[Closed] The nasty party conference...

hugo - Member

I believe in smaller government. To me Austerity means living within our means, and people who are anti-austerity want to run up the credit card bill again. Naah, you're right, screw it, spend spend spend. Works a treat every time.

Have you ever stopped and looked at what the Tories have actually done in power? Osborne borrowed more in the last 5 years than Labour did in the 13 before. That'd be pretty incredible even if Labour hadn't had the extra costs of the financial crisis, and if the Tories hadn't flogged irreplacable assets in the same timescale (for, of course, less than they're worth)

Tory austerity has nothing to do with cutting spending; that was just the excuse. I'll be honest, I was slow on the uptake on this; when they announced their plans, I said "you're wrong, you'll hurt the recovery and reduce tax take". But they weren't wrong- they were just lying. They knew they were going to hurt the economy, lose revenues, and be left with higher debt- they just didn't care about any of that, as long as they got to hack away at the state with an axe. It was always the goal.

That's austerity- we're more in debt, and less able to deal with it.

I moved before the election.

To me Austerity means living within our means, and people who are anti-austerity want to run up the credit card bill again. Naah, you're right, screw it, spend spend spend.

As others have said, a national economy is not like a household. A government only gets into the black by taking money from the people, running down their savings or putting them into debt. Is that what you want?

Really? Ask the Greeks how they are enjoying a big deficit.

molgrips didn't mention a "big" deficit, he just said deficit.

And you could of course ask the Americans, they seem to like deficits.

[img] [/img]

Should we all be panicking 'cause the world's largest economy has a deficit ?

Really? Ask the Greeks how they are enjoying a big deficit.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.BAL.CASH.GD.ZS

Worth seeing how many run at a deficit

EDIT: DAMN YOU ERNIE

Running a deficit in a country isn't that big of a deal. Countries aren't like households. Sure, it would be nice to have no deficit, but austerity means cutting services to vulnerable people who really really need state help, whilst the rich have no disadvantage whatsoever.

Presumably we're at the point where if services aren't cut we lose the good credit rating and end up paying higher interest rates which forces us to errr... cut services. Or at very least risk meltdown if the economy goes tits up again because you have no buffer.

Whatever the reason, I find it very hard to believe that every country in Europe and has got it wrong. Every civil servant, every state economist. Only people who have no responsibility for the outcome seem to be advocating any other course of action. A bit like commentators in WW1 claiming they could win the war in weeks by simply opening a second front.

Greece is all the evidence you need that spending your way out of trouble is a progressive gambling scheme - when the money runs out you lose big.

...but frankly if you like borrowing, this government *is* borrowing. Austerity, this is not. It's profligacy. Coining the term was PR genius and electoral gold.

hugo - Member

I moved before the election.

You had no faith that the Tories could form a government?

Well we've had a Tory prime minister for five and half years now. So when can we look forward to your return?

Or do you intend carrying on telling us what's good for us and how much you support Tory taxation policies from distant shores?

Tory austerity has nothing to do with cutting spending; that was just the excuse. I'll be honest, I was slow on the uptake on this; when they announced their plans, I said "you're wrong, you'll hurt the recovery and reduce tax take". But they weren't wrong- they were just lying. They knew they were going to hurt the economy, lose revenues, and be left with higher debt- they just didn't care about any of that, as long as they got to hack away at the state with an axe. It was always the goal.

So how do you explain all the other EU countries cutting spending?

Greece is all the evidence you need that spending your way out of trouble is a progressive gambling scheme - when the money runs out you lose big.

Eh? Surely Greece is all the evidence you need that cutting yourself out of trouble only gets you in deeper shit. Even the damned commies at the IMF agree on that.

So how do you explain all the other EU countries cutting spending?

A million lemmings can't be wrong.

Osborne borrowed more in the last 5 years than Labour did in the 13 before.

So he's overspending. Bloody austerity.

