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
Welfare Budget
Topic Started: Nov 18 2015, 05:38 PM (527 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

The above is excluding Pensions and again anyone listening outside of the window of the Red Nag would believe it has been paired to the bone.

LINK

Beginning to wonder where all these heavy cuts and trashing the welfare state have taken place? Maybe someone can enlighten me or wake me up when austerity kicks in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The regulars of the Old Blue Boar can't understand simple graphical information, nor comprehend simple economics.

The uptake in welfare increased as a result of the recession, that is obvious.

It hasn't reduced, is mainly due to the failure of the Tory incompetents to manage the economy correctly. They have just wasted our money over the past five years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
It hasn't been paired to the bone; welfare for W2W companies and other private contractors is going strong, as is welfare via forcible unpaid volunteering for companies.

Corporate welfare - which costs a lot more than this tawdry lump of shite graph - has been increased exponentially.

File under Blue Tinted Spex for Xmas plox.
Edited by skwirked, Nov 18 2015, 06:32 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 18 2015, 06:31 PM
It hasn't been paired to the bone; welfare for W2W companies and other private contractors is going strong, as is welfare via forcible unpaid volunteering for companies.

Corporate welfare - which costs a lot more than this tawdry lump of shite graph - has been increased exponentially.

File under Blue Tinted Spex for Xmas plox.
New research reveals the scope of the ‘British Corporate Welfare State’

https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2015/research/corporate-welfare-state/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
As Lewis said ...... Welfare spending remains high because of failure to restore the economy post recession. It is typical of Tories to take a negative (high welfare bill) and call it a positive (fewer cuts). Cuts have hurt, have added to the cost of Welfare - Cuts Cost Money.
Edited by Affa, Nov 18 2015, 07:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 18 2015, 07:06 PM
As Lewis said ...... Welfare spending remains high because of failure to restore the economy post recession. It is typical of Tories to take a negative (high welfare bill) and call it a positive (fewer cuts). Cuts have hurt, have added to the cost of Welfare - Cuts Cost Money.
Also should be looked at in real £ terms which makes the reductions much more obvious than the OP suggests

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 18 2015, 07:06 PM
As Lewis said ...... Welfare spending remains high because of failure to restore the economy post recession. It is typical of Tories to take a negative (high welfare bill) and call it a positive (fewer cuts). Cuts have hurt, have added to the cost of Welfare - Cuts Cost Money.
A point made at this mornings Work and Pensions Committee by several witnesses at an enquiry into the Local welfare safety net just a pity most of the Tory members of the committee could not be arsed to turn up

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 18 2015, 07:15 PM
Affa
Nov 18 2015, 07:06 PM
As Lewis said ...... Welfare spending remains high because of failure to restore the economy post recession. It is typical of Tories to take a negative (high welfare bill) and call it a positive (fewer cuts). Cuts have hurt, have added to the cost of Welfare - Cuts Cost Money.
A point made at this mornings Work and Pensions Committee by several witnesses at an enquiry into the Local welfare safety net just a pity most of the Tory members of the committee could not be arsed to turn up

Maybe they were busy trying to get us out out the problems the world is in because of NL policy,of following USA into wars that have nothing to do with us
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
HIGHWAY
Nov 18 2015, 10:16 PM

Maybe they were busy trying to get us out out the problems the world is in because of NL policy,of following USA into wars that have nothing to do with us

When you say 'us', I'm never quite sure who 'us' is.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gnikkk
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Imagine if that run away train, the Browns accelerated increase from 2006 to 2010 of 30 billion had suddenly been removed by Cameron et al. Unfortunately that's not how it happens, one inherits stuff and it takes time to fix it. Just because there was a recession (NL induced) does not mean one should simply live beyond ones needs. Those who got lazy under Brown should be paying for it, take away their free ride and look after the workers.

I love question time now, it's an even bigger massacre than when Brown or Millibland were around.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 18 2015, 10:57 PM
HIGHWAY
Nov 18 2015, 10:16 PM

Maybe they were busy trying to get us out out the problems the world is in because of NL policy,of following USA into wars that have nothing to do with us

When you say 'us', I'm never quite sure who 'us' is.

