Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Nigel Farage named Briton of the year by the Times
Topic Started: Dec 27 2014, 03:42 PM (2,925 Views)
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
The 50-year-old was described as "game-changing" politician and was honoured for "bulldozing" his party into the political mainstream during 2014.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/548896/Nigel-Farage-Ukip-UK-Independence-Party-Briton-of-the-Year-2014-The-Times
Edited by AndyK, Dec 27 2014, 03:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:54 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:26 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 08:13 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepdoand other political opponents of Labour get their way, the next generation will be believing a lie. Hopefully they will be better informed than many people are today.
HOW MANY times do you have to be told, no one on this board has blamed Blair or Brown for the global financial meltdown, what Brown IS blamed for is the shocking and careless way that he handled our own domestic financial matters both as chancellor and pseudo PM, Blair with his policy of open doors policy and his loony leftist colleagues with their social engineering completed the task of Bringing the UK to the brink of disaster.
How many times do you need to be told that the UK economy was facing no problems before the meltdown. Brown's handling of the economy only came under any real attack AFTER the meltdown.

"Social Engineering"??

Thatcher not only threw millions of people out of work, with millions of skilled personel who would never work in their trades again. But she then turned her back on them setting the foundation for high to mass unemployments for 17 years.
As the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, there was a big increase in the number of pensioners and children living in relative poverty. Do you think that adds up to "SOCIAL ENGINEERING"?


The unions and their stubborn pig headed leaders caused their own downfall by demanding wages that priced their commodities out of the market and then DEMANDING that the government step in with taxpayers money to save them, compromise is the winning word of any negotiations whereas ultimatums and strikes get you nowhere as has been witnessed time and time again all around the world except for France.

What do you think of the French economy and it's future in a competetive global market?
Is that the French economy that has the most productive workforce in Europe or another French economy that I've not heard about?

And don't forget to get another right winger to fill in that hole you've dug, it'll double production.....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Dec 29 2014, 08:11 PM
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:54 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:26 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepdoand
How many times do you need to be told that the UK economy was facing no problems before the meltdown. Brown's handling of the economy only came under any real attack AFTER the meltdown.

"Social Engineering"??

Thatcher not only threw millions of people out of work, with millions of skilled personel who would never work in their trades again. But she then turned her back on them setting the foundation for high to mass unemployments for 17 years.
As the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, there was a big increase in the number of pensioners and children living in relative poverty. Do you think that adds up to "SOCIAL ENGINEERING"?


The unions and their stubborn pig headed leaders caused their own downfall by demanding wages that priced their commodities out of the market and then DEMANDING that the government step in with taxpayers money to save them, compromise is the winning word of any negotiations whereas ultimatums and strikes get you nowhere as has been witnessed time and time again all around the world except for France.

What do you think of the French economy and it's future in a competetive global market?
Nonsense there was nothing of the sort in recent times. You live in your own fantasy world that died out nearly two generations ago. If there is anyone to blame for the global meltdown, then blame your dead heroine Thatcher. Her policies created the conditions that caused the problems.
Are you seriously saying that Maggie and her governments policies caused a global meltdown? she resigned in 1990, which, if you have any brains was 18 years prior to the global meltdown and she died in 2013...............does your mother know you are up this late?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Dec 29 2014, 09:21 PM
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:54 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:26 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepdoand
How many times do you need to be told that the UK economy was facing no problems before the meltdown. Brown's handling of the economy only came under any real attack AFTER the meltdown.

"Social Engineering"??

Thatcher not only threw millions of people out of work, with millions of skilled personel who would never work in their trades again. But she then turned her back on them setting the foundation for high to mass unemployments for 17 years.
As the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, there was a big increase in the number of pensioners and children living in relative poverty. Do you think that adds up to "SOCIAL ENGINEERING"?


The unions and their stubborn pig headed leaders caused their own downfall by demanding wages that priced their commodities out of the market and then DEMANDING that the government step in with taxpayers money to save them, compromise is the winning word of any negotiations whereas ultimatums and strikes get you nowhere as has been witnessed time and time again all around the world except for France.

What do you think of the French economy and it's future in a competetive global market?
Is that the French economy that has the most productive workforce in Europe or another French economy that I've not heard about?

And don't forget to get another right winger to fill in that hole you've dug, it'll double production.....


I am more than capable of backing my claims up digger, (heh heh) someone else has the measure of you too.

Try the following for size..........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25736590
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/31/france-economy-malaise-unpalatable-remedy
Edited by Rich, Dec 29 2014, 10:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 10:14 PM
Tigger
Dec 29 2014, 09:21 PM
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:54 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepdoand


The unions and their stubborn pig headed leaders caused their own downfall by demanding wages that priced their commodities out of the market and then DEMANDING that the government step in with taxpayers money to save them, compromise is the winning word of any negotiations whereas ultimatums and strikes get you nowhere as has been witnessed time and time again all around the world except for France.

What do you think of the French economy and it's future in a competetive global market?
Is that the French economy that has the most productive workforce in Europe or another French economy that I've not heard about?

And don't forget to get another right winger to fill in that hole you've dug, it'll double production.....


I am more than capable of backing my claims up digger, (heh heh) someone else has the measure of you too.

Try the following for size..........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25736590
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/31/france-economy-malaise-unpalatable-remedy
Do you understand what the word productivity means Rich? ;-)

No one is denying that France has only marginal growth but they have not gained it by pumping up house prices, suppressing wages, and opening the credit taps again Gordon Brown style.

Perhaps xenophobia got the better of you, AGAIN! :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 29 2014, 09:32 PM
Posted Image
Nice picture!

There might be some on here who could offer their services to Farage as a sort of foot stool to help the great man mount a horse of his own. ;-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:54 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:26 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 08:13 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepdoand other political opponents of Labour get their way, the next generation will be believing a lie. Hopefully they will be better informed than many people are today.
HOW MANY times do you have to be told, no one on this board has blamed Blair or Brown for the global financial meltdown, what Brown IS blamed for is the shocking and careless way that he handled our own domestic financial matters both as chancellor and pseudo PM, Blair with his policy of open doors policy and his loony leftist colleagues with their social engineering completed the task of Bringing the UK to the brink of disaster.
How many times do you need to be told that the UK economy was facing no problems before the meltdown. Brown's handling of the economy only came under any real attack AFTER the meltdown.