Theres been a conservative party conference, must have missed that, with all the trouble in syria, a new labour leader,x factor 6 chair challenge, a police officer been murdered by a car theif down the road,steelworks closing down , huge loss of jobs, and other more important things in life to worrry about than a failed party run by a load of idiots youd never associate with

Eh? Surely Greece is all the evidence you need that cutting yourself out of trouble only gets you in deeper shit. Even the damned commies at the IMF agree on that.

They didn't cut themselves out of trouble - the couldn't get anyone to lend them any more and *had* to cut to find a lender. As for the IMF they refused to lend Greece the necessary cash just like all the other potential lenders.

A million lemmings can't be wrong.

I'm not convinced by this explanation.

So he's overspending. Bloody austerity.

Right in one. "Austerity" was only ever a slogan to convince fhe masochistic British public to accept more poverty while the Etonians partied on, splashing the cash.

Don't dress it up. Money owed in tax isn't YOUR money, it's the state's.

Worth seeing how many run at a deficit

Thanks for that Junkyard, straightaway (cause it's in alphabetical order) I saw that Algeria and Angola haven't got deficit ...... they're in surplus!

Perhaps the UK could hire their economical advisers? I think what we need is an economy more like Angola's.

A government only gets into the black by taking money from the people, running down their savings or putting them into debt. Is that what you want?

No. You might want to read my posts again. I think I've been pretty clear that I want to give people more money, boost their savings or get them out of debt. So exactly the opposite. To be criticised is slightly bizarre!

As to getting out of the black, you can also reduce the cost of government and encourage private businesses (who also pay tax those horrible people). Well except the Starbucks of this world, and that rubbish needs to be sorted asap.

Osborne borrowed more in the last 5 years than Labour did in the 13 before.

Yes, you're right, even with austerity the deficit is still going up, let's do the opposite and spend more, that'll do the trick.

Madness.

The reason the borrowing has gone up is because the economy was in dire straits, a big spending gap appeared, and it's like turning round a supertanker.

and encourage private businesses (who also pay tax those horrible people). Well except the Starbucks of this world

TOP TIP: Dont contradict your own point in a debate

They didn't cut themselves out of trouble

No. They cut and it created more trouble. The IMF refused to lend more if cutting was the only remedy allowed by the EU.

No. You might want to read my posts again. I think I've been pretty clear that I want to give people more money, boost their savings or get them out of debt. So exactly the opposite. To be criticised is slightly bizarre!

I read your post, but it made no sense. You can't give people more money and keep the govt in the black. It doesn't work like that. But don't believe me - have a little read ...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2015/01/14/beware-of-politicians-bearing-household-analogies-3/2/

As to getting out of the black, you can also reduce the cost of government

How does that work, exactly? You cut the NHS and then the doctors and nurses cure people for free?

I thought the nanny state stuff was the dumbest thing I'd ever read. Well done. You've exceeded that benchmark.

Well unless you're printing your own money with a mugshot of you on the notes that's correct. Of course your own money would be worthless what gives an otherwise worthless piece of paper value is that it is printed by the state.

But by all means prove me wrong and use your own money, you won't have pay any tax on it. Just let me know how you get on with using it in transactions.

Ok, so according to the site UK debt is/was about 97.2pc of GDP according to the latest figures it had. (2013)

If that's not high enough what *should* it be?

150pc? 120pc?

Should we all be panicking 'cause the world's largest economy has a deficit ?

Just chance or cherrypicking that you chose a chart end year showing the worst US deficit? But for your question I think you'll find the Americans aren't too happy and are glad it's getting smaller.

[img] [/img]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-deficit-in-2014-narrows-to-lowest-level-in-six-years-1413385493

hugo - Member

Yes, you're right, even with austerity the deficit is still going up

No it's not.

You cut the NHS

The NHS is ringfenced which is the reason for all the suffering.

Instead of 1pc across the board there's no cuts for the NHS and massive cuts elsewhere.

I think the 1pc across the board would be less painful.

I read your post, but it made no sense. You can't give people more money and keep the govt in the black. It doesn't work like that. But don't believe me - havd a little read ...