I think us is people in the west.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
:facepalm: Two more that blame the world recession on NL I see. :banghead:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Nov 19 2015, 08:00 AM
:facepalm: Two more that blame the world recession on NL I see. :banghead:
They don't seem to believe in evidence based debate, rather rely on Tory propaganda and lies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Nov 19 2015, 08:04 AM
disgruntled porker
Nov 19 2015, 08:00 AM
:facepalm: Two more that blame the world recession on NL I see. :banghead:
They don't seem to believe in evidence based debate, rather rely on Tory propaganda and lies.
Nu Lab did believe in casino banking; lots of evidence has been shown which proves that the crash was predicted by several people, Brown ignored all warnings. Meanwhile the Tories were calling for further deregulation and - IIRC - higher spending by criticising everything Lab did.

The Tories have not addressed the banks' recklessness. The situation now is arguably even more dire, in the LT.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 18 2015, 06:31 PM
It hasn't been paired to the bone; welfare for W2W companies and other private contractors is going strong, as is welfare via forcible unpaid volunteering for companies.

Corporate welfare - which costs a lot more than this tawdry lump of shite graph - has been increased exponentially.

File under Blue Tinted Spex for Xmas plox.
But you object to Osborne's strategy of reducing in-work benefits. Is that not hypocritical of you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 18 2015, 07:13 PM
Affa
Nov 18 2015, 07:06 PM
As Lewis said ...... Welfare spending remains high because of failure to restore the economy post recession. It is typical of Tories to take a negative (high welfare bill) and call it a positive (fewer cuts). Cuts have hurt, have added to the cost of Welfare - Cuts Cost Money.
Also should be looked at in real £ terms which makes the reductions much more obvious than the OP suggests

Posted Image

So in real terms significantly higher than in 2009 when we were in the middle of a recession.
Hardly a claim that the budget has been pared to the bone, is it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Nov 19 2015, 08:00 AM
:facepalm: Two more that blame the world recession on NL I see. :banghead:
Not true. We blame the magnitude of the necessary cuts on NL profligacy not the recession itself. Please stop dragging out that tired old Strawman of an argument. It is not true and as it has been explained dozens of times you should by now understand basics, I suspect you do but cannot help yourself from trotting out the same old lie.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Nov 19 2015, 08:04 AM
disgruntled porker
Nov 19 2015, 08:00 AM
:facepalm: Two more that blame the world recession on NL I see. :banghead:
They don't seem to believe in evidence based debate, rather rely on Tory propaganda and lies.
I see no posters blaming the world recession on NL. Perhaps you or Porker could actually quote what you refer to

The UK recession duration and depth was 90% NL fault though
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 19 2015, 09:33 AM
So in real terms significantly higher than in 2009 when we were in the middle of a recession.
Hardly a claim that the budget has been pared to the bone, is it?
Perhaps you missed that unemployment peaked at the end of 2012

I'd say that was the "middle of a recession" wouldn't you
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jonksy
Nov 18 2015, 06:51 PM
skwirked
Nov 18 2015, 06:31 PM
It hasn't been paired to the bone; welfare for W2W companies and other private contractors is going strong, as is welfare via forcible unpaid volunteering for companies.

Corporate welfare - which costs a lot more than this tawdry lump of shite graph - has been increased exponentially.

File under Blue Tinted Spex for Xmas plox.
New research reveals the scope of the ‘British Corporate Welfare State’

https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2015/research/corporate-welfare-state/
I have long argued that Corporate Welfare is greater cost to the public than Social Welfare.

I have usually been ridiculed for saying so.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Nov 19 2015, 11:29 AM
Jonksy
Nov 18 2015, 06:51 PM
skwirked
Nov 18 2015, 06:31 PM
It hasn't been paired to the bone; welfare for W2W companies and other private contractors is going strong, as is welfare via forcible unpaid volunteering for companies.

