labour vs tory on economics alone

[egb_hibs]

what a choice; the guys who have fecked the country or the blokes who look like they dinnae have a clue.

on macroeconomics alone, who would you plump for?

 

[Smurf]

The reason i'm returning to Labour is because at least Brown understands economics.

 

[egb_hibs]

The reason i'm returning to Labour is because at least Brown understands economics.

How can you say that after he has beggared the country? He and Darling may have made some of the right calls during the crisis (or may not - like most people I guess, I really don't know). But over the piece they have caused it.

We are in a terrible state. Our deficit is up there with Greece's. And if the credit rating agencies downrate us, we could end up following them.

Polly Toynbee was today speculating that Rawnsley may have a card up his sleeve that will dwarf the bully thing. It will be staggering if true; namely that gordon hosed billions into spending in 2005 (i think it was) because he expected to ascend to the throne at that point, amidst a tide of largesse. he was apparently fuming that his chance didn't come, and by the time he did get there the taps were having to be tightened.

if Toynbee is correct, and this is substantiated, then it will be little short of criminal. A party already accused of destabilising society through mass immigration for purely political gain, led by a man who hocked the nation to feather his own political bed? it's just too much.

 

[Frenchman]

what a choice; the guys who have fecked the country or the blokes who look like they dinnae have a clue.

on macroeconomics alone, who would you plump for?[/QUOTE]

And you?

 

[Smurf]

How can you say that after he has beggared the country? He and Darling may have made some of the right calls during the crisis (or may not - like most people I guess, I really don't know). But over the piece they have caused it.

We are in a terrible state. Our deficit is up there with Greece's. And if the credit rating agencies downrate us, we could end up following them.

Polly Toynbee was today speculating that Rawnsley may have a card up his sleeve that will dwarf the bully thing. It will be staggering if true; namely that gordon hosed billions into spending in 2005 (i think it was) because he expected to ascend to the throne at that point, amidst a tide of largesse. he was apparently fuming that his chance didn't come, and by the time he did get there the taps were having to be tightened.

if Toynbee is correct, and this is substantiated, then it will be little short of criminal. A party already accused of destabilising society through mass immigration for purely political gain, led by a man who hocked the nation to feather his own political bed? it's just too much.

I said he understands which is not the same as saying he's good at it or an expert.

To me Cameron and Osbourne don't even grasp it...

 

[wee 162]

How can you say that after he has beggared the country? He and Darling may have made some of the right calls during the crisis (or may not - like most people I guess, I really don't know). But over the piece they have caused it.

We are in a terrible state. Our deficit is up there with Greece's. And if the credit rating agencies downrate us, we could end up following them.

Polly Toynbee was today speculating that Rawnsley may have a card up his sleeve that will dwarf the bully thing. It will be staggering if true; namely that gordon hosed billions into spending in 2005 (i think it was) because he expected to ascend to the throne at that point, amidst a tide of largesse. he was apparently fuming that his chance didn't come, and by the time he did get there the taps were having to be tightened.

if Toynbee is correct, and this is substantiated, then it will be little short of criminal. A party already accused of destabilising society through mass immigration for purely political gain, led by a man who hocked the nation to feather his own political bed? it's just too much.

Those two caused a worldwide recession did they? That's quite the trick from the 6th largest economy in the world.

 

[egb_hibs]

Those two caused a worldwide recession did they? That's quite the trick from the 6th largest economy in the world.

We had a uniquely British problem running in parallel, which has made us particularly vulnerable to the global problem.

If it wasn't that something else would have brought the house of cards down.

what a choice; the guys who have fecked the country or the blokes who look like they dinnae have a clue.

on macroeconomics alone, who would you plump for?[/QUOTE]

And you?

I don't know; That's the point of the thread!

 

[Frenchman]

We had a uniquely British problem running in parallel, which has made us particularly vulnerable to the global problem.

If it wasn't that something else would have brought the house of cards down.

I don't know; That's the point of the thread!

Ah, I see.

 

[Kurt]

what a choice; the guys who have fecked the country or the blokes who look like they dinnae have a clue.

on macroeconomics alone, who would you plump for?

I'm trying to work out which is which in that question.

