My first statement on this thread was that I prefer the term 'dead cat bounce'. The economy was diving, the house of cards was starting to wobble so Gordon and cronies (and I am not suggesting the Tories would have done anything different) pumped billions into the economy to try and prop it up. This is inevitably going to lead to a brief growth spurt but it is borrowed cash and ultimately it was never going to have a sufficient effect on the productivity of the nation to stave off the recession. They slowed it briefly but in the end they just made it worse by borrowing vast sums.

Of course they could write off the inflationary effects of pumping huge quantities of made up cash into the system, they had the likes of Krugman making wild statements about how inflation was nothing to worry about. They were pumping billions into the banks and then telling us we should worry about deflation. Inflation is theft of our wealth, by allowing a small clique of evil men to control the supply of money and devalue the pounds in our posket without so much as a whisper of protest from parliament. It is theft on a global scale.

I keep on seeing the same old faces popping up to defend their own favourite lying thieves, whatever end of the political spectrum they come from but no one is talking about the real issues, like the sanity of perpetuating a system that requires everlasting growth just to afford to pay its own debts. The wisdom of allowing governments to be in the pockets of the corporations. That were taken into 2 illegal wars on false premises at the behest of those business interests most likely to profit from them.

I don't know why seemingly intelligent people are so keen to pick sides (between which there is virtually no distinction) and bicker on the internet whilst demons run amok in this world. That is why I wanted to take issue with your Nobel prize winner assertion of 'he says this so it must be right' and why I think you are largely missing the point.

spending when everyone knew they should be cutting.

Nope - many folk including the us reserve bank think that spending should be continuing.

Infact the UK is out of line with the rest of the world on this hence the dip back into negative growth.

This is the lesson from history.

Oh - and I am not pickling sides at all. I agree with much of what you say and would like to see the economy massively restructures along sustainable lines. Labour made economic errors as well - but nothing on the scale of these cuts. 1930s here we come

many folk including the us reserve bank think that spending should be continuing

Oh the fed think that we should be borrowing and spending do they? You do know they are a private company and are the single largest benefactors of the global financial meltdown?

Guess we better do what they say then. [facepalm]

Again, you are looking to the wisdom of the very people who are devaluing the pounds in your pocket. Yeah, I know they are American, but who was it that we keep being reminded started the sequence of events that catalysed this whole disaster?

"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders."

– The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s

I think snow could be to blame tbh.

who was it that we keep being reminded started the sequence of events that catalysed this whole disaster?

The Labour govt, wasn't it? At least, that's what some on here would have you think...

Interesting character this Honourable Louis McFadden. I've just looked him up and apparently he also said that the Wall Street bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution. I never knew that.

I think the largest part to blame in all of this aftermath is the media. They spend all their time hunting for a scare story and repeating them

Certainly appears to be working.. didnt the figures actually show a 0% growth for last qtr once the effects of poor December weather on consumer spending was removed from the equation ? And actually showed strong growth in certain sectors such as manufacturing, others such as building were bound to contract following govt spending cuts on school building projects etc..Construction suffered a 3.3% decline, but industry grew by 0.9%

not that anyone really actually reads the figures.. easier to listen to sound bites on the news.

Don't get me started on the media, today listening to the radio on the way home the main stories were:

News of the world phone hacking
Murdoch's bid to seize the rest of BSkyB
The cutting of the world service
Sheridan goes to jail for perjuring himself during a legal battle with a paper.

Soon, we will only have news about news* and the denial of the public right to know what is really going on out there will be complete. All this from a supposedly impartial broadcaster.

*[EDIT] Better stick a wink in here: 😉

Don't get me started on the media

didnt the figures actually show a 0% growth for last qtr once the effects of poor December weather on consumer spending was removed from the equation

It had other effects besides consumer spending...

Are you as well infomed on this as on the Noble prizes ?

LOL. 😆

My point was that because someone has a [u]Nobel[/u] prize, does not mean that they are infallible and using quotes from one particular individual does not an argument win. Useful to reinforce a point but 'he says this so it must be true' doesn't really cut it.

I keep on seeing the same old faces popping up to defend their own favourite lying thieves, whatever end of the political spectrum they come from but no one is talking about the real issues, like the sanity of perpetuating a system that requires everlasting growth just to afford to pay its own debts. The wisdom of allowing governments to be in the pockets of the corporations. That were taken into 2 illegal wars on false premises at the behest of those business interests most likely to profit from them.