"Social Engineering"??

Thatcher not only threw millions of people out of work, with millions of skilled personel who would never work in their trades again. But she then turned her back on them setting the foundation for high to mass unemployments for 17 years.
As the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, there was a big increase in the number of pensioners and children living in relative poverty. Do you think that adds up to "SOCIAL ENGINEERING"?


The unions and their stubborn pig headed leaders caused their own downfall by demanding wages that priced their commodities out of the market and then DEMANDING that the government step in with taxpayers money to save them, compromise is the winning word of any negotiations whereas ultimatums and strikes get you nowhere as has been witnessed time and time again all around the world except for France.

What do you think of the French economy and it's future in a competetive global market?
I do uderstand your misguided desire to put all the blame on unions, but that is another thread.

Why are you ignoring the damaging "social engineering" (begun by right-wing) Tories over an 18 year period while being so quick to accuse NL, --- who from 1997 were attempting to undo the social damage in society, inherited from the Tories --- of "social engineering"?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Dec 29 2014, 10:24 PM
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 10:14 PM
Tigger
Dec 29 2014, 09:21 PM
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:54 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepdoand
Is that the French economy that has the most productive workforce in Europe or another French economy that I've not heard about?

And don't forget to get another right winger to fill in that hole you've dug, it'll double production.....


I am more than capable of backing my claims up digger, (heh heh) someone else has the measure of you too.

Try the following for size..........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25736590
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/31/france-economy-malaise-unpalatable-remedy
Do you understand what the word productivity means Rich? ;-)

No one is denying that France has only marginal growth but they have not gained it by pumping up house prices, suppressing wages, and opening the credit taps again Gordon Brown style.

Perhaps xenophobia got the better of you, AGAIN! :)
Yes, one has to deal with the reality of the time. 2006 was a hell of a lot different to 2008.

No UK political party has, to my knowledge, advocated left wing politics (as in France) as an answer to the present economic crisis. So why bring up the French position is puzzling for me. I suspect it is no more than throwing mud knowing that for some, some of the mud will stick. It's from the same stable as 'reds under the bed'.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 10:10 PM
Lewis
Dec 29 2014, 08:11 PM
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:54 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepdoand


The unions and their stubborn pig headed leaders caused their own downfall by demanding wages that priced their commodities out of the market and then DEMANDING that the government step in with taxpayers money to save them, compromise is the winning word of any negotiations whereas ultimatums and strikes get you nowhere as has been witnessed time and time again all around the world except for France.

What do you think of the French economy and it's future in a competetive global market?
Nonsense there was nothing of the sort in recent times. You live in your own fantasy world that died out nearly two generations ago. If there is anyone to blame for the global meltdown, then blame your dead heroine Thatcher. Her policies created the conditions that caused the problems.
Are you seriously saying that Maggie and her governments policies caused a global meltdown? she resigned in 1990, which, if you have any brains was 18 years prior to the global meltdown and she died in 2013...............does your mother know you are up this late?
Maggie changed the basis upon which the UK earned an income. Her Deregulation, Financial Services and Free Market Economy is what made the UK so vulnerable to the meltdowm.

The selling off of our utitlities, including oil, with a free market approach saw so much of the profits going to foreign companies and foreign Banks instead of government coffers or UK banks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 29 2014, 08:14 PM
The Trade Unions certainly did contribute to their own downfall!
imo the biggest reason that UK business struggled to compete was decades of high inflation, high interest rate, making investments in modernising plant difficult if not completely unaffordable. With 'payback' periods stretching over five years investors went elsewhere, went abroad, went to the Yuppies of the City. Wasn't it Thatcher that told that the UK economy would rest entirely on the Services Sector?





I would suggest that the unions, or perhaps more correctly the wildcat strikes that were not supported by the unions, did contribute to their own downfall by making themselves the perfect scapegoats for the Tories and the Tory press.

The real failure was the capitalist system as it was misused and abused by those with real power in the 20th cent.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

The horse looks to be most intelligent in that picture.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Dec 30 2014, 11:33 AM
But your post makes no sense in isolation,
That it makes no sense to you really is not my problem.

Perhaps this one is simple enough for you, it appears Mr Farage is not fooling young people:-


Posted Image

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM
How many times do you need to be told that the UK economy was facing no problems before the meltdown. Brown's handling of the economy only came under any real attack AFTER the meltdown. . . .
I think that shows a worrying degree of denial

You've already seen the evidence that the economy was only being sustained by quite extraordinary levels of debt (~£150B a year) and that way before the international meltdown, the UK was in trouble as household repossessions increased dramatically in 2006. Maybe you've also forgotten that the Northern Rock collapse preceded the international meltdown.

Now for that "golden rule" as introduced in the 1997 budget.

Quote:
 
25 billion in interest payments on debt, more than we spend on schools. Public finances must be sustainable over the long term. If they are not then it is the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes who depend on public services that will suffer most. So, as with our approach to monetary policy, so in fiscal policy: we will now establish clear rules, a new discipline, openness, and accountability.

My first rule - the golden rule - ensures that over the economic cycle the Government will borrow only to invest and that current spending will be met from taxation.

My second rule is that, as a proportion of national income, public debt will be held at a prudent and stable level over the economic cycle. And to implement these rules, I am announcing today a five year deficit reduction plan


A bit ambiguous IMHO but the contrast between Gordon's first and second 5 years is so great that it s hard to see he was obeying that rule from 2002
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Malum Unus
Member Avatar
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 30 2014, 12:11 PM
Pro Veritas
Dec 30 2014, 11:33 AM
But your post makes no sense in isolation,
That it makes no sense to you really is not my problem.

