Cameron - what a complete tool

jgmcdee · Oct 23, 2014

somerset said:
The last 5 years are from 2009 ish..

This years is forecast at 93.7bn

In 2009/10 it reached a peak at 167bn

http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/net-borrowing-96-12-600x531.png

2014 is a forecast not a result, which takes us back to looking at 2007/8 to 2012/13 which is what I based my comment on.

Given that there was such a massive spike from 2008 up to 2010 I assume that it was due to the borrowing around the financial crisis, in which case shouldn't it have come down naturally anyway as the immediate cash requirements dried up?

(And apropos of nothing, but the next politician that uses the word 'headwinds' when talking about the financial situation is going to be on my permanent shitlist. If you think you're clever enough to run an economy then you're clever enough to explain what the problem is without waving it away).

spring hall convert · Oct 23, 2014

somerset said:
I don't care who would have done better, I was responding to deficit comment, I think a reduction is a reduction, one third reduction is not bad given the economic conditions.

If you don't care who could have done better, then what's the point in paying any attention? The deficit would have reduced this Parliament whoever was in power. Had the more realisitic Darling plan delivered its targets the deficit would have reduced by more than 33%. Labour said at the time that the Tory plan was unrealistic and so it proved.

I think it's very dangerous that over the course of this Parliament that Tory rhetoric on the economy has turned from opinion into fact. Double-dip wasn't inevtiable, growth could have and should have been quicker to arrive and faster, cuts could have been staggered to allow the economy to recover. I'm not presenting this as fact but you must realise that this is ALL opinion.

I am not a Labour voter BTW.

somerset · Oct 23, 2014

jgmcdee said:
2014 is a forecast not a result, which takes us back to looking at 2007/8 to 2012/13 which is what I based my comment on.

Given that there was such a massive spike from 2008 up to 2010 I assume that it was due to the borrowing around the financial crisis, in which case shouldn't it have come down naturally anyway as the immediate cash requirements dried up?

(And apropos of nothing, but the next politician that uses the word 'headwinds' when talking about the financial situation is going to be on my permanent shitlist. If you think you're clever enough to run an economy then you're clever enough to explain what the problem is without waving it away).

Dress it up how you like, with straw clutching caveats and political bias,.... it all still adds up to a reducing budget deficit.

Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo! · Oct 23, 2014

Leighgull said:
My point is that free movement and similar pay conditions between Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, France and Germany is an easy promise to keep as they are Northern European industrialised economies. Promising the same ease of movement between Romania and the UK is, clearly, going to mean incredible opportunities and pay differentials to one country and a massive burden on the other.

Shall I make it more clear for you, or do you get it now?

If you want to do patronising then I suggest that "transitional period" are the words to focus on and where within the final approval of this would take place within the EU member states.

Below is the declaration from the initial page of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Clearly a closer union and future expansion to less developed countries beyond the founder six were foreseen at the time. An interesting question to ponder is why we weren't there to make it seven?

"HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC,
HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG,
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of
Europe,
RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common
action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,
AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the
living and working conditions of their peoples,
RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in
order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,
ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious
development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the
backwardness of the less favoured regions,
DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive
abolition of restrictions on international trade,
INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries
and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the
principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and
liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in
their efforts,
HAVE DECIDED to create a European Economic Community and to this end have
designated as their Plenipotentiaries:................."

somerset · Oct 23, 2014

spring hall convert said:
If you don't care who could have done better, then what's the point in paying any attention? The deficit would have reduced this Parliament whoever was in power. Had the more realisitic Darling plan delivered its targets the deficit would have reduced by more than 33%. Labour said at the time that the Tory plan was unrealistic and so it proved.

I think it's very dangerous that over the course of this Parliament that Tory rhetoric on the economy has turned from opinion into fact. Double-dip wasn't inevtiable, growth could have and should have been quicker to arrive and faster, cuts could have been staggered to allow the economy to recover. I'm not presenting this as fact but you must realise that this is ALL opinion.

I am not a Labour voter BTW.

Hilarious.....in the first paragraph you trot out a series of predictive statements as fact about what would have happened to the economy.....then in the second para you put in an unconvincing fact versus opinion disclaimer......must try harder.

spring hall convert · Oct 23, 2014

somerset said:
Hilarious.....in the first paragraph you trot out a series of predictive statements as fact about what would have happened to the economy.....then in the second para you put in an unconvincing fact versus opinion disclaimer......must try harder.

No I don't the only statement of fact is about the deficit reducing regardless of who was in power. I stick by that.

I said "had" the Darling plan delivered it's targets - we don't know whether it would or wouldn't have done. We know the Tory plan didn't deliver it's targets. We know that Labour said it was unrealistic at the time.

Machiavelli · Oct 23, 2014

spring hall convert said:
They said the deficit would be gone. That was the pre-eclection promise. They have failed.

How do you know Labour wouldn't have done better? May I remind you the economy was GROWING when the Tories were elected. They soon kicked that to death and set about their ideologically driven destruction of the public sector. A large growth in output would have been just as effective as cuts. A combination of the 2 would have been preferable.

They said all of this. Yet so few people seem to remember. And all those that accept the austerity line are just getting angrier, and turning to UKIP. One bad decision follows another, and NSC is ripe for such drivel (see countless threads).

Q: I lack the technical, computer capability. But can someone start a thread with the following graphic embedded into it? Perhaps with the title 'Is this why you (are considering a) vote for UKIP?'

http://www.theguardian.com/business...Editable trailblock - news:Position7:sublinks

somerset · Oct 23, 2014

spring hall convert said:
No I don't

I said "had" the Darling plan delivered it's targets - we don't know whether it would or wouldn't have done. We know the Tory plan didn't deliver it's targets. We know that Labour said it was unrealistic at the time.

.....and still the deficit has reduced.......

easynow · Oct 23, 2014

spring hall convert said:
It's threatening to make a joke of democracy in this country.

You mean the country that gave Scotland the vote to leave or stay in the UK?

spring hall convert · Oct 23, 2014

easynow said:
You mean the country that gave Scotland the vote to leave or stay in the UK?

That's the one. The one that got so panicked they were going to vote the "wrong" way that it started making all kinds of ridiculous promises that won't be delivered.

spring hall convert · Oct 23, 2014

somerset said:
.....and still the deficit has reduced.......

So what? Labour's plan was to reduce the deficit as well. I really don't know what point you are arguing. If the Tories had said we will reduce the deficit by 33% and people voted for them on that basis then fine.

They didn't, they said they'd reduce it by 100% and they haven't delivered on that, ergo they misled/ lied/ failed.

nicko31 · Oct 23, 2014

somerset said:
But the deficit IS 33% less than it was 5 years ago......simple facts,....I don't deal in rhetoric like you.......

The brutal reality is this government has piled on more debt than all the other governments in history put together. And guess what the tax free limit is going up to £12k and the Inheritance limit to £1 million. They've lost the plot....

Gwylan · Oct 23, 2014

bushy said:
Absolute rubbish , would you vote FOR nick griffin if he advocated staying in the EU?

Well, I'm not really pro EU so that would have been a no-brainer

Also back in 1982 Europe wasn't such an issue

... which is exactly the point I'm making

however you also know that it is now.

Not according to last week's survey it's not ... and not according to votes for ant-EU parties at the last general election. What was it? 2% Not exactly a sign that it's a major issue

somerset · Oct 23, 2014

spring hall convert said:
So what? Labour's plan was to reduce the deficit as well. I really don't know what point you are arguing. If the Tories had said we will reduce the deficit by 33% and people voted for them on that basis then fine.

They didn't, they said they'd reduce it by 100% and they haven't delivered on that, ergo they misled/ lied/ failed.

You carry on with party politics mate, I look at the figures and come to my own conclusions. Our economy is still rated as a safe bet for investment, our borrowing rate is still only 2% for govt bonds. The entire worlds debt mountain is precarious, but as it stands, ours is stable..... 1.4 trillion....... It is being addressed, slowly, but at the end of the day, a million factors can affect or deflect forecasts.... So I look at it now, and feel its just about acceptable.....I and most of the broad cross section of family, friends and colleagues, are plodding along OK....it could be a whole lot worse.

halbpro · Oct 23, 2014

Herr Tubthumper said:
I think you need to look up the word majority and see what it means.

majority
noun
1. the greater number

His use seems accurate. He will have the most seats compared to any other party, i.e. the greater number of seats. He will probably not have an overall majority though, where he would have the greater number compared to all other parties combined. It's all relative.

Machiavelli · Oct 23, 2014

spring hall convert said:
So what? Labour's plan was to reduce the deficit as well. I really don't know what point you are arguing. If the Tories had said we will reduce the deficit by 33% and people voted for them on that basis then fine.

They didn't, they said they'd reduce it by 100% and they haven't delivered on that, ergo they misled/ lied/ failed.

They've also contrived to flatline the economy in the process, when growth across their parliament is considered. And yet there's all this crowing from all quarters about how wonderful they are. They've also managed to entrench certain inequalities, and create new ones too.

spring hall convert · Oct 23, 2014

somerset said:
I and most of the broad cross section of family, friends and colleagues, are plodding along OK....it could be a whole lot worse.

Well that's alright then.

(PS - I'm the last person you should be accusing of party politics here, I think they're all lying, duplicitous, scumbags. You appear to not mind being lied to so there's not much else for us to discuss.)

nicko31 · Oct 23, 2014

somerset said:
You carry on with party politics mate, I look at the figures and come to my own conclusions. Our economy is still rated as a safe bet for investment, our borrowing rate is still only 2% for govt bonds. The entire worlds debt mountain is precarious, but as it stands, ours is stable..... 1.4 trillion....... It is being addressed, slowly, but at the end of the day, a million factors can affect or deflect forecasts.... So I look at it now, and feel its just about acceptable.....I and most of the broad cross section of family, friends and colleagues, are plodding along OK....it could be a whole lot worse.

How can you call £1.4 trillion is debt as "stable" and "being addressed slowly", when its still increasing at around £100 biliion a year. The only way out of it will ultimately be a lot of inflation, default, a Cyprus style cash grab or some serious reforms...

a) Get in more tax, personal or corporate

b) Cut welfare. Biggest of all is Public Sector Pensions. £400 billion a year, growing and completely unsustainable. But Cameron is terrified of the grey vote!!

c) NHS - need to review what level of health cover is affordable

The Wizard · Oct 23, 2014

Without meaning to sound ignorant, I am a casual follower of politics not a fanatical follower like some, but doesn't every single PM end up being hated? Nothing ever changes, politicians lie to get elected and then fail to deliver promises, it's what pretty much every government that's ever been elected does.

spring hall convert · Oct 23, 2014

The Wizard said:
Without meaning to sound ignorant, I am a casual follower of politics not a fanatical follower like some, but doesn't every single PM end up being hated? Nothing ever changes, politicians lie to get elected and then fail to deliver promises, it's what pretty much every government that's ever been elected does.

You've got it. I would add it takes some of them longer than 5 years get there though.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Cameron - what a complete tool

New member

Well-known member

New member

Primary data is fact

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page