Erm ok I agree with most of that - but that wasn't what this thread was about. And are you really claiming people don't talk about, eg the fact that we were taken into two illegal wars? No never seen any discussion of that on here. 😕

My point was that because someone has a Nobel prize, does not mean that they are infallible and using quotes from one particular individual does not an argument win. Useful to reinforce a point but 'he says this so it must be true' doesn't really cut it.

No, but don't you think it's interesting that the head of the CBI said basically the same thing. And of course then there's the actual figures themselves. I'm not claiming to be definitely right of course, but it doesn't look good does it.

Certainly appears to be working.. didnt the figures actually show a 0% growth for last qtr once the effects of poor December weather on consumer spending was removed from the equation ?

Yes, except the actual effect of the weather is a complete guess - could be more could be less. And even if it's right it still means we went from recession, to growth, now back to no growth - and this is before the effect of the cuts properly kicks in.

i know i had to google it as i was not sure iirc a noble prize winner was in to homeopathy.
Good points grumm

Erm ok I agree with most of that - but that wasn't what this thread was about.

I was responding to your question as to whether I have a better explanation of why we are entering a double dip recession than 'The Tories did it'. I might have deviated slightly at the end. 😳

the head of the CBI said basically the same thing. And of course then there's the actual figures themselves. I'm not claiming to be definitely right of course, but it doesn't look good does it.

It looks absolutely horrendous whichever way you look at it, but I think if Labour kept going the way they were going they would have run us all into the ground before admitting they wrong. That or they would have had to make cuts in much the same way as the coalition. As it is, we will never know. Now it is the Tories turn to do it in a subtly different way rather than tackling the major issues like monetary and banking reform.

went from recession, to growth, now back to no growth

I think that the 'to growth' bit was an illusion caused by pumping billions of borrowed pounds into the economy. It will come back and bite us much harder in the end than the legitimate suffering of a housing readjustment ever would have done.

On the subject of TFD

Sancho:
"yes 82 was the high point of TFD, but it was coming down, and then started rising again under Labour."

You seem very pleased that it fell from its highest point in history, though that's kind of what highest point means. The Tories presided over a net rise- yes it did fall but it didn't fall as far as it rose.

In a nutshell:
Under Labour fell every year from 75 to 79
Tories take over 79, immediately rises hard every year til 82. Then falls again til 1993 but throughout the whole time of government only twice is it less than in 78.
Begins to rise again in 94 and trends upwards pretty constantly til 2002.
Labour of course take over in 1997 and it continued to trend upwards before falling again to exactly the 2002 level in 2010.
Labour absolute highest point (June 4th I believe) was lower than 7 of the Tories' 17 years. Their average is substantially lower than the tories.

Here is a nice graph, unfortunately can't get it to hotlink:

So there you go- Tories the party of high tax, by a country mile.

It's really boring, the way people of a certain political persuasion always have to pin the blame for all the problems of the economy on the party which they oppose. Grow up guys!

Any rational person would understand that there is culpability on both sides and as we had 13 years of Labour, they played a massive part in causing the mess we are in right now.

You can try and blame banks and the global situation, but ultimately, the governments of the day permitted the reckless lending and encouraged profligate personal spending because they lusted for the additional tax revenues! If they so impotent in running the affairs of the nation, why do we bother to have any political party in power?? If this is true, parlianent seems like a total waste of money to me!

By default, socialist governments spend like crazy in order to bribe the poorer element of electorate. The longer the socialists spend, the more broke we become, damaging the economy and more people end up one pay cheque from state dependency. The socialist admininsration regard this as a win win situation which is why they accelerate spending with borrowed money which you and I and future generations will have to pay for. People not yet even born will be bearing the brunt of this wastefulness and the cynical politicians of the last administration are well aware that they will be dead and buried long before the shit really hits the fan. Shame on them!

In the UK we rock from left to right administrations in an unending cycle of political and economic stupidity. The left spend spend spend and the right try to rectify the damage, cutting back and often throwing the baby out with the bath water.

After a lengthy period of conservative government, the coffers are recharged just in time for Labour to come in and spend it all (and some). Labour then claim how brilliant they are, but in reality, they would not have the opportunity to provide such luxuries unless a Conservative goverment had provided the funds. The conservatives tell us how good the books are looking whilst we see little benefit. We just have to pay more for less.

Neither parties get to do the right thing it seems. The left are funded by a bunch of union thugs and the right are funded by a bunch of toffs. Both sides are detached from reality! The normal person in the wide band in between these extremes is not represented, but are just deceived. The electorate vote according to what they as individuals will get out of the deal, not for what is best for the future prosperity of the nation. The system is corrupt and broken and no politicians can be trusted as they just lie through their teeth!