The reason i'm returning to Labour is because at least Brown understands economics.

In the way that he understood the new paradigm he had created had put an end to boom and bust?

 

[Smurf]

I'm trying to work out which is which in that question.



In the way that he understood the new paradigm he had created had put an end to boom and bust?

He has ended busts such as the 1991 recession. Caused by domestic policies on interest rates and the fight with recession.

 

[egb_hibs]

He has ended busts such as the 1991 recession. Caused by domestic policies on interest rates and the fight with recession.

K; each month the egb household progresses along a cycle of initial largesse progressing inexorably to searching out pennies from the back of the sofa.

Were I to declare and end to domestic cycles of boom and bust by getting a very large credit card, with which to fund the family's expenditure; if I were moreover, to get mrs egb to stop working and put her feet up, and replace her salary with mr credit card's bounty...

Then I would have ended my domestic boom and bust cycle in pretty much exactly the same way big Gogs 'ended' the country's.

But then one day...

 

[Weststandwanabe]

what a choice; the guys who have fecked the country or the blokes who look like they dinnae have a clue.

on macroeconomics alone, who would you plump for?

Neither both equally flawed.

The reason i'm returning to Labour is because at least Brown understands economics.

Are you having a laugh ?, if he understands how did we go from "and end to boom and bust" to the biggest bust recorded ?

K; each month the egb household progresses along a cycle of initial largesse progressing inexorably to searching out pennies from the back of the sofa.

Were I to declare and end to domestic cycles of boom and bust by getting a very large credit card, with which to fund the family's expenditure; if I were moreover, to get mrs egb to stop working and put her feet up, and replace her salary with mr credit card's bounty...

Then I would have ended my domestic boom and bust cycle in pretty much exactly the same way big Gogs 'ended' the country's.

But then one day...

Brilliant Do you think even the most cupid stunt would now understand ?

 

[wee 162]

K; each month the egb household progresses along a cycle of initial largesse progressing inexorably to searching out pennies from the back of the sofa.

Were I to declare and end to domestic cycles of boom and bust by getting a very large credit card, with which to fund the family's expenditure; if I were moreover, to get mrs egb to stop working and put her feet up, and replace her salary with mr credit card's bounty...

Then I would have ended my domestic boom and bust cycle in pretty much exactly the same way big Gogs 'ended' the country's.

But then one day...

What's the UKs current government debt? I take it you know this figure. The traditional way to measure that is in relation to GDP.

Now, tell me what the trajectory of that figure has been over Labours time in office. With particular reference to what it was like before they took office.

I'm aware you know the answer to this, because I've gave you a link to the data before. So why are you still persisting with the same meme which you know to be wrong? In the same way that you continue to talk about hugely rising inequality during Labours time in power. With no reference to what the trajectory of that looked like before they took power either.

Here's the links. Again. Which show you to be persisting in talking shite because you think somethings the case, and then because you ignore actual hard evidence because it shows you are wrong.

National Statistics Online
UK: income inequalities - The Poverty Site (graph 7 is the significant one which shows inequality measured by the GINI Coefficient)

 

[egb_hibs]

What's the UKs current government debt? I take it you know this figure. The traditional way to measure that is in relation to GDP.

Now, tell me what the trajectory of that figure has been over Labours time in office. With particular reference to what it was like before they took office.

I'm aware you know the answer to this, because I've gave you a link to the data before. So why are you still persisting with the same meme which you know to be wrong? In the same way that you continue to talk about hugely rising inequality during Labours time in power. With no reference to what the trajectory of that looked like before they took power either.

Here's the links. Again. Which show you to be persisting in talking shite because you think somethings the case, and then because you ignore actual hard evidence because it shows you are wrong.

National Statistics Online
UK: income inequalities - The Poverty Site (graph 7 is the significant one which shows inequality measured by the GINI Coefficient)

You miss the point Al.

It is not so much the debt - even if we include the portion that's off the books.

It's the deficit. That's where we're down with Greece and one of the worst of all the developed economies. Going back to my domestic analogy - it's not my mortgage, it's the fact that my current account is overdrawn on payday, and i'm living on my credit card month to month.