Perhaps this one is simple enough for you, it appears Mr Farage is not fooling young people:-


Posted Image



Considering the amount intent on voting for the 'Greens' and taking into account their reliance on pseudo-science, I think the stats says more about the idealism of 'young people' than it does about UKIP or 'Mr Farage'.

But seriously though age 17-22, could they have picked a 'narrower' sample base?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Malum Unus
Dec 30 2014, 01:13 PM


Considering the amount intent on voting for the 'Greens' and taking into account their reliance on pseudo-science,
What "pseudo-science?"
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 30 2014, 12:47 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM
How many times do you need to be told that the UK economy was facing no problems before the meltdown. Brown's handling of the economy only came under any real attack AFTER the meltdown. . . .
I think that shows a worrying degree of denial

You've already seen the evidence that the economy was only being sustained by quite extraordinary levels of debt (~£150B a year) and that way before the international meltdown, the UK was in trouble as household repossessions increased dramatically in 2006. Maybe you've also forgotten that the Northern Rock collapse preceded the international meltdown.

Now for that "golden rule" as introduced in the 1997 budget.

Quote:
 
25 billion in interest payments on debt, more than we spend on schools. Public finances must be sustainable over the long term. If they are not then it is the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes who depend on public services that will suffer most. So, as with our approach to monetary policy, so in fiscal policy: we will now establish clear rules, a new discipline, openness, and accountability.

My first rule - the golden rule - ensures that over the economic cycle the Government will borrow only to invest and that current spending will be met from taxation.

My second rule is that, as a proportion of national income, public debt will be held at a prudent and stable level over the economic cycle. And to implement these rules, I am announcing today a five year deficit reduction plan


A bit ambiguous IMHO but the contrast between Gordon's first and second 5 years is so great that it s hard to see he was obeying that rule from 2002
The economy was strong before the meltdown as shown by the graphs you posted, that is not to say it was perfect or that some adjustments were not needed, such as the rise in interest rates around 2004.
Governments borrow in accordence to their income/GDP.

Obviously the economy would not be in the mess it is in today if the meltdown had never happened.

Debt is normal in capitalist countries, the stronger the government believes the economy is, the greater is likely to be the debt. The government believed the UK economy was strong in 2006
We still do not know the 'normal/average' levels of repossessions. The situation before the meltdown did need adjustment nevertheless it was not a fraction of a threat to the economy that the meltdown was.

The Northern Rock collapse in 2007 was part of the slide into the meltdown. I suspect it is likely that some people in the Banking sector had got a whiff of things to come.

Golden rule.
1. As far as I know that was pretty much followed the only question that arose at one single point was about the length of the economic cycle.

2.His 5 year deficit reduction plan was a success with the deficit only once coming anywhere near to the deficit levels inherited in 1997.

Brown made no secrete of his intentintion to invest in the future of the UK but still managed, pre meltdown, to keep the deficit some 6% lower than in 1997.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somersetli
Member Avatar
somersetli
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 30 2014, 12:11 PM
Pro Veritas
Dec 30 2014, 11:33 AM
But your post makes no sense in isolation,
That it makes no sense to you really is not my problem.

Perhaps this one is simple enough for you, it appears Mr Farage is not fooling young people:-


Posted Image

If this forecast predicts anything it shows that this country is still in the grip of the 'tunnel vision' politics that has bedevilled it for the last 70 years.

The same old Tory/Labour in/out, in/out, shake it all about routine, that has got us precisely nowhere.

My own prediction of the next GE is that we shall end up with a 'Rainbow Government' that will probably not last a year.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
somersetli
Dec 30 2014, 02:21 PM


My own prediction of the next GE is that we shall end up with a 'Rainbow Government' that will probably not last a year.
They could probably do a better job than the current government:-

Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:26 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 08:13 AM
Rich
Dec 28 2014, 08:06 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepdo
Social and economic damage inflicted 1997 - 2010? Even handedness means looking at the facts.

Can you tell me who caused the international financial tsunami? And who introduced the new way of earning a living by introducing deregulation, financial services and the free market economy? (an approach that stymied any chance of rebuilding our industrial base at the time).

What appears to be your inference that Blair/Brown were responsible for the mess in 2010 is like blaming the victims of a tsunami for the deaths and destruction caused by the tsunami.

I think that if right-wingers and and other political opponents of Labour get their way, the next generation will be believing a lie. Hopefully they will be better informed than many people are today.
HOW MANY times do you have to be told, no one on this board has blamed Blair or Brown for the global financial meltdown, what Brown IS blamed for is the shocking and careless way that he handled our own domestic financial matters both as chancellor and pseudo PM, Blair with his policy of open doors policy and his loony leftist colleagues with their social engineering completed the task of Bringing the UK to the brink of disaster.
How many times do you need to be told that the UK economy was facing no problems before the meltdown. Brown's handling of the economy only came under any real attack AFTER the meltdown.

"Social Engineering"??

Thatcher not only threw millions of people out of work, with millions of skilled personel who would never work in their trades again. But she then turned her back on them setting the foundation for high to mass unemployments for 17 years.
As the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, there was a big increase in the number of pensioners and children living in relative poverty. Do you think that adds up to "SOCIAL ENGINEERING"?
How many times do you need to be told that the economy in 2007/08 was considered to be overheated with far too much cheap cash flowing where the credit was at great risk. The economic growth was based on a debt fuelled bubble which was about to burst all the crash did was highlight the problem. Northern-Wreck was a basket case prior to the crash and it's problems were largely domestic. Brown did not rebalance our economy in order that we exported more of what we manufactured he watched as we borrowed and spent, much on fripperies of no lasting value.

The point that the Conservatives under Major were first to use PFI is diversionary as they only spent <£10b most of which was wisely, whereas Brown racked up >£250b of PFI much of which was a very expensive waste of money. Why did he do this? Because he had promised not to increase taxes to fund such, so he put it on Wonga styled Tick.
Nothing wrong with PFI as long as the project is infrastructure, of benefit to those that will pay and good value for money.