All I know is that being in the middle ground makes me the enduring cash cow for the luxuries afforded to those who haven't earned them and knowing the rich are able to swerve paying their fair share. I get no support and little benefit back from the mountain of cash i have paid in cash throughout my life, not from either party, coallition or whatever the party of the day is. The situation sucks and makes me want to emmigrate!

Politicians of any persuasion need to focus on building prosperity and allowing a great deal more social justice. For individuals, personal responsibility, hard work and consideration of others is what is required, but we are all too wrapped up in ourselves to make a value judgement when casting our vote. In light of this, I think democracy is a big fail!

Happy days!

. The situation sucks and makes me want to emmigrate!

Bye

I wonder where you think its better - remembering that actually in the UK we pay low taxes compared to most similar countries and get more for our taxers.

I guess you don't use the roads, will never fall ill, have not ridden trail centres, did not go to school and so on - all funded from taxation,

In the UK we rock from left to right administrations in an unending cycle of political and economic stupidity.

It's the same everywhere!

I get no support and little benefit back from the mountain of cash i have paid in cash throughout my life

You can't go to the doctors then? Drive on roads, put your kids in school? You don't have your rubbish collected? You don't benefit from economic development? You didn't have an education yourself?

Actually, you are being that short sighted, perhaps you haven't 🙂

remembering that actually in the UK we pay low taxes compared to most similar countries and get more for our taxers.

You see TJ - the problem is, that thats impossible, unless you fund it by borrowing! (i.e. just what Gordon did)

You either pay higher taxes, or you get less, you cannot have it both ways!

Zulu - wrong. The NHS is the example - funded from taxation whereas in say Germany you pay more tax than here then you pay insurance for your healthcare on top of the tax you pay

So we pay less tax here than germany - and get more for it - 'cos healthcare is included here.

The NHS is very efficient - this is why this can happen. German healthcare cost much more to administrate

You see you shouldn't believe the tory propaganda - use your scepticism on it.

The reality is we are low tax and low spending with an efficient public services.

The reality is we are low tax and low spending with an efficient public services.

Yes, the Thatcherite policies that you so despise really improved our country, I'm glad you've come around to my way of thinking at last - Imagine where we would have been without them 😆

You either pay higher taxes, or you get less, you cannot have it both ways! - zulu

Zulu - wrong. So we pay less tax here than germany - and get more for it - 'cos healthcare is included here. TJ

I'm glad you've come around to my way of thinking at last - zulu

The NHS is very efficient

We now have more bureaucrats and administrators in the NHS than we have hospital beds.

- Nick Clegg, campaigning in London, 3 May 2010

To me this would imply that we are not as highly efficient as you seem to think.

Or that nick clegg is talking balderdash. Teh NHS is far more than inpatient hospitals and infact inpatinet beds have been falling for decades as treaments become more effective and efficinet

Continual reorganising has lead to higher admin costs but the last comparison I wsaw was that NHS admin costs were half of those of the german healthcare system - mainly due to the simple funding in the UK. Teh picture will not be so good in England now due to political nonsense - foundation trusts for example

We now have more bureaucrats and administrators in my doctor surgery than we have Doctors
well they have admin staff to answer the phone who work PT so there are more of them than Dr, one who deals with general admin for the whole centre , centre manager etc. It makes a good headline but what can be done as they need a lot of support to free up doctors to do their job. Would you prefer the Dr answers the phone and books appointments to reduce admin and bureaucracy or just treat people ?

Or that nick clegg is talking balderdash.

Factcheck seem to disagree but don't let that get in your way.

It is weird that all of the people I know who work for the NHS seem to bitch about it all the time but when someone else criticises it they leap to it's defence. It is similar to the way that parents treat their kids.

Someone recently said that the NHS is the closest thing we have to a national religion and it would appear TJ that you are an evangelist. The thing is that health provision should not be an emotional affair, it should be guided by reason and good accounting.

From an article in the Telegraph in 2008:

NHS productivity fell by 2.0 per cent a year between 2001 and 2005, according to the Centre for the Measurement of Government Activity, the ONS unit that monitors public spending. That was the period of the biggest funding increase in NHS history.

From 2005 to 2006, productivity fell less quickly, by 0.2 per cent.

From 1995 to 2006, the NHS annual budget more than doubled from £39 billion to £89.7 billion.