You can if you spend less. That's kind of the point. As I said, I believe in small government. Others don't. There was a big vote to decide about it a while ago.

Should we all be panicking 'cause the world's largest economy has a deficit ?

If they weren't the reserve currency then yep, as it is, they are in a pretty special place although it still isn't great.

I find it weird the left think that austerity is all some major plan to destroy the UK when Labour were planning to implement very similar policies. At the end of the day if you want to keep people lendingto you, you need to convince them they'll get paid.

I think I've been pretty clear that I want to give people more money, boost their savings or get them out of debt. So exactly the opposite.

By cutting taxes, right?

So what about the people who can't work? Or earn bugger all to begin with?

At the end of the day if you want to keep people lendingto you, you need to convince them they'll get paid.

Yes, and you do that by keeping growth, which you do with investment. Borrowing to invest is quite a common thing, not the lunacy that the Tories make out.

You can if you spend less. That's kind of the point.

Some stuff has to be done. If the govt doesn't pay for it to be done, individuals do. That's kind of the point.

Just chance or cherrypicking that you chose a chart end year showing the worst US deficit? But for your question I think you'll find the Americans aren't too happy and are glad it's getting smaller.

It was a chart that started in 1967 and finished in 2009 (it was produced in 2010)

Anyway I'm glad you have pointed out that between 2001 and 2014 (the latest figures) the US had a deficit. Which get's back to my question that you still haven't answered :

[i][b]Should we all be panicking 'cause the world's largest economy has a deficit ? [/i][/b]

And if deficits are as bad as you seem to suggest then how come the US has had them for most of the last 50 years?

Here's that graph again to remind you :

[img] [/img]<

TOP TIP: Dont contradict your own point in a debate

TOP TIP: Don't selectively quote when the original forum post is above for all to see. Leaving out "and that rubbish needs to be sorted asap" does kind of change the meaning of the sentence. I'm for Starbucks paying the tax they owe, clearly. I'm for businesses paying tax. I think the personal tax burden should be lower, and so did lots of other people.

How does that work, exactly?

By doing things like increasing the minimum wage so people are paid more by companies, and reducing Working Tax Credits so we're not subsidising companies who don't pay people a living wage.

I'll ask again.

According to the site UK debt is/was about 97.2pc of GDP according to the latest figures it had. (2013)

If 97.2pc is not high enough what *should* it be?

150pc? 120pc?

Just watched the opening few minutes of the BBC News at Ten where it shows Cameron up on stage at the conference……. an utterly vile attack on corbyn, talked of opportunity and how he has two daughters who deserve opportunity in the future……that's as far as i got before i shut the browser tab.

How the **** did 37% of the country vote for this?.

Its a safe bet the children of a millionaire PM will get opportunity whatever anyone does

an utterly vile attack on corbyn, talked of opportunity and how he has two daughters who deserve opportunity in the future…

... and how he was personally affected by 9/11 waiting anxiously by the phone for a call from his wife. At least he didn't trot out his son again, as proof of how committed he is to the NHS.

If the govt doesn't pay for it to be done, individuals do. That's kind of the point.

Yes, I'd be happy with that, sounds good to me. For example, If I want a university education, then I should pay for it. Expecting people who don't go to pay for me is the thing that strikes me as greedy.

Anyway, work in the morning. Goodnight everybody. It's kept me amused.

Borrowing to invest I have no issue with but you can't keep borrowing forever to just provide pointless non jobs on the government pay roll as happened under Labour. That's why even Keynes would suggest you borrow for infrastructure so you can stop the spending when the up cycle comes.

By doing things like increasing the minimum wage so people are paid more by companies, and reducing Working Tax Credits so we're not subsidising companies who don't pay people a living wage.

So you put more money in peoples' pockets by ... errr ... taking it away from them. Riiiiight ....

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7980

If I want a university education, then I should pay for it.

So university education should only be available to the rich?