No matter how the White-washers of truth present their case there is no way around the fact that Brown was not prudent and much of our economic growth was based on debt fuelled consumption that many today now regret. It is getting rather tiresome at the end of 2014 to read the same distortions of the truth from the lefties.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 30 2014, 12:47 PM


A bit ambiguous IMHO but the contrast between Gordon's first and second 5 years is so great that it s hard to see he was obeying that rule from 2002

Steve; We recently had exchanges where you made several posts that declared that George Osborne had not made a promise to balance the economy in one term. To do so you played the pedant role of words and meaning in context ..... and for you there was enough ambiguity to declare that there never was such a declaration made.
Here we see the same game, the same role, only this time the intention is to establish guilt instead of proprietary.

Do you not see how this practice only acts to establish your own bias, and has no affect on what others arrived at as their own conclusions?



Edited by Affa, Dec 30 2014, 05:28 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 30 2014, 04:11 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 07:40 PM
Rich
Dec 29 2014, 07:26 PM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 08:13 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepdoand other political opponents of Labour get their way, the next generation will be believing a lie. Hopefully they will be better informed than many people are today.
HOW MANY times do you have to be told, no one on this board has blamed Blair or Brown for the global financial meltdown, what Brown IS blamed for is the shocking and careless way that he handled our own domestic financial matters both as chancellor and pseudo PM, Blair with his policy of open doors policy and his loony leftist colleagues with their social engineering completed the task of Bringing the UK to the brink of disaster.
How many times do you need to be told that the UK economy was facing no problems before the meltdown. Brown's handling of the economy only came under any real attack AFTER the meltdown.

"Social Engineering"??

Thatcher not only threw millions of people out of work, with millions of skilled personel who would never work in their trades again. But she then turned her back on them setting the foundation for high to mass unemployments for 17 years.
As the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, there was a big increase in the number of pensioners and children living in relative poverty. Do you think that adds up to "SOCIAL ENGINEERING"?
How many times do you need to be told that the economy in 2007/08 was considered to be overheated with far too much cheap cash flowing where the credit was at great risk.



Ha ha, 07 the slide into the meltdown, 08 the meltdown hit the fan.

Hard as you try there is just no way for you to escape from the fact that it was the meltdown that did the damage.
You just can't get away from including the meltdown financial changes as if they were all to do with the normal economics that preceded it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somersetli
Member Avatar
somersetli
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 30 2014, 02:40 PM
somersetli
Dec 30 2014, 02:21 PM


My own prediction of the next GE is that we shall end up with a 'Rainbow Government' that will probably not last a year.
They could probably do a better job than the current government:-

Posted Image
Unfortunately PS it doesn't work like that.
Any government, no matter what their politics are, needs a working majority to persue their political objectives. Otherwise they have to cobble together something to appease the different factions, in order to get the business through the House.
The adage.........."Too many cooks" describes it well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 30 2014, 05:27 PM
Steve K
Dec 30 2014, 12:47 PM


A bit ambiguous IMHO but the contrast between Gordon's first and second 5 years is so great that it s hard to see he was obeying that rule from 2002

Steve; We recently had exchanges where you made several posts that declared that George Osborne had not made a promise to balance the economy in one term. To do so you played the pedant role of words and meaning in context ..... and for you there was enough ambiguity to declare that there never was such a declaration made.
Here we see the same game, the same role, only this time the intention is to establish guilt instead of proprietary.

Do you not see how this practice only acts to establish your own bias, and has no affect on what others arrived at as their own conclusions?



That's very unfair Affa and if anything shows your bias. I have never held back from criticising Osborne for what he is guilty of - and there's a lot. But when someone says he said something he didn't I will defend him.

But Gordon absolutely did

- promise over and over again "no more boom and bust" - and then presided over the biggest UK boom and bust in living memory
- allow the biggest and fastest increase in the money supply due to woefully reckless taking on of household debt and not realise that inevitably that would lead to a bust
- poo poo the on the record warnings that the economy boom was being driven by unprecedented levels of household debt levered off house prices the Bank of England had warned were unsustainable
- promise adherence to a golden rule and then went on a massive public borrowing run once he could no longer keep expenditure off the books using PFI
- promise more giveaways in his 2007 budget despite the UK having run into trouble with the alarming levels of housing repossessions in 2006


And that's what C-Too just cannot get his head around

that 2006 was before 2007 and that was before 2008

- we were in trouble in 2006
- Northern Rock went under in September 2007
- the worldwide melt down did not start until 2008 after the US banks followed - yes followed - what had happened at Northern Rock with similarly improperly risk priced long term loans funded by short term spot rate borrowing.

IndyMac was the first US bank to get in trouble, fully 10 months AFTER Northern Rock and BNP Paribas

We were right amongst the leaders in the melt down because Gordon had placed the UK in the most extraordinarily vulnerable position whereas the likes of Australia and Canada by and large brushed it off as they had proper financial leadership.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 30 2014, 05:27 PM
Steve K
Dec 30 2014, 12:47 PM


A bit ambiguous IMHO but the contrast between Gordon's first and second 5 years is so great that it s hard to see he was obeying that rule from 2002

Steve; We recently had exchanges where you made several posts that declared that George Osborne had not made a promise to balance the economy in one term. To do so you played the pedant role of words and meaning in context ..... and for you there was enough ambiguity to declare that there never was such a declaration made.
Here we see the same game, the same role, only this time the intention is to establish guilt instead of proprietary.

Do you not see how this practice only acts to establish your own bias, and has no affect on what others arrived at as their own conclusions?



Totally agree Affa. the incompetents did make that pledge along those lines and time since then has shown that they as per usual have failed.

Labour in the form of Alistair Darling had a more sustainable plan for the international crisis forced upon the UK, one that started in the US and spread like wildfire.

They destroyed what little credibility they had on the economy, in 2012 by giving millionaires massive tax cuts. A measure Labour said quite rightly, that they would reverse.