As I said before, I am no fan of the Tories but to hear you lot bleat on about Labour as if it were all okay before the coalition was formed just makes me laugh.

It is a perfect example of fitting the world to your viewpoint rather than adjusting your viewpoint to fit the world.

Reason and good accounting eh

There are simple reasons why productivity in that crude measure fell

1) More flexibility = more waste. Long waiting times mean you can plan to use 100% of resources. want to be flexible you cannot as you need to leave capacity spare to create the flexibility

2) improvements in care. Spend more on treating one patient with a better outcome it appears as lower productivity

You see on healthcare I like facts and evidence based practice not cant and propaganda - and I have no time for some of Labours policies on healthcare either

The thing is that health provision should not be an emotional affair, it should be guided by reason and good accounting.

Good accounting? Is that why the NHS needs all those managers?

1) More flexibility = more waste. Long waiting times mean you can plan to use 100% of resources. want to be flexible you cannot as you need to leave capacity spare to create the flexibility

That is interesting and I am sure in some measure true but to more than double the spending and not see a considerable productivity gain is a propagandists wet dream and rightly so.

Do you not understand - [b]output[/b] increased greatly - [b]productivity [/b]fell for the two reasons I put.

Those two measures actually have little meaning in the context of healthcare. Price of everything and value of nothing.

£four trillion debt any one? borrowing money we have no chance of paying back anyone? its a cumulative effect. labour put us in this position then obviously pulled the wool over every ones eye with quantative easing (or borrowing on top of the massive debt we've already accumulated). by the way i didn't vote tory. i voted bnp (joking) it was UKIP (still joking). tandem jeremy for nick griffins position; i think you'ld make a good politician. 😆

We could bat statistics back and forth all day I am sure, but from what I have read and what I have seen, the labour government poured money into the NHS and for every 100 they put in they got 10 back out. Healthcare has improved but not in the order of magnitude of expenditure.

Anyways, this has nowt to do with a double dip recession so I shall at this point bow out of this exchange.

TJ - Serious question - Are you, by any chance, Polly Toynbee's next door neighbour?

Its just that I read her articles in the Guardian and the country she lives in seems fantastic. Its a socialist utopia built by Gordon and Tony.

Judging from your posts, you must live there too. Just the two of you. You and Polly. I wish I did. It sounds great. The country I live in is nothing like that at all unfortunately 🙁

yes but your country has Hora ...every cloud has asilver lining

So there you go- Tories the party of high tax, by a country mile.

I'm not sure that it is fair to describe it as "by a country mile". Yes maybe if you look at the whole picture taxation is a bit higher under the Tory governments than under Labour governments, but I'm sure some would want to argue that there are mitigating circumstances to explain this fact.

What is absolutely indisputable is that the Tories are NOT the party of low tax, despite the almost universally believed myth - even some on the left fall for that one.

And something else which is also false, is the other universally believed myth that the Tories are the party of low government spending. If you look at public spending as percentage of GDP between 1979 and 1997 when the Tories were in government, you will see that it averages [i]over[/i] 40%. In the period between 1997 and 2010 when Labour were in power, it averages [i]below[/i] 40%.

The claim that the Tories are the party of low taxation and low public spending, whilst labour are the party of high taxation and high public spending, is a complete, but very successful, myth.

And we are witnessing the creation of a completely new myth today - the myth that Labour are the party of budgetary deficits, whilst the Tories on the other hand are the party of budgetary balances.

In the period since the end of the second world war Britain has almost always experienced budgetary deficits. Even throughout the 1950s, a period when the British people were famously told by a Conservative prime minister "you've never had it so good" Britain had budget deficits.

There has only been 4 occasions since the end of WW2 when Britain [i]hasn't[/i] had budget deficits. 3 of those occasions occurred under Labour governments. Only once since the end of the War has Britain not had a budget deficit under the Tories. Despite the fact that he Tories have been in power most of that time.

The problem for the Tories is that they are not generally seen as the party which naturally serves the interests of ordinary people, that role has been historically been associated with the Labour Party.

The Tories however need to win general elections, if they are to serve the interests of the wealthiest sections of society. So they have very successfully, with the help of their billionaire buddies in the media, created myths which say that whilst Labour might have the best intentions, it is [i]they[/i] who can manage the economy best. And that ultimately benefits everyone (trickle-down economics as Ronald Reagan called it)

It is a common perception amongst working class people, that despite the fact that they don't like the Tories, the Tories [i]must[/i] be better at managing a capitalist economy - they are after all capitalists themselves.