Yeah that sounds suitably [s]nasty[/s] Tory.

you can't keep borrowing forever to just provide pointless non jobs on the government pay roll as happened under Labour

Your point is politically motivated BS

Expecting people who don't go to pay for me is the thing that strikes me as greedy

If I want a university education, then I should pay for it. Expecting people who don't go to pay for it is the thing that strikes me as greedy.

It depends whether or not you consider the opportunity to improve yourself a privilege or a right.

The issue with making people pay for things is that many people don't have much. So you're making it harder for poor people to achieve stuff than rich people.

Money should not affect your opportunities in life. That is HUGELY important. Fundamental even.

Yes, I'd be happy with that, sounds good to me. For example, If I want a university education, then I should pay for it. Expecting people who don't go to pay for me is the thing that strikes me as greedy.

What strikes me as kind of stupid is imagining that things like education, health etc. are things that can be bought and consumed by an individual with no impact on wider society. If the population are unhealthy and can't work, can't afford to live near their work, have poor housing, have low skills and education, then we all suffer, even you, with your self-bought degree certificate.

If I want a university education, then I should pay for it.

People used to think that a supply of decent graduates benefited the country as a whole (so the country as a whole should pay something) as well as the individual (who paid more tax in return for their higher salary - assuming they well for the cash and not a life of public service).

But things change.

That's why even Keynes would suggest you borrow for infrastructure so you can stop the spending when the up cycle comes.

And the neoliberal alternative to that is tax cuts when "the up cycle comes". Both Labour and the Tories have embraced that alternative policy.

Maybe it's because we're saddled with a sh1t load of debt at basically 0% interest which is a ticking time bomb as interest rates will inevitably go up and therefore the cost of servicing that debt.

There are no guarantees that if you invest x amount in infrastructure you will get y amount of GDP growth - it is a risk, and obviously a risk that the current government doesn't fancy too much going forward, hence wanting to address the deficit.

I don't think historical comparisons are valid going forward. The world has changed alot recently, alot of the old rules and established mechanisms no longer apply. the future is alot less certain. It's the prudent thing to get a grip on our deficit while we can.

It's right that any government should treat every £ of OUR money like it was heir own and robustly question what return/benefit it will get back for every £ spent.

Reading the last two pages, Keynes will be turning in his grave and economics teachers across the land will be wincing!!! No wonder the politicians can get away with murder....

Time to make it a compulsory subject! 😉

What makes you think the economics 'experts' know any more than the non-experts? they hardly saw the last credit crunch and global economic crisis coming did they? If they did they seemed clueless about what to do to avoid it. They're guessing just as much as the rest of us.

Oh I see and stand corrected. As you were....

ChubbyBlokeInLycra - Member

Are you saying with your PhD you still cannot make sense of my views?

You're an idiot.
What you post on here is idiotic. It's not worth the effort of reading, far less trying to understand, no matter how clever you think you're being. I tried it once and it was moronic drivel.
You'd understand that if you weren't such an idiot.

HTH

What's up Chubby? Why do you sound so angry? Idiot this and idiot that? Explain yourself with reference to the term 'idiot'. 😛

I only used the term "Bastid ZMs" in reference to full EU membership, unless of course you considered my description as accurate? Yes?

Chill Chubby chill ... 😀

I'm currently receiving government funding to pay for my education following a career change.

My chosen career is initially, very poorly paid.
I need these qualifications to progress.
I could not afford to pay for these qualifications on my wage alone.

In fact, I couldn't afford to live on my wage alone.

Luckily, my wife is very understanding. 🙂

Free education increases the sum total of human happiness.
It enables us to be [i] better[/i], both individually and collectively.
Stick a price on that.

What makes you think the economics 'experts' know any more than the non-experts? they hardly saw the last credit crunch and global economic crisis coming did they?

THM did. Of course he did.

He didn't come on here and warn us though, but he's explained that's only because he's a little coy........he's a bit shy when it comes to sharing his "expertise" with us. Hadn't you noticed?

outofbreath - Member

Presumably we're at the point where if services aren't cut we lose the good credit rating and end up paying higher interest rates which forces us to errr... cut services

Ah yeah, "we have to cut or we'll lose our top credit rating" argument that Osborne so succesfully used. Until 2013, when we lost our top credit rating, then suddenly credit ratings weren't important and you should just forget he ever mentioned them. Still, it's nice to see the classics get a showing from time to time.

