"were all in this together" "

[drew]

How did this thread go from demonstrating the effect on the poorer sections (that include some pensioners but not all of them) of society of the VAT rise to then suggesting that all the poor pensioners are in fact asset rich and should realise some of this equity to fund their very basic human needs!!!! I'm not against pensioners in large family homes downsizing in order to maintain their quality of life but I think that in reality, the poor pensioners that we are referring to are not ones who own their own homes and have more likely spent a lifetime in social housing (council homes to the more mature amongst us).

 

[simonsimon]

"Beach Hut's brainless comment"

Good bit of Irish Brigand Bashing.

 

[Mr Burns]

I don't think so. The exchange rate in 1997 was about £1=$1.40, the rate in 2009 was about £1=$1.95.

Probably true if your taking about a dollar, but if you narrow it down to a US dollar, then please tell me where you could get that rate. I buy many tens of thousands of dollars a year, and I dont recall it being at the rate in 2009. Between 1.4 and 1.6 if my memory serves me right.

 

[El Presidente]

Probably true if your taking about a dollar, but if you narrow it down to a US dollar, then please tell me where you could get that rate. I buy many tens of thousands of dollars a year, and I dont recall it being at the rate in 2009. Between 1.4 and 1.6 if my memory serves me right.

Apologies, I should have said 2007

 

[Beach Hut]

"Beach Hut's brainless comment"

Good bit of Irish Brigand Bashing.

More like a comment from a cock that knows f*** all

 

[simmo]

that would be the nice Mr Cameron and the intellectual giant that is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They've done a lot since coming into office and the money markets are really impressed with them.

Well after Osbourne's emergency budget in July 2010 (of which just one of the revenue rasing proposals was this VAT rise to 20% on 4/1/11) the markets seem to have been placated by the fact that the UK government are doing something serious about the whopping defecit that the present government inherited. They seem to be happier by what the UK government are doing about our defecit than say the present Greek (Portugal next) one for example. I am not saying we are out of the woods yet, but I think hopefully we are on much less choppy grounds.

Talking of intellectual giants it is a good job that the present Labour Shadow Chancellor isn't in charge of running the economy in it's perilous state, as by his OWN admission knows NOTHING about economics. Brilliant and inspired appointment Ed!

 

[ROSM]

They weren't stressed in the first place - given that our deficit was less in terms of % GDP than US there only concern was that any new government that came in would damage the recovery that had commenced. Actually since July the confidence has dropped quite significantly and whilst the current government are saying that is because of the impact of Ireland, it is as I've been hearing, because they believe that the current Government's plans will damage growth. Hence why Gus O'Donnell and Mervin King have been privately pleading with the Chancellor to have a Plan B.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

They weren't stressed in the first place - given that our deficit was less in terms of % GDP than US there only concern was that any new government that came in would damage the recovery that had commenced. Actually since July the confidence has dropped quite significantly and whilst the current government are saying that is because of the impact of Ireland, it is as I've been hearing, because they believe that the current Government's plans will damage growth. Hence why Gus O'Donnell and Mervin King have been privately pleading with the Chancellor to have a Plan B.

The problem is that every post you make on this subject is SO anti-Tory that it's hard the believe what you're saying. You seem to think that pre the new government almost everything was rosey ( and anything that wasn't rosey wasn't the old governments fault ) and that the moment the new government took over everything was wrecked and we were doomed. If you actually tried to take a more balanced view ( i.e. stop twisting everything to be Labour is Good and Tory is Bad - and people that do the opposite are just as bad ) then you'd be more believable.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Talking of intellectual giants it is a good job that the present Labour Shadow Chancellor isn't in charge of running the economy in it's perilous state, as by his OWN admission knows NOTHING about economics. Brilliant and inspired appointment Ed!

But in any ministerial appointment in government or in opposition the incoming persons know little, if anything about the jobs before they are given them. Nothing new in that. Chancellor might be slighty different normally, as they generally have some sort of idea, but not necessarily. These jobs are all about managing and taking advice from the experts, who are not the politicians.

 

[ROSM]

The problem is that every post you make on this subject is SO anti-Tory that it's hard the believe what you're saying. You seem to think that pre the new government almost everything was rosey ( and anything that wasn't rosey wasn't the old governments fault ) and that the moment the new government took over everything was wrecked and we were doomed. If you actually tried to take a more balanced view ( i.e. stop twisting everything to be Labour is Good and Tory is Bad - and people that do the opposite are just as bad ) then you'd be more believable.