There is a certain amount of logic there, however, actual facts prove this to be false. The problem with capitalism is capitalism itself. So for capitalism to work best, it requires governments which accept the failings of capitalism - something which is more likely to come from a Labour government.

And it is for this reason that the interventionist economic policies of John Maynard Keynes have historically been so successful. Keynes was not a socialist btw. It is also precisely for this reason that we are in mess today - decades of a deluded belief that capitalism and the markets always know best.

Binners - no I live in the real world not the world of tory (or labour) propaganda. For example - crime - down dramatically and significantly under labour. Its not what the propaganda sheets would have you believe but there is no doubt this is true.

I repeatedly say that many of the policies of Labour are not to my liking, that I don't always vote labour.

However I do live in the real world where I can see the results of increased healthcare spending.

With that I too will bow out as we are a long way from the original premise which has bee so succinctly put to bed by Ernie.

TandemJeremy - Member

"Reason and good accounting eh
There are simple reasons why productivity in that crude measure fell
2) improvements in care. Spend more on treating one patient with a better outcome it appears as lower productivity"

This is the one that boils my blood... When I broke my hip, I was given a very modern treatment which was a lot more complex than the traditional hip replacement and increased my hospital time. It also increased the physio time enormously, and chances are there'll be more surgery and more physio at some point. So that's inefficient apparently. But the reason there was so much more physio, is that a hip replacement would have had no real possibility of a full recovery, whereas with the in-situ traction methods it's possible to have almost a normal functioning, durable leg.

So it's [i]inefficient[/i] but it's lifechanging. I'd not be posting on here if I'd had a full hip replacement I reckon because it's not likely I'd be riding bikes. And I'm hardly alone. So screw your inefficiency- modern medicine is more complex, more expensive, often more time consuming and far, far better.

This made me laugh this morning

[img] [/img]

😀

As I said before, I am no fan of the Tories but to hear you lot bleat on about Labour as if it were all okay before the coalition was formed just makes me laugh.
It is a perfect example of fitting the world to your viewpoint rather than adjusting your viewpoint to fit the world.

No, new Labour were in most ways a huge dissapointment, and I didnt vote for them last time. They did do a few good things though.

The new government has done a few good things too, but mostly really awful things.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/26/george-soros-david-cameron-recession ] George Soros tells David Cameron: change direction or face recession[/url]

So thats the outgoing Head of the CBI, A nobel prize winning economist and now a man who makes fortunes on the markets all telling Osbourne athat he is wrong. Quite a bit of economic expertise there compared to Osbournes 🙄

TandemJeremy - Member

George Soros tells David Cameron: change direction or face recession

So thats the outgoing Head of the CBI, A nobel prize winning economist and now a man who makes fortunes on the markets all telling Osbourne athat he is wrong. Quite a bit of economic expertise there compared to Osbournes

I think he might as well resign if he needs to listen to all those "experts". He should have a bet with them to see if they can run the economy properly.

As a leader he can either listen to everyone who thinks s/he is an expert or run it his own way. The decision is his so good or bad he must live by it.

The rest of the so-called financial/economy experts ... why not be a politician and stand for an election to change things for good rather trying to look clever?

🙄

Well said, Northwind.

The rest of the so-called financial/economy experts ... why not be a politician and stand for an election to change things for good rather trying to look clever?

Because George Soros has worked his way from being a waiter, to become the 35th richest man in the world (despite giving £millions away) solely by speculating and working the financial markets - something he could not have done if he had been merely a politician ?

To be fair though, George Soros is passionately against free-market neo-liberalism - he coined the phrase "market fundamentalists", so I would hardly expect him to be supporting David Cameron's economic gobbledygook.

So it's inefficient but it's lifechanging. I'd not be posting on here if I'd had a full hip replacement I reckon because it's not likely I'd be riding bikes. And I'm hardly alone. So screw your inefficiency- modern medicine is more complex, more expensive, often more time consuming and far, far better.

Great to hear. Personally I am happy to pay more tax to hear more stories like that.

George Soros has worked his way from being a waiter, to become the 35th richest man in the world (despite giving £millions away) solely by speculating and working the financial markets - something he could not have done if he had been merely a politician ?

we should establish whether he has a "short" position on the UK economy before giving him air time. Or does that not matter as long as he agrees with your point?

I repeatedly say that many of the policies of Labour are not to my liking, that I don't always vote labour.

who else UKIP? 😉