Check out the thread I have up on the scarey economic future.

And please stop going on about memes when you mean ideas, themes or even tropes. It's jargonistic nonsense.

 

[wee 162]

You miss the point Al.

It is not so much the debt - even if we include the portion that's off the books.

It's the deficit. That's where we're down with Greece and one of the worst of all the developed economies. Going back to my domestic analogy - it's not my mortgage, it's the fact that my current account is overdrawn on payday, and i'm living on my credit card month to month.

Check out the thread I have up on the scarey economic future.

And please stop going on about memes when you mean ideas, themes or even tropes. It's jargonistic nonsense.

Ah, so it's not the debt, it's the deficit. Why are deficits bad again? It couldn't possibly be because they lead to the country becoming more indebted could it?

Deficit spending leads to increased debt. That's what the entire fucking problem with it is.

If deficits are the major problem, I assume you'll be petrified at the impending collapse of the US economy? Or does the far smaller state spending there (in GDP terms) mean they have far more that could be cut back than the (according to you) bloated UK?

And it's absolutely a meme. As pointed out earlier by Gun Ainm you're currently like a stuck record and you're frankly ranting like a fucking loony. Labour bad! Increased inequality! They've fucked the economy all by themselves! It's because they're all communists! They're evil! It's barely even entertaining any more, it's actually pretty fucking sad if truth be told.

 

[egb_hibs]

Ah, so it's not the debt, it's the deficit. Why are deficits bad again? It couldn't possibly be because they lead to the country becoming more indebted could it?

Deficit spending leads to increased debt. That's what the entire fucking problem with it is.

Yes it is Al, but you're oversimplifying. If you have a big debt, and are paying it back, or even getting it under control, people's confidence in you will be higher than if you have a large and growing debt, and you run at a massive loss.

In a nutshell Al;

The UK's total debt, private and public is the greatest of any society anywhere, at any time, in all of recorded history.

The UK's public debt is bad but not among the worst; although not many others will have as much shifted off the books as us.

The UK's deficit is among the very worst.

In short Al; the UK is in a terrible state; one of the worst in the developed world.

I'm not sure why you are so keen to defend an economy based on private landlordship, cheap credit, a cultivated asset price bubble and tarting ourselves to every shadey international capitalist going. It has been an unmitigated disaster and is a problem uniquely of Gordon Brown's architecting, over and above the global problem.

If deficits are the major problem, I assume you'll be petrified at the impending collapse of the US economy? Or does the far smaller state spending there (in GDP terms) mean they have far more that could be cut back than the (according to you) bloated UK?

The USA is in terrible trouble. It is not a small state spender recently. George Bush spent more than any US administration for decades, and Obama has upped the ante further. Where the US is better placed than us is they have a much more diverse economy, but they are in deep deep trouble. Just not as much as we are in.

And it's absolutely a meme. As pointed out earlier by Gun Ainm you're currently like a stuck record and you're frankly ranting like a fucking loony. Labour bad! Increased inequality! They've fucked the economy all by themselves! It's because they're all communists! They're evil! It's barely even entertaining any more, it's actually pretty fucking sad if truth be told.

As opposed to you trying to drag palestine into a thread about the falklands.

Like you I am frustrated with the same axes being ground, and aware I'm guilty of it.

But Gun Ainm's timing was telling, although perhaps coincidental. On a thread that presents the implications of the real crisis facing western economies, noone wants to know. perhaps you'll disprove me. whenever a thread is presented featuring data on that subject, noone who normally debates politics or economics touches it. - i think people are scared, I really do; of what it entails i mean, not of having a debate.

As for ranting like a loony; I'm complaining about our incumbent govt who have trashed the economy to an unparallell extent while also removing civil liberties in an equally unprecedented way. You meanwhile are obsessed with a PM who left 20 years ago when you were a schoolboy FFS, and look forward to partying when she pops it.

I know which is more redolent of a sad lunatic.

Oh and this thread started as one dishing it to both parties and till you went into boggle eyed attack dog mode and tried defending the indefensible in the most aggressive way. All I see sometimes is a mr angry whose just against stuff, not for anything; all swearing an insults. when was the last time i did that to you Al? you're doing it all the time.