😀

Don't finish the whole bottle

😀

@somadunk I thought Cameron was outstanding. Compare that the the rambling incoherence of Corbyn last week. Cameron had energy and enthusiasm. Corbyn looked tired, jaded and old.

How does that work, exactly? You cut the NHS and then the doctors and nurses cure people for free?

All the news coverage tonight (BBC 10 and Newsnight) has been on how Cameron has ceased the middle ground and again reiterating that the middle ground is what wins elections (same points made yesterday)

I read also that Corbyn will be "too busy" to attend the Privy Council ceremony so he wo t have to kneel before the Queen. Another massive error I'd say, I can't see any middle ground swing voters being pursueded by that and it will alienate many Laboir voters. Another open goal for the Tories to score

jambalaya - Member

All the news coverage tonight (BBC 10 and Newsnight) has been on how Cameron has ceased the middle ground

Never a truer word spoken in typo

jambalaya - Member

I thought Cameron was outstanding. Compare that the the rambling incoherence of Corbyn last week. Cameron had energy and enthusiasm. Corbyn looked tired, jaded and old.

Well if you thought [i]"Cameron was outstanding"[/i] that's really impressive because we all know how much it takes for a Tory politician to convince you jambalaya.

You also thought that Corbyn looked tired, jaded, and rambling incoherently, and yet you usually have such kind words to say about Corbyn.......he must have been truly awful!

Seriously jambalaya, you don't have post on here as if you are standing in the lobby of the conference hall giving an interview to the BBC.

Regurgitating Tory spin is pretty ineffectual on here.

But marks for trying anyway.

Look, even the Staggers is publishing Tory Spin now:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/david-cameron-s-speech-hymn-liberalism-liberated-pm

Then Zebadee arrived and said"time for bed"

Cameron looks like a fat sausage ready to explode! Corbyn looks much healthier to my eyes. But maybe I am as blinkered as you clearly are. (jambalaya)

@somadunk I thought Cameron was outstanding.

Jamba and Cameron sitting in a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G

DrJ the Tories have pledged to increase NHS spending. By the £8bn the NHS has said it needs and that substantially more than the £2bn Laboir said they would if elected.

Not true, but anyway, my point was something else.

Look, even the Staggers is publishing Tory Spin now:

We'll see how much of that he actualy achieves (assuming for a moment that he actually wants to achieve it). It is the height of cynicism to announce a war on poverty and simultaneously announce measures that will plunge more people into poverty, to claim to help people get homes by announcing a bonanza for developers, to claim to end discrimination at the same time your Home Secretary vilifies immigrants.

Cameron looks like a fat sausage ready to explode!

Did somebody say "sausage"? How insensitive!!

[img] [/img]

[i]I read also that Corbyn will be "too busy" to attend the Privy Council ceremony so he wo t have to kneel before the Queen.[/i]

Perhaps one of the other current 500 or so privy councillors can go in his place? Won't be bending the knee anyway, that's a different ceremony on a different date.

Don't let the fact get in the way of your politics though Jam...

I read also that Corbyn will be "too busy" to attend the Privy Council ceremony so he wo t have to kneel before the Queen.

Why should anyone *have* to kneel before another person? Courtesy, yes. Subservience, most definitely not.

I listened to Cameron's speech yesterday and by the time he had finished I was furious that he was allowed to spout such utter lies and bullshit.

Cameron didn't attend Privy Council until 3 months after his appointment - no one suggested he was reluctant to kneel before the Queen or was showing her disrespect.

On average about 5 of the 600 Councillors turn up so Corbyn's not alone in finding other things more important.