Well if you read what I have written I have posted a balanced article which covers both the for and againsts as to why VAT is progressive or regressive. I have on here been critical of Brown in the past (I havn't been critical of Darling as I actually thought he had got it right) and I have said on NSC that on balance I do think that Cameron has had a good start as Prime Minister. But and this is the big but, there is so much spin and errors of fact on here about how much of a mess we're in and what caused it and how we're currently doing that I will post my opinion backed up with evidence where I disagree with it. I'm not going to just keep posting 'I agree' to things that I agree with.

The basic fundamental pieces are that

- prior to the 2007 crisis the Deficit was under control in as much as it was on the 40% of GDP mark which Governments of all colours percieve to be a sound benchmark
- the deficit was lower in percentage terms than had been inherited despite a major investment in public services
- the financial downturn (so the resultant reduction in taxable income, increased unemployment benefits and higher public spending) was therefore the main cause of the issues we currently have
- causes of the downturn are varied and cannot be simply landed at the government in office of the day but to decisions taken over the previous 20 years
- public debt is not always bad if it is being used to provide stimulus to an economy
- the plans put in place by the previous government were having a positive effect


The areas that are my contention and opinion are that

- at the time of the election we were not under the pressure from the money markets that has been stated
- we are now under more pressure than before due to the plans in place
- that the current plans are not the right ones to see us through the issues in the short to medium term

As elements of this are a key part of my job, I would be saying that whether the government was red, blue, orange, gold , green or pink with purple spots. The fact that my professional opinion (head) also supports how I feel individually in terms of predisposition to a political party (heart) is I can asusre you a coincidence and there has been many times in the last 6 years where that hasn't been the case.

 

[sten_super]

Sten's a professional economist I believe (apologies to him if I am wrong on this), and his comments are usually spot on as he takes a mid-Atlantic approach, so I'm with him on this.

Indeed I am, for my sins. Supposedly an economic forecaster at that. It's an 'interesting' job at the moment, that's for sure! The 3% number I just grabbed out of our most up-to-date data, but I'm sure it'll be right. It was in £ sterling (so avoiding any exchange rate effects) and adjusted for inflation.

Well if you read what I have written I have posted a balanced article which covers both the for and againsts as to why VAT is progressive or regressive. I have on here been critical of Brown in the past (I havn't been critical of Darling as I actually thought he had got it right) and I have said on NSC that on balance I do think that Cameron has had a good start as Prime Minister. But and this is the big but, there is so much spin and errors of fact on here about how much of a mess we're in and what caused it and how we're currently doing that I will post my opinion backed up with evidence where I disagree with it. I'm not going to just keep posting 'I agree' to things that I agree with.

The basic fundamental pieces are that

- prior to the 2007 crisis the Deficit was under control in as much as it was on the 40% of GDP mark which Governments of all colours percieve to be a sound benchmark
- the deficit was lower in percentage terms than had been inherited despite a major investment in public services
- the financial downturn (so the resultant reduction in taxable income, increased unemployment benefits and higher public spending) was therefore the main cause of the issues we currently have
- causes of the downturn are varied and cannot be simply landed at the government in office of the day but to decisions taken over the previous 20 years
- public debt is not always bad if it is being used to provide stimulus to an economy
- the plans put in place by the previous government were having a positive effect


The areas that are my contention and opinion are that

- at the time of the election we were not under the pressure from the money markets that has been stated
- we are now under more pressure than before due to the plans in place
- that the current plans are not the right ones to see us through the issues in the short to medium term

As elements of this are a key part of my job, I would be saying that whether the government was red, blue, orange, gold , green or pink with purple spots. The fact that my professional opinion (head) also supports how I feel individually in terms of predisposition to a political party (heart) is I can asusre you a coincidence and there has been many times in the last 6 years where that hasn't been the case.

That's a pretty fair reading of the situation. I remain critical of the previous government for being on the 40% threshold in 2007, rather than somewhat below it, given how buoyant the economy (and therefore tax revenues) were over their time in power.

You are right to point out that the Tories largely made up the supposed pressure from the money markets when presenting their proposed plans before the election. Much of the UK's debt remains in long-term bonds with expiry dates years in the future. However, I would ascribe the increasing pressure that is being exerted as not so much down to the austerity plans (which, as I have previously mentioned, have been adopted in much of the 'developed' world, with the notable exception of the US) as to the deteriorating state of affairs in EU member states which were previously seen as relatively stable (Ireland, Portugal, Spain and most worringly of all Italy). This has reduced confidence across the market as a whole; I actually think the fact that the UK has a credible plan to bring the debt under control works in their favour (and I'm not sure that Labour could have claimed a 'credible' plan, whether they had one or not, given their recent track record).

Having said all that, I agree that the current austerity plans are a significant downside risk to the economy. Early indicators are suggesting that business confidence is down, but they are often very conservative (in the sense of playing down prospects, rather than with a capital C), and the results in the first half of the year will be very interesting and perhaps decisive in terms of the current government's plans and potential need for a plan B.