Corporate welfare - which costs a lot more than this tawdry lump of shite graph - has been increased exponentially.

File under Blue Tinted Spex for Xmas plox.
New research reveals the scope of the ‘British Corporate Welfare State’

https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2015/research/corporate-welfare-state/
I have long argued that Corporate Welfare is greater cost to the public than Social Welfare.

I have usually been ridiculed for saying so.

All The Best
It's worth at least scan reading the source report that article is based on

http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SPERI-Paper-24-The-British-Corporate-Welfare-State.pdf

The man's a nutter

Seems according to him we should end the welfare state as that's corporate welfare in his book. See his Figure 1. Some of his supposed 'sources' are highly contentious too.

He started with an agenda and never self challenged it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 19 2015, 11:26 AM
RJD
Nov 19 2015, 09:33 AM
So in real terms significantly higher than in 2009 when we were in the middle of a recession.
Hardly a claim that the budget has been pared to the bone, is it?
Perhaps you missed that unemployment peaked at the end of 2012

I'd say that was the "middle of a recession" wouldn't you
Not sure where you would put it as ONS have revised GDP which now shows there was no double dip, anyway the interesting sum is what did those changes to employment have as an impact on welfare?

Posted Image

Looks pretty flat between 2009 and 2012.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 19 2015, 11:25 AM
Lewis
Nov 19 2015, 08:04 AM
disgruntled porker
Nov 19 2015, 08:00 AM
:facepalm: Two more that blame the world recession on NL I see. :banghead:
They don't seem to believe in evidence based debate, rather rely on Tory propaganda and lies.
I see no posters blaming the world recession on NL. Perhaps you or Porker could actually quote what you refer to

The UK recession duration and depth was 90% NL fault though
Posts #8 and #10. That's how it reads to me at least.
Quote:
 
Maybe they were busy trying to get us out out the problems the world is in because of NL policy,of following USA into wars that have nothing to do with us


Quote:
 
Just because there was a recession (NL induced)
Edited by disgruntled porker, Nov 19 2015, 12:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Nov 19 2015, 12:42 PM
Steve K
Nov 19 2015, 11:25 AM
Lewis
Nov 19 2015, 08:04 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I see no posters blaming the world recession on NL. Perhaps you or Porker could actually quote what you refer to

The UK recession duration and depth was 90% NL fault though
Posts #8 and #10. That's how it reads to me at least.
Quote:
 
Maybe they were busy trying to get us out out the problems the world is in because of NL policy,of following USA into wars that have nothing to do with us


Quote:
 
Just because there was a recession (NL induced)
I said wars,nothing about recession.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
HIGHWAY
Nov 19 2015, 01:15 PM
disgruntled porker
Nov 19 2015, 12:42 PM
Steve K
Nov 19 2015, 11:25 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Posts #8 and #10. That's how it reads to me at least.
Quote:
 
Maybe they were busy trying to get us out out the problems the world is in because of NL policy,of following USA into wars that have nothing to do with us


Quote:
 
Just because there was a recession (NL induced)
I said wars,nothing about recession.
Fair do's Andrew. Apologies. I got it wrong because of the misplacement of the comma. It made it appear as 2 separate statements, one blaming NL for the world situation which I took as being about the economy, and another about following the US into wars.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 19 2015, 09:33 AM
Steve K
Nov 18 2015, 07:13 PM
Affa
Nov 18 2015, 07:06 PM
As Lewis said ...... Welfare spending remains high because of failure to restore the economy post recession. It is typical of Tories to take a negative (high welfare bill) and call it a positive (fewer cuts). Cuts have hurt, have added to the cost of Welfare - Cuts Cost Money.
Also should be looked at in real £ terms which makes the reductions much more obvious than the OP suggests

Posted Image

So in real terms significantly higher than in 2009 when we were in the middle of a recession.
Hardly a claim that the budget has been pared to the bone, is it?