Jamby, if you believe the Tories are improving the NHS you are on another planet

2nd junior doctor at my work has accepted a job offer in Australia this month.
The Tories have already succeeded in bringing it down imo

I thought Cameron was outstanding. Compare that the the rambling incoherence of Corbyn last week. Cameron had energy and enthusiasm. Corbyn looked tired, jaded and old

What I thought was how he spoke about things he will never ever even attempt to do never mind deliver

Its was a fantastic piece of style over substance so no wonder it struck a chord with you

Dont get me wrong he sells a message very very well but even you jam*
cannot think he will be setting off , or the party, on a personal mission to eradicate poverty and make opportunity equal for all. It was spin to claim the middle ground but he wont actually try to deliver on his pledges.

* ok you might but somone rational

Cameron didn't attend Privy Council until 3 months after his appointment - no one suggested he was reluctant to kneel before the Queen or was showing her disrespect.

Indeed, Corbyn's record as a backbencher makes almost everything he does as leader look deeply wrong. Blair, Brown or Milliband never had these problems. Corbyn is a poor choice of leader.

You can just see the Labour press team huddle:
[i]
"Cameron's speech has gone down like a storm - he said Jezza hated Britain, we need to counter it!"

"I know! we'll tell the press that Jeremy is too busy to meet the Queen"

"Brilliant!"[/i]

Indeed, Corbyn's record as a backbencher makes almost everything he does as leader look deeply wrong. Blair, Brown or Milliband never had these problems. Corbyn is a poor choice of leader.

Eh? So a good choice of Labour leader would be someone acceptable to the Tory press? That's some impressive logic!

So a good choice of Labour leader would be someone acceptable to the Tory press? That's some impressive logic!

Thats how Blair won elections.

Do you think that a Tory government would have introduced the human rights act, working time regulations or the minimum wage?

You can just see the Labour press team huddle:

"Cameron's speech has gone down like a storm - he said Jezza hated Britain, we need to counter it!"

"I know, we'll tell the press that Jeremy is too busy to meet the Queen"

"Brilliant!"

More likely:

[i]"Cameron's speech has gone down like a storm - he said Jezza hated Britain, we need to counter it!"

"I know, we'll tell the press [anything at all]"[/i]

HEADLINE - Corbyn in Devil-Worshipping Scandal !!

It's the 21st century and we have a "Privy Council".

I rather like Corbyn's attitude re: the "monarchy", myself.

Do you think that a Tory government would have introduced the human rights act, working time regulations or the minimum wage?

But but but .... CMD has announced a War on Poverty!! Are you suggesting that the Tories are not actually committed to social justice, and it's all a big con?

I read also that Corbyn will be "too busy" to attend the Privy Council ceremony so he wo t have to kneel before the Queen.

Welcome to 21st century Britain. Just like 18th century Britain in oh so many ways

They could easily have killed this story - they could even have fudged it with a bow instead of a kneel

instead they have made the most fundamental mistake possible, they have managed to keep the story running - and it will come back at the next meeting, and the next meeting, until he finally does, and all that time the Tories don't have to talk about their policies, they don't have to talk about poverty - they can just keep talking about Jeremy not kneeling in front of the Queen. Its manna sent from heaven for the tories!

But but but .... CMD has announced a War on Poverty!! Are you suggesting that the Tories are not actually committed to social justice, and it's all a big con?

Thats like saying that Blair wasn't committed to economic and functional reforms, and that it was all a big con - of course he was, thats why its called [u]centre ground politics[/u] - everyone warned that if the Labour party lurched left, Cameron would seize the middle ground, and all the lefties shouted in union 'lalala we're not listening', and look what he's just done 😆

It's the 21st century and we have a "Privy Council".

I rather like Corbyn's attitude re: the "monarchy", myself.

Agreed, it's a completely ridiculous institution in a "modern democracy".

I rather like Corbyn's attitude re: the "monarchy", myself.

Fine but surely it is better to get in power and look to change things?

Corbyn always reminds me of the idealist graduate who comes into a company throws a few ideas around some of which may be good, but they do so in such an annoying way that everyone just ignores them.

the war starts by cutting payments to the lowest and tax breaks for the wealthy via inheritance tax.

Christ you lefties are hard to convince