 

[ROSM]

That's a pretty fair reading of the situation. I remain critical of the previous government for being on the 40% threshold in 2007, rather than somewhat below it, given how buoyant the economy (and therefore tax revenues) were over their time in power.

You are right to point out that the Tories largely made up the supposed pressure from the money markets when presenting their proposed plans before the election. Much of the UK's debt remains in long-term bonds with expiry dates years in the future. However, I would ascribe the increasing pressure that is being exerted as not so much down to the austerity plans (which, as I have previously mentioned, have been adopted in much of the 'developed' world, with the notable exception of the US) as to the deteriorating state of affairs in EU member states which were previously seen as relatively stable (Ireland, Portugal, Spain and most worringly of all Italy). This has reduced confidence across the market as a whole; I actually think the fact that the UK has a credible plan to bring the debt under control works in their favour (and I'm not sure that Labour could have claimed a 'credible' plan, whether they had one or not, given their recent track record).

Having said all that, I agree that the current austerity plans are a significant downside risk to the economy. Early indicators are suggesting that business confidence is down, but they are often very conservative (in the sense of playing down prospects, rather than with a capital C), and the results in the first half of the year will be very interesting and perhaps decisive in terms of the current government's plans and potential need for a plan B.

Thanks Sten. It is all about opinions hence why I divided my opinion pieces out. It is refreshing to have a discussion on here although we may not agree, that doesn't turn into a question of parentage.

 

[Dandyman]

Whats the point of people saving all their life if they arn't going to use any of it in their old age but expect to be kept at the tax payers expense instead

Most Pensioners have paid National Insurance throughout their working lives as well as many paying into other pension schemes. They have a right to dignity in retirement and are no expecting to be "kept at the tax payers expense" as your nasty little comment suggests.

Congratulations however for so very clearly demonstrating the contempt that people like you have for the majority of your fellow citizens.

 

[simmo]

But in any ministerial appointment in government or in opposition the incoming persons know little, if anything about the jobs before they are given them. Nothing new in that. Chancellor might be slighty different normally, as they generally have some sort of idea, but not necessarily. These jobs are all about managing and taking advice from the experts, who are not the politicians.

I am not really so sure about that. I would pretty much expect any Chancellor (or his shadow) to have some knowledge of their portfolio especially nowadays and in such times where it is by far the most important political/economic/social problem we as a country face. I am sure that Ed Milliband, had multiple choices from his shadow cabinet of people whom worked in the treasury previously under Alistair Darling but chose to pick a bloke whom knows sweet FA about economics. By an absoulte mile the present economic situation is the greatest problem we face now, it deserves (and needs) a shadow whom knows what they are talking about.

In any case the original poster just wanted to slag off Osbourne intellect (probably because he regards him as a Tory toff scum who went to Eton? and just wanted to have a dig) he should look more closely at his shadow and his competency. As he had a dig at Cameron too, he may also wish to look at the bloke whom appointed the man with no knowledge of economics to such a high position as shadow chancellor.

 

[ROSM]

In any case the original poster just wanted to slag off Osbourne intellect (probably because he regards him as a Tory toff scum who went to Eton? and just wanted to have a dig) he should look more closely at his shadow and his competency. As he had a dig at Cameron too, he may also wish to look at the bloke whom appointed the man with no knowledge of economics to such a high position as shadow chancellor.

What complete and utter larks vomit. It is a well versed opinion among the treasury civil servants that Osborne is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. He doesn't do numbers, dislikes words and generally just wants a summary that says what the political implications are of any proposal rather than the economic repercussions. He could have gone to Etonian, Brighton or Stanley season for all I care.

I personally wouldn't have picked Johnson as shadow and would have gone for Yvette cooper. However he has had three previous cabinet posts, is well liked by the party and had a solid reputation with his civil servants and advisors for getting to grips with his brief and hard work. He hasn't been a success in the role so far mind, so perhaps history will prove EM wrong.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

They were not. But they were in charge of the UK econemy, and allowed that to get out of control. Not every country is as f***ed as we are, even though there was a worldwide recession. Labours policy is spend now, pay later, but they always lose power before the second part.

Oh heavens! Save us from those who can't look over the sides of their hedges!

The only countries (like Turkey) who have managed to get out of the crisis relatively unscathed are those who have minimal financial commitement in the western hemisphere and therefore did not suffer the domino effect and those countries (like Turkey) who had previously been though a simialr crisis and changed their laws to regulate their banks to make sure it didn't happen again.

It wouldn't have mattered WHO was in power... the UK would have gone down the pan anyway... it was not a political mistake, it was a financial one... after all, all politcal parties in power are pretty much led by the nose by their financial advisers and pretty much NO ONE FROM ANY PARTY predicted it.

