| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Prosperous Britain. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 3 2014, 11:02 AM (3,369 Views) | |
| RJD | Nov 3 2014, 11:02 AM Post #1 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
LINK Those earning $25,000 (£15,643) a year in the UK take home 88.22pc of their wages, compared to the average of 82.17pc in Western Europe. Not such a bad sh1t-hole relatively speaking. Considering we are not in the EZ with all it's ongoing problems that have, seemingly, no solution, the UK is well placed as a modern mature democracy. |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Lewis | Dec 21 2014, 06:41 PM Post #361 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As I've suggested you confuse propaganda with the truth. Why for once in you life don't you cast aside those blinkers and see the real light for a change? |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Dec 22 2014, 09:05 AM Post #362 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One day you might point exactly where you see this light. Do you also hear voices? |
![]() |
|
| jaguar | Dec 23 2014, 11:39 AM Post #363 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Brown was not responsible for decisions made by the Clinton administration - which after all gained power in 1993, nor was he responsible for the failures of the SEC, or the Federal Bank. He was not responsible for Fanny Mac and it's failure to properly FINANCE loans that should never have been granted in the first place. He was however as the Chancellor responsible for not ensuring that British banks had inadequate security on loans made to the US banks by British banks. Brown (not Darling who after all got the job after the event). is responsible for the decisions he made, that of excessive spending, doubling the tax code, ignoring warnings of problems in the UK BANKING system, creating a regulatory framework that proved inept and inadequate to the task in front of it. Further his spending left this country totally unprepared for any economic downturn regardless of the cause being domestic or international. Nor did he have any real idea of how to get us out of it other than throwing money at the problem - hence the poor level of our countries finances 5 years after he lost power, and us being the last G20 country to get out of recession and one of the earliest to enter it. Brown is also responsible for thinking that he could abolish the economic cycle with his claim that he had abolished boom and bust (hurredly changed to 'Tory' boom and bust when he realised what an inept and stupid thing it was to say it). Brown was - as the man ultimately responsible for the British economy for allowing such gregarious breaches that happened in the FINANCIAL markets during his watch. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Dec 23 2014, 04:28 PM Post #364 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Running the economy is not a defined science, it is based on experience and requires the minimisation of risks as far as that is possible. Brown's greatest mistake was self belief that he had cured our economy of the inherent fluctuations in growth and as a consequence he could throw caution to the wind, so he did and we all know the outcome. The mistake Balls made, Osborne too, was that GDP growth would deliver revenues to pay for our very expensive State. They didn't. It is always a mistake, particularly in business, to rely on significant increases in sales growth to pay for additional fixed overheads as they seldom arrive in the form predicted. Increasing sales growth usually is at someone else's cost in terms of market share and increasing such a share usually is obtained via lower profit margins. It is also always a mistake to grow organisations at a rate faster than the ability of the people in that organisation to absorb as it can be counterproductive. As we saw the rapid increases in NHS and Education expenditures were not matched by improvements in output which were anywhere near commensurate. In education we went backwards and the NHS productivity rates declined. So Brown was not responsible for the failures of others outside of the UK, but he was the one who threw caution to the wind, was no longer Mr Prudence, and as a consequence of his profligacy we are now paying a very high price. He understands this and as a consequence has kept a very low profile saying very little on matters appertaining to the economy. Unfortunately both Balls and Milliband appear to have learned little if anything. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Dec 23 2014, 05:42 PM Post #365 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is some justification for what is told here. The error is in saying that GDP growth did not deliver higher treasury revenues enabling much needed Government investment in public services. Brown's profligacy however was to continue the spend long after those services had been adequately restored and made fit for purpose. I do not know or can recognise why he broke his own rules on spending, it isn't explained. That fact is spending with Brown as PM did continue to become less affordable. The only possible occurrence that can explain it, though does not explain why, is EU expansion and the huge influx of Eastern European workers. "Jobs for British Workers" was heard ---- UK unemployment rate increased from 4.8% in 2004, to 5,7% in 2006. though confusingly GDP per capita continued to rise at the same rate it had been rising at. We had the same problem Osborne is facing now it seems, only on a lesser scale - GDP growth was no longer delivering the treasury receipts it had been and was expected to do.
Edited by Affa, Dec 23 2014, 05:48 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Affa | Dec 23 2014, 05:43 PM Post #366 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
oops Edited by Affa, Dec 23 2014, 05:46 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nonsense | Jan 4 2015, 06:38 PM Post #367 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"I do not know or can recognise why he broke his own rules on spending, it isn't explained. That fact is spending with Brown as PM did continue to become less affordable. The only possible occurrence that can explain it, though does not explain why, is EU expansion and the huge influx of Eastern European workers". Nearly right, but, it wasn't just "Eastern European workers", it was the "gate-off-the-hinges" policy that flooded the country with migrants from all over the world & which correlates with the unsustainable spending by the last government. It's attempt to cover that gap between revenues\spending with 'stealth' taxes(most people could never understand why they so engaged in these 'stealth' taxes)I am not so sure that even mow they know or understand it, their miniscule brains seemed to be pre-occupied with more rectal matters to hand. I have yet to be convinced that MILLIBAND or his bunch of dim-witted alternatives to the thieving Tories supported by Clegg's equally stupid bunch of jankers are even capable of running a boot fare stall, yet alone making a profit from running one, that being the case, the country can go to you know where, as at my age I care little for it, either now or in it's past, I feel for my grandchildren, for their sakes I would never vote. Edited by Nonsense, Jan 4 2015, 06:41 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| RJD | Jan 5 2015, 09:03 AM Post #368 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The graph is just a ratio, but spending should also be judged in "absolute" terms. Absolutely NL went on a "spend until we drop" spree with Taxpayer's money. Not only, they did such without any real justification, these they have had to concoct subsequently. Britain was not broken, State Services were not broken and a prudent Gov. would have only increased these at a moderate rate. Instead Brown threw caution to the wind. The rest is history and we will be paying for it for years to come. There was no justification to double the NHS and Education "running costs" budget, most went into Employees pockets, in the way they did as we obtained a decline in standards in education, students stuck with massive loans for little of value and NHS improvements miles out of kilter with increased costs. Double spending and you might not double throughput, but you do expect very significant gains. The ineptitude of NL was applauded by GPs who saw a massive increase in their emoluments making them the best paid in the EU and lifting the burden of working unsocial hours. Wait for it, the serial Apologists will once again seek to blow smoke by confusing capital expenditure with running costs. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 5 2015, 06:48 PM Post #369 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The ratio that establishes 'affordability' - The absolute value is pointless if you do not know how much the income is. America on a prudent day spends more than any country on Earth, but that is because it has so much more than any of the rest. As for the rest of your comments - they only go to further expose the Tory habit of trying to rewrite history (Iraq invasion a case in common). "Not our fault, Gov" |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




2:33 PM Jul 11