Never mind for in May, Steve's incompetent Tories will be tossed out and put in the garbage bin of history where they rightfully belong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Malum Unus
Member Avatar
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 30 2014, 01:16 PM
Malum Unus
Dec 30 2014, 01:13 PM


Considering the amount intent on voting for the 'Greens' and taking into account their reliance on pseudo-science,
What "pseudo-science?"


Climatology.

The only 'science' that is 'never wrong'.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Malum Unus
Dec 31 2014, 08:30 AM
papasmurf
Dec 30 2014, 01:16 PM
Malum Unus
Dec 30 2014, 01:13 PM


Considering the amount intent on voting for the 'Greens' and taking into account their reliance on pseudo-science,
What "pseudo-science?"


Climatology.

The only 'science' that is 'never wrong'.

"Science"? I wonder as the believers betray all the symptoms of a quasi-religious cult. Same can be levelled at those that should the same blind faith in the Euro project.

File: Religious Nutters,

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Malum Unus
Member Avatar
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 31 2014, 08:43 AM
Malum Unus
Dec 31 2014, 08:30 AM
papasmurf
Dec 30 2014, 01:16 PM
Malum Unus
Dec 30 2014, 01:13 PM


Considering the amount intent on voting for the 'Greens' and taking into account their reliance on pseudo-science,
What "pseudo-science?"


Climatology.

The only 'science' that is 'never wrong'.

"Science"? I wonder as the believers betray all the symptoms of a quasi-religious cult. Same can be levelled at those that should the same blind faith in the Euro project.

File: Religious Nutters,

Well, it's classified as a science and I'm reasonably sure that a portion of Climatology is a science, it's just some of its followers that choose to use it like a religion.

Followers like the Green party.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Malum Unus
Dec 31 2014, 08:30 AM


Climatology.

The only 'science' that is 'never wrong'.

Climatology is not a pseudo science..
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 10:40 AM
AndyK
Dec 29 2014, 09:42 AM
Lewis
Dec 28 2014, 11:18 PM
AndyK
Dec 28 2014, 10:59 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
But the Tory incompetents are the architects of the 'mess'. They caused it and are continuing the shambles.
The current mess is almost entirely caused by one man, Gordon Brown.
So nothing to do with the deregulation of the Stock Exchange in 1985? You are fooling no one, except perhaps yourself.
No its nothing to do with stock exchange deregulation, the deregulation gave a massive boost to the economy. The UK’s trade surplus in financial services increased two-and-a-half fold.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Malum Unus
Member Avatar
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 31 2014, 08:56 AM
Malum Unus
Dec 31 2014, 08:30 AM


Climatology.

The only 'science' that is 'never wrong'.

Climatology is not a pseudo science..
No, it's also a form of curious religion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 30 2014, 11:53 PM
Affa
Dec 30 2014, 05:27 PM
Steve K
Dec 30 2014, 12:47 PM


A bit ambiguous IMHO but the contrast between Gordon's first and second 5 years is so great that it s hard to see he was obeying that rule from 2002

Steve; We recently had exchanges where you made several posts that declared that George Osborne had not made a promise to balance the economy in one term. To do so you played the pedant role of words and meaning in context ..... and for you there was enough ambiguity to declare that there never was such a declaration made.
Here we see the same game, the same role, only this time the intention is to establish guilt instead of proprietary.

Do you not see how this practice only acts to establish your own bias, and has no affect on what others arrived at as their own conclusions?



That's very unfair Affa and if anything shows your bias. I have never held back from criticising Osborne for what he is guilty of - and there's a lot. But when someone says he said something he didn't I will defend him.

But Gordon absolutely did

- promise over and over again "no more boom and bust" - and then presided over the biggest UK boom and bust in living memory
- allow the biggest and fastest increase in the money supply due to woefully reckless taking on of household debt and not realise that inevitably that would lead to a bust
- poo poo the on the record warnings that the economy boom was being driven by unprecedented levels of household debt levered off house prices the Bank of England had warned were unsustainable
- promise adherence to a golden rule and then went on a massive public borrowing run once he could no longer keep expenditure off the books using PFI
- promise more giveaways in his 2007 budget despite the UK having run into trouble with the alarming levels of housing repossessions in 2006


And that's what C-Too just cannot get his head around

that 2006 was before 2007 and that was before 2008

- we were in trouble in 2006
- Northern Rock went under in September 2007
- the worldwide melt down did not start until 2008 after the US banks followed - yes followed - what had happened at Northern Rock with similarly improperly risk priced long term loans funded by short term spot rate borrowing.

IndyMac was the first US bank to get in trouble, fully 10 months AFTER Northern Rock and BNP Paribas

We were right amongst the leaders in the melt down because Gordon had placed the UK in the most extraordinarily vulnerable position whereas the likes of Australia and Canada by and large brushed it off as they had proper financial leadership.





Brown did promise quite a few times, "no more boom and bust".

Brown also referred to internal "boom and bust" caused by internal political polices. i.e. The use of inflation/interest rates to control the economy.
How come you never mention that?

Brown NEVER indicated he thought he could control international recessions. The idea that he did is nothing more than political mischief.

Brown's economic policies DID NOT CAUSE THE INTERNATIONAL MELTDOWN.

"unprecedented levels of debt" but still had the lowest deficit and debt to GDP of the major countries and most other countries.
The problems in the housing market came and went DESPITE THE MELTDOWN.
IIRC there was a more serious housing market problem under the Tories in the 1990s, it didn't lead to an international meltdown.

The international meltdown:
The miss-selling of Subprime Mortgages in the USA. Subprime mortgages carried greater penalties for non-payment yet untold numbers of people capable of 'normal' mortgages were talked into taking S/prime Mortgages. At the same time many people who were handling their mortgages quite comfortably were being offered re-mortgage packages at lower interest rates. Once enough were signed up there mortgages were sold to another company who then raised their interest to a higher level than their original rates. (as seen on TV News).
When the whole thing collapsed the massive "toxic" debts were gradually placed into packages which were then slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. These packages were bought by Banks across the Western economy.
THOSE TOXIC DEBTS CAUSED THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN. IMO, to put the blame elsewhere is dishonest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Dec 31 2014, 11:37 AM
Steve K
Dec 30 2014, 11:53 PM
Affa
Dec 30 2014, 05:27 PM
Steve K
Dec 30 2014, 12:47 PM


A bit ambiguous IMHO but the contrast between Gordon's first and second 5 years is so great that it s hard to see he was obeying that rule from 2002

Steve; We recently had exchanges where you made several posts that declared that George Osborne had not made a promise to balance the economy in one term. To do so you played the pedant role of words and meaning in context ..... and for you there was enough ambiguity to declare that there never was such a declaration made.
Here we see the same game, the same role, only this time the intention is to establish guilt instead of proprietary.

Do you not see how this practice only acts to establish your own bias, and has no affect on what others arrived at as their own conclusions?



That's very unfair Affa and if anything shows your bias. I have never held back from criticising Osborne for what he is guilty of - and there's a lot. But when someone says he said something he didn't I will defend him.

But Gordon absolutely did

- promise over and over again "no more boom and bust" - and then presided over the biggest UK boom and bust in living memory
- allow the biggest and fastest increase in the money supply due to woefully reckless taking on of household debt and not realise that inevitably that would lead to a bust
- poo poo the on the record warnings that the economy boom was being driven by unprecedented levels of household debt levered off house prices the Bank of England had warned were unsustainable
- promise adherence to a golden rule and then went on a massive public borrowing run once he could no longer keep expenditure off the books using PFI
- promise more giveaways in his 2007 budget despite the UK having run into trouble with the alarming levels of housing repossessions in 2006


And that's what C-Too just cannot get his head around

that 2006 was before 2007 and that was before 2008

- we were in trouble in 2006
- Northern Rock went under in September 2007
- the worldwide melt down did not start until 2008 after the US banks followed - yes followed - what had happened at Northern Rock with similarly improperly risk priced long term loans funded by short term spot rate borrowing.

IndyMac was the first US bank to get in trouble, fully 10 months AFTER Northern Rock and BNP Paribas

We were right amongst the leaders in the melt down because Gordon had placed the UK in the most extraordinarily vulnerable position whereas the likes of Australia and Canada by and large brushed it off as they had proper financial leadership.





Brown did promise quite a few times, "no more boom and bust".

Brown also referred to internal "boom and bust" caused by internal political polices. i.e. The use of inflation/interest rates to control the economy.
How come you never mention that?

Brown NEVER indicated he thought he could control international recessions. The idea that he did is nothing more than political mischief.

Brown's economic policies DID NOT CAUSE THE INTERNATIONAL MELTDOWN.

"unprecedented levels of debt" but still had the lowest deficit and debt to GDP of the major countries and most other countries.
The problems in the housing market came and went DESPITE THE MELTDOWN.
IIRC there was a more serious housing market problem under the Tories in the 1990s, it didn't lead to an international meltdown.

The international meltdown:
The miss-selling of Subprime Mortgages in the USA. Subprime mortgages carried greater penalties for non-payment yet untold numbers of people capable of 'normal' mortgages were talked into taking S/prime Mortgages. At the same time many people who were handling their mortgages quite comfortably were being offered re-mortgage packages at lower interest rates. Once enough were signed up there mortgages were sold to another company who then raised their interest to a higher level than their original rates. (as seen on TV News).
When the whole thing collapsed the massive "toxic" debts were gradually placed into packages which were then slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. These packages were bought by Banks across the Western economy.
THOSE TOXIC DEBTS CAUSED THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN. IMO, to put the blame elsewhere is dishonest.
But here's your fundamental problem that you keep trying to ignore: we went into deep trouble BEFORE the international meltdown.

Brown was allowing the money supply to expand to ridiculous unearned levels in the lead in to us getting into trouble. It was an unsustainable but electorally promising bubble.

In short he fecked up and fecked up big time and he has never said sorry.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK
Dec 31 2014, 10:42 AM
C-too
Dec 29 2014, 10:40 AM
AndyK
Dec 29 2014, 09:42 AM
Lewis
Dec 28 2014, 11:18 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
The current mess is almost entirely caused by one man, Gordon Brown.
So nothing to do with the deregulation of the Stock Exchange in 1985? You are fooling no one, except perhaps yourself.
No its nothing to do with stock exchange deregulation, the deregulation gave a massive boost to the economy. The UK’s trade surplus in financial services increased two-and-a-half fold.
Precisely my point, it was the hook that had those in the financial services, the Banks and the Tory party all believing in, and calling for, more deregulation. It also reduced any incentive in greater/wider investment in industry, which in itself made the UK that much more vulnerable to the meltdown.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 11:43 AM
C-too
Dec 31 2014, 11:37 AM
Steve K
Dec 30 2014, 11:53 PM
Affa
Dec 30 2014, 05:27 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
That's very unfair Affa and if anything shows your bias. I have never held back from criticising Osborne for what he is guilty of - and there's a lot. But when someone says he said something he didn't I will defend him.

But Gordon absolutely did

- promise over and over again "no more boom and bust" - and then presided over the biggest UK boom and bust in living memory
- allow the biggest and fastest increase in the money supply due to woefully reckless taking on of household debt and not realise that inevitably that would lead to a bust
- poo poo the on the record warnings that the economy boom was being driven by unprecedented levels of household debt levered off house prices the Bank of England had warned were unsustainable
- promise adherence to a golden rule and then went on a massive public borrowing run once he could no longer keep expenditure off the books using PFI
- promise more giveaways in his 2007 budget despite the UK having run into trouble with the alarming levels of housing repossessions in 2006


And that's what C-Too just cannot get his head around

that 2006 was before 2007 and that was before 2008

- we were in trouble in 2006
- Northern Rock went under in September 2007
- the worldwide melt down did not start until 2008 after the US banks followed - yes followed - what had happened at Northern Rock with similarly improperly risk priced long term loans funded by short term spot rate borrowing.

IndyMac was the first US bank to get in trouble, fully 10 months AFTER Northern Rock and BNP Paribas

We were right amongst the leaders in the melt down because Gordon had placed the UK in the most extraordinarily vulnerable position whereas the likes of Australia and Canada by and large brushed it off as they had proper financial leadership.





Brown did promise quite a few times, "no more boom and bust".

Brown also referred to internal "boom and bust" caused by internal political polices. i.e. The use of inflation/interest rates to control the economy.
How come you never mention that?

Brown NEVER indicated he thought he could control international recessions. The idea that he did is nothing more than political mischief.

Brown's economic policies DID NOT CAUSE THE INTERNATIONAL MELTDOWN.

"unprecedented levels of debt" but still had the lowest deficit and debt to GDP of the major countries and most other countries.
The problems in the housing market came and went DESPITE THE MELTDOWN.
IIRC there was a more serious housing market problem under the Tories in the 1990s, it didn't lead to an international meltdown.

The international meltdown:
The miss-selling of Subprime Mortgages in the USA. Subprime mortgages carried greater penalties for non-payment yet untold numbers of people capable of 'normal' mortgages were talked into taking S/prime Mortgages. At the same time many people who were handling their mortgages quite comfortably were being offered re-mortgage packages at lower interest rates. Once enough were signed up there mortgages were sold to another company who then raised their interest to a higher level than their original rates. (as seen on TV News).
When the whole thing collapsed the massive "toxic" debts were gradually placed into packages which were then slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. These packages were bought by Banks across the Western economy.
THOSE TOXIC DEBTS CAUSED THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN. IMO, to put the blame elsewhere is dishonest.
But here's your fundamental problem that you keep trying to ignore: we went into deep trouble BEFORE the international meltdown.

Brown was allowing the money supply to expand to ridiculous unearned levels in the lead in to us getting into trouble. It was an unsustainable but electorally promising bubble.

In short he fecked up and fecked up big time and he has never said sorry.

NO, we were not in "deep trouble" before the meltdown, the figures as shown before the meltdown, were not of themselves a major problem.

As I have asked you once before, do you think we would be in the position we are in today if there had been no meltdown?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Dec 31 2014, 12:02 PM
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 11:43 AM
C-too
Dec 31 2014, 11:37 AM
Steve K
Dec 30 2014, 11:53 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepAFTER Northern Rock and BNP Paribas

We were right amongst the leaders in the melt down because Gordon had placed the UK in the most extraordinarily vulnerable position whereas the likes of Australia and Canada by and large brushed it off as they had proper financial leadership.





Brown did promise quite a few times, "no more boom and bust".

Brown also referred to internal "boom and bust" caused by internal political polices. i.e. The use of inflation/interest rates to control the economy.
How come you never mention that?

Brown NEVER indicated he thought he could control international recessions. The idea that he did is nothing more than political mischief.

Brown's economic policies DID NOT CAUSE THE INTERNATIONAL MELTDOWN.

"unprecedented levels of debt" but still had the lowest deficit and debt to GDP of the major countries and most other countries.
The problems in the housing market came and went DESPITE THE MELTDOWN.
IIRC there was a more serious housing market problem under the Tories in the 1990s, it didn't lead to an international meltdown.

The international meltdown:
The miss-selling of Subprime Mortgages in the USA. Subprime mortgages carried greater penalties for non-payment yet untold numbers of people capable of 'normal' mortgages were talked into taking S/prime Mortgages. At the same time many people who were handling their mortgages quite comfortably were being offered re-mortgage packages at lower interest rates. Once enough were signed up there mortgages were sold to another company who then raised their interest to a higher level than their original rates. (as seen on TV News).
When the whole thing collapsed the massive "toxic" debts were gradually placed into packages which were then slipped into the international financial markets via Wall Street. These packages were bought by Banks across the Western economy.
THOSE TOXIC DEBTS CAUSED THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN. IMO, to put the blame elsewhere is dishonest.
But here's your fundamental problem that you keep trying to ignore: we went into deep trouble BEFORE the international meltdown.

Brown was allowing the money supply to expand to ridiculous unearned levels in the lead in to us getting into trouble. It was an unsustainable but electorally promising bubble.

In short he fecked up and fecked up big time and he has never said sorry.

NO, we were not in "deep trouble" before the meltdown, the figures as shown before the meltdown, were not of themselves a major problem.

As I have asked you once before, do you think we would be in the position we are in today if there had been no meltdown?
The answer is a "likely yes". The housing bubble would have burst and the home grown sub-primes were already facing problems with their commitments. Red "Northern Wreck".
Yes Brown could have continued with his addiction to debt fuelled consumption, but eventually the chickens would have come in as we had already hit the buffers and as the IMF concluded the UK economy was overheated, fuelled by far too much cheap money. There was no indication that Brown would ever return to the prudent budgets inherited from the last lot. He was addicted. Now we are paying a heavier price than that normally necessary. It is very convenient to attempt to sweep all the NL economic mess under the International Bankers carpet, but it does not wash. You have to be a willing participant in propaganda if you believe that NL were not culpable, maybe even section-able for gross self delusion. That said the current lot have not been much better, they too seem to have become addicted, but at least they recognise that they need to shake the habit and Labour never ever will. We even have that idiot Milliband now promising 1940s style post WW2 strategies to rebuild the economy. More taxes, more waste and more unfunded commitments to be paid off by future generations. He and his supporters never learn, they are our toothache.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Sorry C-Too but I agree with RJD. Had there been no international meltdown we would have been the glaring odd country out with no international sympathy or tolerance of our quantitative easing. The £ would have plummeted to junk levels as would our trade in Financial Services. We would have had to get an IMF bail out and their terms would have made Osborne's austerity seem like luxury
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 12:55 PM
Sorry C-Too but I agree with RJD. Had there been no international meltdown we would have been the glaring odd country out with no international sympathy or tolerance of our quantitative easing. The £ would have plummeted to junk levels as would our trade in Financial Services. We would have had to get an IMF bail out and their terms would have made Osborne's austerity seem like luxury
Another opinion backed up by no substantive evidence whatsoever. Obviously your boss, namely RJD pulls your puppet strings and you like Cleggy dances to the Tory tune!