 

[Kurt]

Yes it is Al, but you're oversimplifying. If you have a big debt, and are paying it back, or even getting it under control, people's confidence in you will be higher than if you have a large and growing debt, and you run at a massive loss.

In a nutshell Al;

The UK's total debt, private and public is the greatest of any society anywhere, at any time, in all of recorded history.

The UK's public debt is bad but not among the worst; although not many others will have as much shifted off the books as us.

The UK's deficit is among the very worst.

In short Al; the UK is in a terrible state; one of the worst in the developed world.

I'm not sure why you are so keen to defend an economy based on private landlordship, cheap credit, a cultivated asset price bubble and tarting ourselves to every shadey international capitalist going. It has been an unmitigated disaster and is a problem uniquely of Gordon Brown's architecting, over and above the global problem.

The USA is in terrible trouble. It is not a small state spender recently. George Bush spent more than any US administration for decades, and Obama has upped the ante further. Where the US is better placed than us is they have a much more diverse economy, but they are in deep deep trouble. Just not as much as we are in.

As opposed to you trying to drag palestine into a thread about the falklands.

Like you I am frustrated with the same axes being ground, and aware I'm guilty of it.

But Gun Ainm's timing was telling, although perhaps coincidental. On a thread that presents the implications of the real crisis facing western economies, noone wants to know - i think people are scared, I really do. perhaps you'll disprove me.

As for ranting like a loony; I'm complaining about our incumbent govt who have trashed the economy to an unparallell extent while also removing civil liberties in an equally unprecedented way. You meanwhile are obsessed with a PM who left 20 years ago when you were a schoolboy FFS, and look forward to partying when she pops it.

I know which is more redolent of a sad lunatic.

Oh and this thread started as one dishing it to both parties and till you went into boggle eyed attack dog mode and tried defending the indefensible in the most aggressive way. All I see sometimes is a mr angry whose just against stuff, not for anything; all swearing an insults. when was the last time i did that to you Al? you're doing it all the time.

I heard Will Hutton speak a couple of weeks back and he suggested that we should not worry about running a big national debt as grwoth is more important. He cited to post war years when we owed a few bob the the americans (only paid it off 2 years ago). Vince Cable and John Redmond who were also speaking didn't see it that way. Will Hutton has a book coming out next month on the subject.

Its a point of view but my concern is that if the markets lose confidence in the nations financial management (unlikely post war) our ability to borrow cheaply may be harmed which will cost us more ultimately.

 

[wee 162]

You meanwhile are obsessed with a PM who left 20 years ago when you were a schoolboy FFS, and look forward to partying when she pops it.

Let's do each other a favour.

You find how many threads I've started or commented on about Thatcher popping it in say in the last 6 months (change the timescale if you think I'm fixing it).

I'll see how many times you've mentioned secularism in the same timespan. Or fascist socialists. Or how Brown has fucked the economy. Or Ponzi schemes. Or militant islam/ Jihadis.

Let's just have a look at who the obsessive one is.

BTW, go back up the thread and have a look at the reason why people maybe don't really bother debating with you any more. You'll see I got sucked into this one because again you were saying something which was untrue, and which I'd pointed out to you before using evidence freely available and not difficult to find. Yet you persist with it and say it was not really your argument and you were talking about something else? Why is that? It's not because you've read another balanced article in The Spectator which mentioned your original argument and you thought "aye, that reads right to me" was it? I simply cannot be arsed sucking in hours of my life in never ending arguments where I keep trying to produce actual evidence and you keep ignoring it.

ps I thought you were only right wing because this board was so left wing? That's not really the case any more is it comrade...

I heard Will Hutton speak a couple of weeks back and he suggested that we should not worry about running a big national debt as grwoth is more important. He cited to post war years when we owed a few bob the the americans (only paid it off 2 years ago). Vince Cable and John Redmond who were also speaking didn't see it that way. Will Hutton has a book coming out next month on the subject.

Its a point of view but my concern is that if the markets lose confidence in the nations financial management (unlikely post war) our ability to borrow cheaply may be harmed which will cost us more ultimately.