No it isn't 'hardly that claim' ........ it is a criticism of the claim to have restored the economy to prosperity - which this chart denies has taken place.
Spending always comes under pressure during recessions and falls back as recovery takes place ....... and the problem arises from low wages/earnings resulting in low tax revenues, and higher welfare dependency.



Edited by Affa, Nov 19 2015, 02:48 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 19 2015, 02:46 PM
RJD
Nov 19 2015, 09:33 AM
Steve K
Nov 18 2015, 07:13 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep Cuts Cost MoneyPosted Image

So in real terms significantly higher than in 2009 when we were in the middle of a recession.
Hardly a claim that the budget has been pared to the bone, is it?

No it isn't 'hardly that claim' ........ it is a criticism of the claim to have restored the economy to prosperity - which this chart denies has taken place.
Spending always comes under pressure during recessions and falls back as recovery takes place ....... and the problem arises from low wages/earnings resulting in low tax revenues, and higher welfare dependency.



The chart does not support or otherwise any claims to have returned to prosperity or otherwise. That's rubbish. One measures prosperity by different measures.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Nov 19 2015, 12:42 PM
Posts #8 and #10. That's how it reads to me at least.
Well I'm guessing you are one of the few that think we would never have had a recession were it not for the USA having problems. That households could have carried on fuelling Gordon's boom by taking on an extra £100B of debt each year to fuel high house prices to enable more debt to be taken on and so on

Not very realistic though is it. It was all going to collapse here, you can only keep a ponzi scheme going so long.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 19 2015, 09:30 AM
skwirked
Nov 18 2015, 06:31 PM
It hasn't been paired to the bone; welfare for W2W companies and other private contractors is going strong, as is welfare via forcible unpaid volunteering for companies.

Corporate welfare - which costs a lot more than this tawdry lump of shite graph - has been increased exponentially.

File under Blue Tinted Spex for Xmas plox.
But you object to Osborne's strategy of reducing in-work benefits. Is that not hypocritical of you?
No it's disingenuous, of you.

You know that the poorest are going to lose 12% in HH real income. Yes tax credits should be reduced and pay increased slowly.

All your bollocksing on about serial whingers, moaners etc..if people did not stand up, the govt would not have backtracked and been forced to reform the plans.

Ditto for so many of their other ill thought out plans. The spare room sub as is, is extremely damaging and should have been scrapped rather than implemented as-is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 19 2015, 10:59 PM
disgruntled porker
Nov 19 2015, 12:42 PM
Posts #8 and #10. That's how it reads to me at least.
Well I'm guessing you are one of the few that think we would never have had a recession were it not for the USA having problems. That households could have carried on fuelling Gordon's boom by taking on an extra £100B of debt each year to fuel high house prices to enable more debt to be taken on and so on

Not very realistic though is it. It was all going to collapse here, you can only keep a ponzi scheme going so long.
I've never claimed any of that Steve. I do insist however that the world recession was massively due to a feckless and unfettered financial system. It would still have happened in this country, though not as deep and as prolonged as it has been.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 19 2015, 11:04 PM
RJD
Nov 19 2015, 09:30 AM
skwirked
Nov 18 2015, 06:31 PM
It hasn't been paired to the bone; welfare for W2W companies and other private contractors is going strong, as is welfare via forcible unpaid volunteering for companies.

Corporate welfare - which costs a lot more than this tawdry lump of shite graph - has been increased exponentially.

File under Blue Tinted Spex for Xmas plox.
But you object to Osborne's strategy of reducing in-work benefits. Is that not hypocritical of you?
No it's disingenuous, of you.

You know that the poorest are going to lose 12% in HH real income. Yes tax credits should be reduced and pay increased slowly.

All your bollocksing on about serial whingers, moaners etc..if people did not stand up, the govt would not have backtracked and been forced to reform the plans.