So, have a go at Labour by all emans as theirs a lot to have a pop at but stop blaming it for the crisis... they were just the party in power at the time and no party would have done any better.

 

[simmo]

What complete and utter larks vomit. It is a well versed opinion among the treasury civil servants that Osborne is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. He doesn't do numbers, dislikes words and generally just wants a summary that says what the political implications are of any proposal rather than the economic repercussions. He could have gone to Etonian, Brighton or Stanley season for all I care.

I personally wouldn't have picked Johnson as shadow and would have gone for Yvette cooper. However he has had three previous cabinet posts, is well liked by the party and had a solid reputation with his civil servants and advisors for getting to grips with his brief and hard work. He hasn't been a success in the role so far mind, so perhaps history will prove EM wrong.

Ok but surely he can't be that dull to have reached such a high office, don't thick people end up with such jobs other than chancellor of the exchequor? A quick check on Wikipedia shows me he got a 2:1 Batchelor's Degree in modern History at Magdelen College oxford. A 2:1 from Oxford, doesn't sound that thick to me? Could it be jealousy of these treasury civil servants (whom could never dream of reaching such a high position as chancellor) that get them to say the things that they do. I don't claim him to be an Einstein, I don't know the bloke, but I think it is unfair to slag the intellect off someone whom I don't know and to me hasn't so far done anything too disastorous in his tenure as Chancellor.

You started questioning the intellectual qualities of Osbourne and Cameron whom have done something about our financial position (emergency July 2010 budget) you should look at the intellectual qualities that oppose them too.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

I love the way the average person is still happy to blame the banks.

Let's not forget it was only certain banks that needed Government help, and even then those that were quasi-nationalised will give the nation a great way to make an impressive return on our enforced investment.

No... the averga person may be thinks it was the British banks..... the intelligent perosn KNOWS it was banks in the western hemisphere in general and the lack of control govts and banks put in place to stop unnecessary risk-taking. People who see this as a British thing are being blinkered. Most of whatw e are going through is not because of british mistakes. Mostly it is American mistakes but overall it is global financial mistakes that hardly anyone ahs been able to deal with.

As for us being the worst.. that's just laughable...w atch France and Italy closely over the next two years..... Sarkozy is holding it together by following pretty much similar policies to Labour and you can see the terror in Merkel's eyes.

Some analysts are now saying that even if we recover in the next year we may hit anothe spiral when the German and French governement debt comes home to roost. When that happens, if Merkel is in power, she will take Germany out of the single currency and threaten exit from the EU if Germany has to take responsibility for other countries..... for real this time..

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

The problem was caused by poor risk assessment and credit control in relation to sub prime lending in the USA, then the reselling of these debts to other financial institutions globally, creating a giant game of 'pass the parcel'. When the music stopped a number of institutions were left holding toxic debt, and no one knew just how much (or more importantly little) it was worth. This caused liquidity in the banking system to dry up, and those institutions that borrowed short and lent long (such as (Suck my cock it's) Northern Rock) has a capital crisis.

Having taught at Goldman, Bear Sterns, Lehman, Credit Suisse, JP Morgan Chase, RBS and a few others, no amount of regulation would have prevented this happening, the bankers simply got greedy, but would run rings around the regulators through the creation of CDO Squared derivatives etc. The regulators were out of their depth, but not as much as the ratings agencies.

It was a giant conspiracy of greed and deceipt, outside the sphere of political influence and control.

Nail. Head.

 

[ROSM]

Ok but surely he can't be that dull to have reached such a high office, don't thick people end up with such jobs other than chancellor of the exchequor? A quick check on Wikipedia shows me he got a 2:1 Batchelor's Degree in modern History at Magdelen College oxford. A 2:1 from Oxford, doesn't sound that thick to me? Could it be jealousy of these treasury civil servants (whom could never dream of reaching such a high position as chancellor) that get them to say the things that they do. I don't claim him to be an Einstein, I don't know the bloke, but I think it is unfair to slag the intellect off someone whom I don't know and to me hasn't so far done anything too disastorous in his tenure as Chancellor.

You started questioning the intellectual qualities of Osbourne and Cameron whom have done something about our financial position (emergency July 2010 budget) you should look at the intellectual qualities that oppose them too.

I wasn't questioning cameron - although i have met him and have issues with him based on a previous role he held. I think you may be mixing up intellect and intelligence. As for how osborne's doing? I have already given my view that the emergency budget and spending review have not been the success that many have been claiming. I also think the way the spending review was conducted and the frustration of his colleagues that led to the Liam fox plea to cameron, coupled with the concerns about the proposals for child benefit show that he lacks something for this role.