You want to spend in times of recession/ depression to stimulate the economy. I'm far from convinced that the spending which has happened has done that. The theory should be that you build up infrastructure etc which helps you ramp up the economy when financial times are better (and you pay back the spending you've had to commit then). An argument could be made about the banks being crucial infrastructure obviously, but imo the money could and should have went elsewhere.

 

[egb_hibs]

Let's do each other a favour.

You find how many threads I've started or commented on about Thatcher popping it in say in the last 6 months (change the timescale if you think I'm fixing it).

I'll see how many times you've mentioned secularism in the same timespan. Or fascist socialists. Or how Brown has fucked the economy. Or Ponzi schemes. Or militant islam/ Jihadis.

These are the things that are happening now Al.

Not yesterday, not twenty years ago. Now.

And the fascist / socialist one is in response to an enduring lie. Which is probably why noone can provide a response based on argument despite what 'nonsense' it is.

Let's just have a look at who the obsessive one is.

Like most contributors to this country, I'm sick of what's being done to it. So while you are full of malice for politicians of yesterday and for free societies everywhere, I'm pissed at wreckers; pays your money takes your choice.

your ridiculous comparison of one highly specific statement versus a range of topic notwithstanding, it's a question of priorities.

BTW, go back up the thread and have a look at the reason why people may
be don't really bother debating with you any more. You'll see I got sucked into this one because again you were saying something which was untrue, and which I'd pointed out to you before using evidence freely available and not difficult to find. Yet you persist with it and say it was not really your argument and you were talking about something else? Why is that? It's not because you've read another balanced article in The Spectator which mentioned your original argument and you thought "aye, that reads right to me" was it? I simply cannot be arsed sucking in hours of my life in never ending arguments where I keep trying to produce actual evidence and you keep ignoring it.

Go and just tell me what 'fact' was 'untrue'?

And what are you wittering on about the spectator for? cos an article was quoted from it once? the spectator is a helluva lot more balanced than most of your reference points; i recall you saying to me once you read papers that chime roughly with your views so you don't get wound up (or words to that effect). it's ironic really.

anyway Al, what is 'untrue', honestly?

ps I thought you were only right wing because this board was so left wing? That's not really the case any more is it comrade...

The board is less uniformly left wing than it used to be, I agree; moreover, it seems to be a wider trend as the internet has become open to a wider audience. And I'm waaay to the left of many who now post here.

 

[wee 162]

These are the things that are happening now Al.

Not yesterday, not twenty years ago. Now.

And the fascist / socialist one is in response to an enduring lie. Which is probably why noone can provide a response based on argument despite what 'nonsense' it is.

Like most contributors to this country, I'm sick of what's being done to it. So while you are full of malice for politicians of yesterday and for free societies everywhere, I'm pissed at wreckers; pays your money takes your choice.

your ridiculous comparison of one highly specific statement versus a range of topic notwithstanding, it's a question of priorities.

Go and just tell me what 'fact' was 'untrue'?

And what are you wittering on about the spectator for? cos an article was quoted from it once? the spectator is a helluva lot more balanced than most of your reference points; i recall you saying to me once you read papers that chime roughly with your views so you don't get wound up (or words to that effect). it's ironic really.

anyway Al, what is 'untrue', honestly?

The board is less uniformly left wing than it used to be, I agree; moreover, it seems to be a wider trend as the internet has become open to a wider audience. And I'm waaay to the left of many who now post here.

Yip. That's it. I'm against freedom.

It's me who's ranting though.

On your specific point about what was it you said that was untrue, it was your analogy with living off a credit card for the time in charge that Labour have had. Except that isn't true is it? As you know. Unless of course a reduction in debt by about a quarter (again compared to GDP) and then it slowly rising over around 4 years before it exploded during recession was what you meant by that...

Of course recession hurts those figures quite a lot. Recession means that GDP is going down so even if the debt stays the same it will still rise in terms of that. Plus tax revenues obviously decrease which dents the figures again. The UK went into the same level of debt as Labour inherited in early 2007. And it was the bank bailouts which pushed it to that point. As you can see if you bother to actually look at the evidence.

 

[egb_hibs]

Yip. That's it. I'm against freedom.

It's me who's ranting though.

On your specific point about what was it you said that was untrue, it was your analogy with living off a credit card for the time in charge that Labour have had. Except that isn't true is it? As you know. Unless of course a reduction in debt by about a quarter (again compared to GDP) and then it slowly rising over around 4 years before it exploded during recession was what you meant by that...

I meant exactly what I said in my analogy. The period where things were rosey is because the whole fecking nation, govt and private citizen, were living on an orgy of credit; govt was creaming tax take from consumer spending that was based on cheap credit (and of course tax generated from the lenders themselves) encouraged by govt policy.

it was a ponzi scheme.

Of course recession hurts those figures quite a lot. Recession means that GDP is going down so even if the debt stays the same it will still rise in terms of that. Plus tax revenues obviously decrease which dents the figures again. The UK went into the same level of debt as Labour inherited in early 2007. And it was the bank bailouts which pushed it to that point. As you can see if you bother to actually look at the evidence.

You are talking about debt; and rather astonishingly taking the govt's word for it, when we all know what they've been up to with PFI.

But never mind; I have been talking deficit Al. You are saying I am citing untruths when in fact you are quoting a different metric than I am quoting.

As an aside, I do genuinely find it astounding that you seem to be swallowing the millbank line on this.

You must know that everything has been pushed back to after the election, and that whoever gets into power, from the election onwards things are going to get much much worse. i think the bond market lends to us at about the same rate as they lend to portugal these days; if that gets worse, then that deficit will cause our debt to mushroom in an accelerating spiral.

 

[wee 162]

I meant exactly what I said in my analogy. The period where things were rosey is because the whole fecking nation, govt and private citizen, were living on an orgy of credit; govt was creaming tax take from consumer spending that was based on cheap credit (and of course tax generated from the lenders themselves) encouraged by govt policy.

it was a ponzi scheme.

You are talking about debt; and rather astonishingly taking the govt's word for it, when we all know what they've been up to with PFI.

But never mind; I have been talking deficit Al. You are saying I am citing untruths when in fact you are quoting a different metric than I am quoting.

As an aside, I do genuinely find it astounding that you seem to be swallowing the millbank line on this.

You must know that everything has been pushed back to after the election, and that whoever gets into power, from the election onwards things are going to get much much worse. i think the bond market lends to us at about the same rate as they lend to portugal these days; if that gets worse, then that deficit will cause our debt to mushroom in an accelerating spiral.

Nah, ken what you're absolutely right. Deficits have been continually rising. That's how government debt decreased by around a quarter in the first decade of Labour being in power. And the deficits have been nothing to do with prosecuting an illegal war right around the time they started to level out before they rose again.

And do you think I ever agreed with PFI? Are you insane? However, I think it would be fair to point out what the actual costs are. For example, Scotland has spent 5.2b in the 13 years since its introduction. The future liability is 22.3b. So the absolute total is less than Scotland current block grant for one year of around 33b. And it's spread over varying periods so it's really not like that is due in a oner. As I say I disagree with PFI, but simply bandying about apocalyptic nonsense about it makes no sense either. It's more expensive than it should be. Also to put it into perspective, at least it's been used to do mundane things like build schools and hospitals, as opposed to say the 37b which went to making sure the Royal Bank didn't collapse. Or the approximately 35b being spent on Trident and the submarines to carry it. I've said many times that I'm opposed to the private sector taking money out of the public sector. BTW how does this tally up with your continual parroting of "it's private companies who generate wealth" when they're simply taking money out of the public sector and showing it up as profit?

As for me swallowing the Millbank line, I think you misunderstand me. I trust absolutely nothing which reeks of spin and agendas when it comes to something I can check myself. I wasn't led to stuff like the GINI coefficient for the UK over the last couple of decades from The Guardian, I saw a statement and checked it out.

I'm done with this btw. I'm not devoting hours to arguing with someone who simply refuses to look at evidence of any description and instead thinks that the higher the level of hyperbole contained in a statement the more convincing it is.

 

[egb_hibs]

Nah, ken what you're absolutely right. Deficits have been continually rising. That's how government debt decreased by around a quarter in the first decade of Labour being in power. And the deficits have been nothing to do with prosecuting an illegal war right around the time they started to level out before they rose again.

You are flat out ignoring the point about the credit cycle which is somewhat key to this.

And do you think I ever agreed with PFI? Are you insane? However, I think it would be fair to point out what the actual costs are. For example, Scotland has spent 5.2b in the 13 years since its introduction. The future liability is 22.3b. So the absolute total is less than Scotland current block grant for one year of around 33b. And it's spread over varying periods so it's really not like that is due in a oner. As I say I disagree with PFI, but simply bandying about apocalyptic nonsense about it makes no sense either. It's more expensive than it should be. Also to put it into perspective, at least it's been used to do mundane things like build schools and hospitals, as opposed to say the 37b which went to making sure the Royal Bank didn't collapse. Or the approximately 35b being spent on Trident and the submarines to carry it. I've said many times that I'm opposed to the private sector taking money out of the public sector. BTW how does this tally up with your continual parroting of "it's private companies who generate wealth" when they're simply taking money out of the public sector and showing it up as profit?

You are flatly ignoring the fact that I too have consistently been against PFI and that private companies being sub contracted by the state is not wealth generation.

Interested in your figures for the PFI debt. That would of course, if it was extrapolated linearly to the UK (which may or may not be valid) add another 200 billion to our debt, which is not insignificant.

As for me swallowing the Millbank line, I think you misunderstand me. I trust absolutely nothing which reeks of spin and agendas when it comes to something I can check myself. I wasn't led to stuff like the GINI coefficient for the UK over the last couple of decades from The Guardian, I saw a statement and checked it out.

I'm done with this btw. I'm not devoting hours to arguing with someone who simply refuses to look at evidence of any description and instead thinks that the higher the level of hyperbole contained in a statement the more convincing it is.

You say that with a straight face? When I mention X, you present a stat about Y, and then claim that your evidence is being ignored!

Coming up a level; why do you think we're the last G7 out of recession (if we even are)? What do you think the markets will do to us after the election if we don't cut - you think all the rumbling that they're giving us a period of grace till then is hype or agit prop? Let's see where we are in a year Al.

The funny bit is that as you say here, you have slated all this stuff - until I slate it. Just like when I echoed your line about self determination on the falklands you then rounded on me. What gives Al? It ain't just about me dude.

 

[wee 162]

Interested in your figures for the PFI debt. That would of course, if it was extrapolated linearly to the UK (which may or may not be valid) add another 200 billion to our debt, which is not insignificant.

Ken what, the figures are freely available. Why haven't you looked for them?

And I'd also point out I'm not defending PFI, I'm putting the figures on the table so that at least people know what sort of numbers we're talking about. It's you who was screaming about how it's not on the books. Yet you knew nothing about what the numbers were. So why the sudden pre-occupation with it? Coincidence?

 

[egb_hibs]

Ken what, the figures are freely available. Why haven't you looked for them?

And I'd also point out I'm not defending PFI, I'm putting the figures on the table so that at least people know what sort of numbers we're talking about. It's you who was screaming about how it's not on the books. Yet you knew nothing about what the numbers were. So why the sudden pre-occupation with it? Coincidence?

If you're suggesting I based something on that article then yes it is; I've never seen it before.

i have seen the govt's spreadsheet Al sure enough, looks like 200 billion plus; but anything I have ever read in papers both right and left, books, seen on telly et al, has stated that the true extent of PFI is not known to anyone bar the govt - they are not available even to the official opposition.

I'll be interested to learn if this is untrue.

ps what point were you trying to make with the NOS link? makes grim reading to me. I take it you notice that the debt would be rocketing even without the 'financial interventions'?

Here's a longer term picture; http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/mar/01/government-borrowing-economy1

we see the tories slash down debt as a percentage of gdp after they take power in 79, then start accruing it again during the 90s recession. labour then come in and cut it back - and then it starts rising again during a period of boom times. Then it goes mental as everything goes belly up. debt full stop (ie not as a percentage of gdp) rockets during the labour era after an initial shallow dip. bringing the two pictures together, tis a pity the GDP growth that masked absolute debt inflation was to such a large extent a mirage.