Ditto for so many of their other ill thought out plans. The spare room sub as is, is extremely damaging and should have been scrapped rather than implemented as-is.
The Usuals have objected to each and every cut in Public Spending and they were wrong with their predictions. Instead of massive increases in job losses over 2m new jobs were created. Instead of school closures less schools have closed under this Gov. than under NL who doubled the budget. No street riots after predictions from Labour Councillors that budget cuts would course such, in fact the just learned how to deliver services effectively for less costs. The Usuals have been wrong on every count. As for changes, thus far in welfare benefits it has been shown that this has encouraged hundreds of thousands to go out and find work. As for Osborne's proposal to reduce in-work benefits the calculation is that this will encourage ~2m more into work, but I agree he needs to look at the phasing and balance of such. But the objective of higher wages with higher value adding in the economy makes good sense so does the cutting of the size of the State to an affordable level. The USA and Spain and others have cut their public sectors down to size already, many have their programmes of adjustment behind them, Ireland front loaded theirs, so did the Scandinavians and Germany. Here in the UK the misguided Usuals are still screaming and we still have 50% of the adjustments in front of us. I warned at the very beginning that it woulds be best to cut fast and deep as dragging it out would cause greater accumulated pain and not benefit the economy due to accrued costs. I was correct as the examples of others have shown and the Usuals, as ever, were wrong, wrong, wrong time and time over.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Nov 20 2015, 08:28 AM
Steve K
Nov 19 2015, 10:59 PM
disgruntled porker
Nov 19 2015, 12:42 PM
Posts #8 and #10. That's how it reads to me at least.
Well I'm guessing you are one of the few that think we would never have had a recession were it not for the USA having problems. That households could have carried on fuelling Gordon's boom by taking on an extra £100B of debt each year to fuel high house prices to enable more debt to be taken on and so on

Not very realistic though is it. It was all going to collapse here, you can only keep a ponzi scheme going so long.
I've never claimed any of that Steve. I do insist however that the world recession was massively due to a feckless and unfettered financial system. It would still have happened in this country, though not as deep and as prolonged as it has been.
You deny that Brown and NL were culpable with the size of the deficit and you have never indicated that you support anty reduction in Public Spending. From your comments here one must assume you believe the likes of Corbyn have a Magic Money Tree.
The Usuals are in complete denial.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oddball
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD - Any 'savings' through welfare juggling is going to be swallowed up, and more, by the [at long last] realisation that 'we' and Europe and indeed much further afield need to beef up all forms of 'security' against several massive threats to humanity - these include issues with Islam, Global warming, and the probability that antibiotics [largely due to misuse] are beginning to be faced with bacteria that have become resistant to them.

Speaking for myself I am glad I will likely not be around WHEN things really start to bite, but that I am very concerned for those who will be, since I have long believed than taken as a collective we humans couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery without luck or 'divine providence' intervening.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 20 2015, 08:50 AM
skwirked
Nov 19 2015, 11:04 PM
RJD
Nov 19 2015, 09:30 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
No it's disingenuous, of you.

You know that the poorest are going to lose 12% in HH real income. Yes tax credits should be reduced and pay increased slowly.

All your bollocksing on about serial whingers, moaners etc..if people did not stand up, the govt would not have backtracked and been forced to reform the plans.

Ditto for so many of their other ill thought out plans. The spare room sub as is, is extremely damaging and should have been scrapped rather than implemented as-is.
The Usuals have objected to each and every cut in Public Spending and they were wrong with their predictions. Instead of massive increases in job losses over 2m new jobs were created. Instead of school closures less schools have closed under this Gov. than under NL who doubled the budget. No street riots after predictions from Labour Councillors that budget cuts would course such, in fact the just learned how to deliver services effectively for less costs. The Usuals have been wrong on every count. As for changes, thus far in welfare benefits it has been shown that this has encouraged hundreds of thousands to go out and find work. As for Osborne's proposal to reduce in-work benefits the calculation is that this will encourage ~2m more into work, but I agree he needs to look at the phasing and balance of such. But the objective of higher wages with higher value adding in the economy makes good sense so does the cutting of the size of the State to an affordable level. The USA and Spain and others have cut their public sectors down to size already, many have their programmes of adjustment behind them, Ireland front loaded theirs, so did the Scandinavians and Germany. Here in the UK the misguided Usuals are still screaming and we still have 50% of the adjustments in front of us. I warned at the very beginning that it woulds be best to cut fast and deep as dragging it out would cause greater accumulated pain and not benefit the economy due to accrued costs. I was correct as the examples of others have shown and the Usuals, as ever, were wrong, wrong, wrong time and time over.
I mourn the death of the paragraph.

Deep breath (ace ventura style): unemployment figures over last 5 yrs, aug 2011 and all the protests strikes marches etc, schools failing grades and academies failing, EZ crisis with Eire deep in a tub o'pigshoite, EZ in crisis incl Deutschlznd only doung well due to the 'EZ racket' you always go on about, USA and Spain in a bad way, usuals usuals usuals blah blah blah.

I have exorcised the demons, this house, is clear. Can you feel it huh huh hu..etc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 20 2015, 08:52 AM
disgruntled porker
Nov 20 2015, 08:28 AM
Steve K
Nov 19 2015, 10:59 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I've never claimed any of that Steve. I do insist however that the world recession was massively due to a feckless and unfettered financial system. It would still have happened in this country, though not as deep and as prolonged as it has been.
You deny that Brown and NL were culpable with the size of the deficit and you have never indicated that you support anty reduction in Public Spending. From your comments here one must assume you believe the likes of Corbyn have a Magic Money Tree.
The Usuals are in complete denial.
Once again you accuse me of things I have never said. Losing it old boy?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
wrong section, sorry.
Edited by disgruntled porker, Nov 20 2015, 09:44 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Nov 20 2015, 08:28 AM
Steve K
Nov 19 2015, 10:59 PM
disgruntled porker
Nov 19 2015, 12:42 PM
Posts #8 and #10. That's how it reads to me at least.
Well I'm guessing you are one of the few that think we would never have had a recession were it not for the USA having problems. That households could have carried on fuelling Gordon's boom by taking on an extra £100B of debt each year to fuel high house prices to enable more debt to be taken on and so on

Not very realistic though is it. It was all going to collapse here, you can only keep a ponzi scheme going so long.
I've never claimed any of that Steve. I do insist however that the world recession was massively due to a feckless and unfettered financial system. It would still have happened in this country, though not as deep and as prolonged as it has been.
Well yes so I'm surprised you took task with posts in line with that. Let's move on
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Nov 18 2015, 06:27 PM
The regulars of the Old Blue Boar can't understand simple graphical information, nor comprehend simple economics.

The uptake in welfare increased as a result of the recession, that is obvious.

It hasn't reduced, is mainly due to the failure of the Tory incompetents to manage the economy correctly. They have just wasted our money over the past five years.
No, its mainly due to having 5 million more people than we should have at this time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Montjoie
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Indeed, if we look at the welfare

2006: 81.57 billions £, so 3.38% of the GDP spent
2016: 110.46 billions £, so 3.56% of the GDP spent

It means there was an increase of 5.325% of the global enveloppe. Now what we need to know is the evolution of the population share who needed welfare in 2006 and in 2016.

But then by looking at the 2006 and 2016 period, it clearly seperates in two periods, pre 2012 and post 2012. There have been cuts starting around that time.
However, they may have been justified, what we need is the chart of the population share which needed such welfare services during that 2006-2016 period.









Edited by Montjoie, Nov 20 2015, 11:09 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Nov 20 2015, 09:09 AM
RJD
Nov 20 2015, 08:52 AM
disgruntled porker
Nov 20 2015, 08:28 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You deny that Brown and NL were culpable with the size of the deficit and you have never indicated that you support anty reduction in Public Spending. From your comments here one must assume you believe the likes of Corbyn have a Magic Money Tree.
The Usuals are in complete denial.
Once again you accuse me of things I have never said. Losing it old boy?
Maybe, but more likely that you have a convenient memory lapse. Just for the record tell us which Public Sector cuts you support if any? That is an open invitation for all Usuals and if they wish they can say "none prefer increases".

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply