Scotland after the vote

[voyds9]

HenryJM said:

Why would he roll in a terr'rist? What is a terr'rist?

[HenryJM]

pcvdriver said:

Henry, I'll refer to my last statement - He claimed that we'd be on our way back to the black by now. WE ARE fkING WELL NOT!!!! Our debt mountain is double of what it was. Either he's totally incompetent, or a lying , now which one is it?

He's neither. As I previously pointed out the plans for cutting the deficit you refer to relate to future tax years, we haven't got there yet.

I'm sorry but you really do need to learn something about economics, you've said in your own words that you are not an economist then you keep going on about it, quite clearly proving that you are not.

As it stands you can't have it both ways, cutting the deficit faster would have seen a bigger recession - is that what you wanted? Or would you have wanted the Labour and SNP route of a bigger deficit and more spending?

[pcvdriver]

Sway said:

I haven't.

Find me the ONS stats that show real term spending cuts...

Gideots 2010 announcement....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11579979

[HenryJM]

pcvdriver said:

HenryJM said:

So are you saying that we should have had massive cuts in public spending?

We have had massive cuts in spending......or hadn't you noticed.

Doesn't look like one to me, slight dip maybe:

[HenryJM]

pcvdriver said:

Sway said:

I haven't.

Find me the ONS stats that show real term spending cuts...

Gideots 2010 announcement....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11579979

Those aren't ONS stats of what has happened.

[pcvdriver]

Oh and......from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spending_Review

[HenryJM]

pcvdriver said:

Oh and......from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spending_Review

Those aren't ONS stats of what has happened.

[Sway]

pcvdriver said:

Sway said:

I haven't.

Find me the ONS stats that show real term spending cuts...

Gideots 2010 announcement....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11579979

Now read the actual content.

The vast majority of the 'cuts' are actually reducing the increases/not spending cash in the future. Most of the job losses are a result of natural attrition not being replaced. And so on - increasing the pension age is very different to reducing the pension value.

So, where are the real cuts?

[HenryJM]

Ah well, no figures from pcvdriver so here they are: (source, obviously, ONS)

Public sector current expenditure:
2008/9 567,933
2009/10 605,010
2010/11 635,268
2011/12 643,980
2012/13 656,345

Not much evidence of his massive spending cuts.

[barryrs]

pcvdriver said:

barryrs said:

pcvdriver said:

The point is is took Labour 13 years to amass the debt they did and the coalition 4 years to double it - while heaping derision on them for creating the debt. I calculated the interest payments over the page, which no-one seems to think unreasonable, or they'd have jumped straight down my throat to show me the error of my ways....

The question has to be asked what the flying Eff have they done with all that money?

Good grief!

The coalition inherited a national debt of circa £410 billion and a deficit of £160 billion.

Now common sense should tell you that if you are spending considerably more than you earn your debt will increase, no?

To reduce government spending by £160 billion over night would have crippled the country.

Over 4 years the coalition has managed to reduce this to circa £70 billion but in the mean time national debt has risen for many reasons which we should all be well aware of by now.

I seem to remember Danny Alexander saying he was looking to cut the deficit by about £200bn, or more per year, until we were back in the black, and that he was on course with his aims - I'd suggest more than just a little strongly that him and the Government are full of ste in that case....

You seem to be confusing billion & million.

Are you a graduate of the Swinney school of economics per chance?

[Sway]

HenryJM said:

Ah well, no figures from pcvdriver so here they are: (source, obviously, ONS)

Public sector current expenditure:
2008/9 567,933
2009/10 605,010
2010/11 635,268
2011/12 643,980
2012/13 656,345

Not much evidence of his massive spending cuts.

Those are the ones. Of course, very hard to find pcvdriver - should have given a clue where to look in my original question...

[pcvdriver]

HenryJM said:

pcvdriver said:

Henry, I'll refer to my last statement - He claimed that we'd be on our way back to the black by now. WE ARE fkING WELL NOT!!!! Our debt mountain is double of what it was. Either he's totally incompetent, or a lying , now which one is it?

He's neither. As I previously pointed out the plans for cutting the deficit you refer to relate to future tax years, we haven't got there yet.

I'm sorry but you really do need to learn something about economics, you've said in your own words that you are not an economist then you keep going on about it, quite clearly proving that you are not.

As it stands you can't have it both ways, cutting the deficit faster would have seen a bigger recession - is that what you wanted? Or would you have wanted the Labour and SNP route of a bigger deficit and more spending?

Of course I can accept and understand that money needs to be spent making money, and that our financial situation often looks worse on paper that it is in actual fact.

However, when Gideot and his faithful sidekick, the ginger weasel make bold statements like that come the time of the next election we'll be back in the black - personally, I don't care how it's achieved, I just expect it to happen. Personally I do not see this as remotely possible, given that the amount we owe is now double of what it was when the coalition took power - and we only have one year left to run of the current term in office.

Allow me to then refer back to the point of my previous statement.

If someone/(less than dynamic) duo/rest of hangers-on make a statement like "Trust us. We know what we're doing!!! That Labour lot have truly cocked up royally. We'll have us back on our feet and back in the black by the time/before the next election - it'll be tough, we'll ALL have to make sacrifices, but WE the coalition can do it." - Then I bloody well expect them to do it.

Failure to do so is either sheer incompetence, or sheer lies. So which one?!!!....

Ok, we've a year to go - but does anyone here seriously, credibly think that they'll pull off what would be considered as a masterstroke of political and economic genius, and get us back into the black, even I, a life long socialist, would be take my hat off to them and become a life long Tory voter for ever and ever more.

[HenryJM]

pcvdriver said:

Of course I can accept and understand that money needs to be spent making money, and that our financial situation often looks worse on paper that it is in actual fact.

However, when Gideot and his faithful sidekick, the ginger weasel make bold statements like that come the time of the next election we'll be back in the black - personally, I don't care how it's achieved, I just expect it to happen. Personally I do not see this as remotely possible, given that the amount we owe is now double of what it was when the coalition took power - and we only have one year left to run of the current term in office.

Allow me to then refer back to the point of my previous statement.

If someone/(less than dynamic) duo/rest of hangers-on make a statement like "Trust us. We know what we're doing!!! That Labour lot have truly cocked up royally. We'll have us back on our feet and back in the black by the time/before the next election - it'll be tough, we'll ALL have to make sacrifices, but WE the coalition can do it." - Then I bloody well expect them to do it.

Failure to do so is either sheer incompetence, or sheer lies. So which one?!!!....

Ok, we've a year to go - but does anyone here seriously, credibly think that they'll pull off what would be considered as a masterstroke of political and economic genius, and get us back into the black, even I, a life long socialist, would be take my hat off to them and become a life long Tory voter for ever and ever more.

Where are you getting these commitments from? Who says they were talking about being 'in the black' by the next election?

[pcvdriver]

HenryJM said:

Where are you getting these commitments from? Who says they were talking about being 'in the black' by the next election?

Er....The coalition. I believe it was one of their main promises to the electorate, in their bid to gain power, which is why so many mugs voted for them in the last general election. So yes, it is a case of yet again, more Tory lies. Or shall we be a bit kinder to them and simply dismiss it as sheer and utter incompetence?.....

[pcvdriver]

Which leads us back to Scotland after the vote - Why would anyone in Scotland trust the coalition, or Labour to be anything other than inept, corrupt, untrustworthy parties to ever let Westminster have anything more to do with the administration of Scotland? In short, we wouldn't!!!

[HenryJM]

pcvdriver said:

HenryJM said:

Where are you getting these commitments from? Who says they were talking about being 'in the black' by the next election?

Er....The coalition. I believe it was one of their main promises to the electorate, in their bid to gain power, which is why so many mugs voted for them in the last general election. So yes, it is a case of yet again, more Tory lies. Or shall we be a bit kinder to them and simply dismiss it as sheer and utter incompetence?.....

Well firstly the coalition was only formed after the election, there were no promises made by the coalition to the electorate. But as individual parties I don't believe there were any such promises made.

But one thing you will find a lot of consensus on amongst economists is that this government has handled the economy very well, given where the economy was to now have the growth levels we have is a good achievement. The next phase is to get the deficit down, but that was always following from the return to growth.

One thing is certain, the only alternative promises were to spend more and generate more deficit, which would have been a very foolish strategy.

[pcvdriver]

HenryJM said:

Well firstly the coalition was only formed after the election, there were no promises made by the coalition to the electorate. But as individual parties I don't believe there were any such promises made.

But one thing you will find a lot of consensus on amongst economists is that this government has handled the economy very well, given where the economy was to now have the growth levels we have is a good achievement. The next phase is to get the deficit down, but that was always following from the return to growth.

One thing is certain, the only alternative promises were to spend more and generate more deficit, which would have been a very foolish strategy.

Henry, have you ever heard of a coalition acting together as one, before a GE? I certainly haven't.
I was merely making the point (if slightly lazily, as neither party in my opinion are particularly worth the effort of differentiation these days) that both parties were slating Labour over their handling of the economy. They currently appear to be doing even worse, given that our debt mountain went from being akin to Mont Blanc to Everest-like proportions. Let me ask you do you, Henry, expect us to reach a surplus by the time of the nest election, or were you conned too? I wasn't conned as I didn't believe the ste they were peddling.

[Johnnytheboy]

I genuinely don't know if you understand the relationship between debt and deficit.

[pcvdriver]

HenryJM said:

But one thing you will find a lot of consensus on amongst economists is that this government has handled the economy very well, given where the economy was.

fking hell, there must be some real economist with less idea than I appear to have then.

How can somebody equate to an amount of debt which is double to what it was an economic success from the party in question? Unless of course that person works for Wonga, or similar.....in which case they'd be expecting a stload more debt on the parties behalf.

[pcvdriver]

Johnnytheboy said:

I genuinely don't know if you understand the relationship between debt and deficit.

Oh FFS, Yes Jonny, I do....Debt = amount owed. Deficit = annual shortfall in revenue receipts. Surplus - any amount over what we spend annually.

Next Question......