A tune no sensible person attaches any credence to whatsoever!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

Quote:
 

Affa wrote >
Do you not see how this practice only acts to establish your own bias, and has no affect on what others arrived at as their own conclusions?



Quote:
 
Steve wrote >
That's very unfair Affa and if anything shows your bias.



I am biased, a committed Capitalist that despises what the Conservative party has become!

What I do not attempt to do though is to re-write history. And certainly not for no other reason than an hoped for party political gain. The worst I will accept as my leaning is to present a sometimes different interpretation, and to that I can add it is made easy because of the amount of spin employed to deliver the official version of events.

The first signs of a sub-prime crisis were seen in April 2007, in the USA.
Quote:
 

New Century Financial, one of the largest sub-prime lenders in the US, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. - BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7521250.stm


That was the catalyst!
Quote:
 

Steve >
- Northern Rock went under in September 2007
- the worldwide melt down did not start until 2008 after the US banks followed - yes followed - what had happened at Northern Rock with similarly improperly risk priced long term loans funded by short term spot rate borrowing.

Quote:
 


13 Sept 2007 - The BBC reveals Northern Rock has asked for and been granted emergency financial support from the Bank of England, in the latter's role as lender of last resort.
Northern Rock relied heavily on the markets, rather than savers' deposits, to fund its mortgage lending. The onset of the credit crunch has dried up its funding.


NR was its first UK victim ......... not to say innocent victim, few were.

I'm not going to address evey point you made, because the issue being discussed is whether G Brown was wrong in declaring an end to Boom & Bust (by the accepted definition). In ten years as Chancellor there was no Boom, there was no Bust!
What there was was steady growth year on year. The sort of stability business likes, the sort that encourages investments, and jobs.

As an almost aside, i have many times asserted that I believe this crisis was contrived -
Quote:
 
Between 2004 and 2006 US interest rates rose from 1% to 5.35%, triggering a slowdown in the US housing market.
Homeowners, many of whom could only barely afford their mortgage payments when interest rates were low, began to default on their mortgages.


That didn't happen in the UK. You are smart enough to know what that means. Will you acknowledge it?

Posted Image
Edited by Affa, Jan 1 2015, 01:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 31 2014, 12:41 PM
C-too
Dec 31 2014, 12:02 PM
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 11:43 AM
C-too
Dec 31 2014, 11:37 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepAFTER
But here's your fundamental problem that you keep trying to ignore: we went into deep trouble BEFORE the international meltdown.

Brown was allowing the money supply to expand to ridiculous unearned levels in the lead in to us getting into trouble. It was an unsustainable but electorally promising bubble.

In short he fecked up and fecked up big time and he has never said sorry.

NO, we were not in "deep trouble" before the meltdown, the figures as shown before the meltdown, were not of themselves a major problem.

As I have asked you once before, do you think we would be in the position we are in today if there had been no meltdown?
The answer is a "likely yes". The housing bubble would have burst and the home grown sub-primes were already facing problems with their commitments. Red "Northern Wreck".
Yes Brown could have continued with his addiction to debt fuelled consumption, but eventually the chickens would have come in as we had already hit the buffers and as the IMF concluded the UK economy was overheated, fuelled by far too much cheap money. There was no indication that Brown would ever return to the prudent budgets inherited from the last lot. He was addicted. Now we are paying a heavier price than that normally necessary. It is very convenient to attempt to sweep all the NL economic mess under the International Bankers carpet, but it does not wash. You have to be a willing participant in propaganda if you believe that NL were not culpable, maybe even section-able for gross self delusion. That said the current lot have not been much better, they too seem to have become addicted, but at least they recognise that they need to shake the habit and Labour never ever will. We even have that idiot Milliband now promising 1940s style post WW2 strategies to rebuild the economy. More taxes, more waste and more unfunded commitments to be paid off by future generations. He and his supporters never learn, they are our toothache.




The Australian economy was more aligned to the Asian economy than the rest of the Western economies. Don't know "by and large" about the Canadian economy.

"debt fuelled consumption" along with unexpected riches from the Financial Services. So called debt fuelled consumption and government debt play an intended and deliberate part in all capitalist economies, (even in the Chinese Banking systems these days). International financial meltdowns are rare and I doubt any chancellor would deliberately create one.

In 2006 the UK deficit, unlike that of France and Germany, was within IMF 3% of GDP guide lines.
On entering the meltdown the UK debt/GDP was lower than in America, France, Germany and many other countries. I have produced the graph on these boards a number of times in the past.
The major fault was in the way UK politicians of all parties and UK businesses/investors had come to believe in the validity of the Financial Services/Free Market economy, resulting in our extra vulnerability when we hit the international FINANCIAL meltdown. Attempting to put the blame on NL is simply wrong.

Given the failure of the present lot in power, attacking Milliband is a good political mischief ploy.
Milliband's Ideas have yet to be seen in full, not unlike the Tory approach to 2010.

As regards to Labour and finances, during the Tory dominated period 1945 to 1974 the Tories visited the IMF more often than Labour, right up to when the economy ran into the ditch during the world recession of 1973.

The Conservative domination of the 20th with all its financial failures makes a laughing stock of those who want to put the blame on Labour.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 31 2014, 12:55 PM
Sorry C-Too but I agree with RJD. Had there been no international meltdown we would have been the glaring odd country out with no international sympathy or tolerance of our quantitative easing. The £ would have plummeted to junk levels as would our trade in Financial Services. We would have had to get an IMF bail out and their terms would have made Osborne's austerity seem like luxury
What a peculiar, unsupportable scenario.

The Toxic debts knocked Banks across Western economies for six, devastated Stock Markets and threw millions out of work across the West. All of which had a devastating effect on Western economise and on Western finances. How was that going to happen without the toxic debts?

If the trade in Financial Services had been based upon sound international financial behaviour, where would the toxic debts have come from?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply