Penny Mordaunt - PM for PM
Discussion
Riff Raff said:
Tom8 said:
Exactly this. When Labour last came to power Ken Clark gave them a golden hello which they then spunked up the wall and some. This time there is no golden hello so the only real option would be to flog off more gold. None of their other ideas will generate anywhere near what Labour governments normally want to wast...spend.
So the state of the nation's finances at the end of the last Labour administration had nothing to do with the GFC? You know, the biggest world wide recession since WW2?
P-Jay said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
smn159 said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
I genuinely don't believe Labour will be any different.
Less idiot agenda culture war and more actually governing would be a massive improvement TBHWe will just carry on with the same tory/labour/tory/labour merry go round that we have been on for years, if not decades, and we will STILL be in the same deep sh*t. it might have a slightly different flavour every now and then, but it will still be the same deep sh*t.
Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 60s, low rates without going silly, minimum wage, increased Police numbers by 14k, cut crime by 32%, record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools, 85k more nurses, 32k more doctors, gift aid, paternity leave, 36k more teachers, 600k children lifted out of poverty. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since before the industrial revolution, Free TV licences for over-75s.
It reads almost like the Tories got bitter and decided to reverse it all, up to and including allowing actual human s
t to be pumped into rivers. Is that the deep st you're thinking of?No, I don't suspect a beautiful rainbow to appear over No10 the day Starmer moves and it to all be okay again, but I believe they will at least try, instead of just being greedy b
ds. As for your figures above, the same could be said of the numbers achieved by the current shower in No10. Air quality for example was not even such an issue back in the 90's and early 2000's No one has reversed anything. All that has happened is that the UK, has undergone a population rise the like of which has never been seen in its history. Consequently its infrastructure, Roads, countryside, trains, sewage treatment, hospitals, schools, and medical facilities have been swamped and overwhelmed.
Tom8 said:
A large portion of that was created by Clinton and Blair enforcing sub prime lending in another redistribution exercise ignoring the hidden costs of labour such as vast sums of PFI, gold sales, massive state and welfare spending. But apart from that, yes, nothing to do with the Labour government...
Citation required.Riff Raff said:
Tom8 said:
A large portion of that was created by Clinton and Blair enforcing sub prime lending in another redistribution exercise ignoring the hidden costs of labour such as vast sums of PFI, gold sales, massive state and welfare spending. But apart from that, yes, nothing to do with the Labour government...
Citation required.https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/ar...
Tom8 said:
You don't have to look very hard, you're welcome.
https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/ar...
Blair’s name doesn’t appear anywhere on that list, but I take it economics and economic history are not strongpoints. If you were really interested in understanding the GFC, as opposed to attempting to make some trite political point, you’d know that the roots of the U.K. problem stem from deregulation during the Thatcher years. The sub prime market in the US was the tipping point, but it’s rather more complex than you pretend. https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/ar...
If you really want to get into understanding how various post war administrations (mainly Tory, since they’ve been in power longer) have left things in a mess there’s tons of academic research out there to enlighten yourself with.
I’d recommend The British Economy since 1945 by Cairncross as a good starting point, if you’re interested in not making a t
t of yourself every time you post. Tom8 said:
Riff Raff said:
Tom8 said:
A large portion of that was created by Clinton and Blair enforcing sub prime lending in another redistribution exercise ignoring the hidden costs of labour such as vast sums of PFI, gold sales, massive state and welfare spending. But apart from that, yes, nothing to do with the Labour government...
Citation required.https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/ar...
It is slightly amusing when companies behave irresponsibly and then people blame regulators especially when many of those pointing the finger were the ones calling for less regulation.
Those same cries for deregulation seem to have been resurrected by the right in regard to banking finance rules, bankers bonuses etc, etc.
Nomme de Plum said:
Tom8 said:
Riff Raff said:
Tom8 said:
A large portion of that was created by Clinton and Blair enforcing sub prime lending in another redistribution exercise ignoring the hidden costs of labour such as vast sums of PFI, gold sales, massive state and welfare spending. But apart from that, yes, nothing to do with the Labour government...
Citation required.https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/ar...
It is slightly amusing when companies behave irresponsibly and then people blame regulators especially when many of those pointing the finger were the ones calling for less regulation.
Those same cries for deregulation seem to have been resurrected by the right in regard to banking finance rules, bankers bonuses etc, etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/22/t...
Pan Pan Pan said:
When it comes to sh*t, it clearly has not occurred to you, that if hundreds of thousands more homes are built, then billions MORE gallons of sewage will be the inevitable result. Or perhaps you believe that people who live in all these extra dwellings don't ever need to use their toilets, or kitchen sinks? Try putting a new sewage treatment plant any where near where people have these new houses and see what opposition you get. The population of the UK has rocketed.
As for your figures above, the same could be said of the numbers achieved by the current shower in No10. Air quality for example was not even such an issue back in the 90's and early 2000's No one has reversed anything. All that has happened is that the UK, has undergone a population rise the like of which has never been seen in its history. Consequently its infrastructure, Roads, countryside, trains, sewage treatment, hospitals, schools, and medical facilities have been swamped and overwhelmed.
Population growth peaked in 2012. The last big growth period was post-war, peaking in 1965. Annual growth back then was about 0.68% pa, which is higher than the average between 1997 and 2016, say.As for your figures above, the same could be said of the numbers achieved by the current shower in No10. Air quality for example was not even such an issue back in the 90's and early 2000's No one has reversed anything. All that has happened is that the UK, has undergone a population rise the like of which has never been seen in its history. Consequently its infrastructure, Roads, countryside, trains, sewage treatment, hospitals, schools, and medical facilities have been swamped and overwhelmed.
Back then we responded by building masses of new housing and infrastructure. We didn’t get it all right. But compare that to our response this time around. Where was the investment?
The big difference today is the old age dependency ratio. We’ve so many retirees to look after. By not taxing them properly, we’ve created a rod for our own back.
Tom8 said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Tom8 said:
Riff Raff said:
Tom8 said:
A large portion of that was created by Clinton and Blair enforcing sub prime lending in another redistribution exercise ignoring the hidden costs of labour such as vast sums of PFI, gold sales, massive state and welfare spending. But apart from that, yes, nothing to do with the Labour government...
Citation required.https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/ar...
It is slightly amusing when companies behave irresponsibly and then people blame regulators especially when many of those pointing the finger were the ones calling for less regulation.
Those same cries for deregulation seem to have been resurrected by the right in regard to banking finance rules, bankers bonuses etc, etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/22/t...
“I would like to pay tribute to the contribution you and your company make to the prosperity of Britain. During its one hundred and fifty year history, Lehman Brothers has always been an innovator, financing new ideas and inventions before many others even began to realise their potential. And it is part of the greatness not just of Lehman Brothers but of the City of London, that as the world economy has opened up, you have succeeded not by sheltering your share of a small protected national market but always by striving for a greater and greater share of the growing global market.”
Whilst you can pin the blame for the GFC on any one entity, you can blame Labour (Brown) for not making hay whilst the sun was still out (and leaving a huge structural deficit).
Edited by fido on Tuesday 19th March 15:28
skwdenyer said:
Population growth peaked in 2012. The last big growth period was post-war, peaking in 1965. Annual growth back then was about 0.68% pa, which is higher than the average between 1997 and 2016, say.
Back then we responded by building masses of new housing and infrastructure. We didn’t get it all right. But compare that to our response this time around. Where was the investment?
The big difference today is the old age dependency ratio. We’ve so many retirees to look after. By not taxing them properly, we’ve created a rod for our own back.
I think its high time the retirees took some of it on the chin. We need to stop funding people's retirements on the back of the next generation.Back then we responded by building masses of new housing and infrastructure. We didn’t get it all right. But compare that to our response this time around. Where was the investment?
The big difference today is the old age dependency ratio. We’ve so many retirees to look after. By not taxing them properly, we’ve created a rod for our own back.
fido said:
Quiz:- Who said this outside Lehman Brothers’ new European HQ in 2004?
“I would like to pay tribute to the contribution you and your company make to the prosperity of Britain. During its one hundred and fifty year history, Lehman Brothers has always been an innovator, financing new ideas and inventions before many others even began to realise their potential. And it is part of the greatness not just of Lehman Brothers but of the City of London, that as the world economy has opened up, you have succeeded not by sheltering your share of a small protected national market but always by striving for a greater and greater share of the growing global market.”
Whilst you can pin the blame for the GFC on any one entity, you can blame Labour (Brown) for not making hay whilst the sun was still out (and leaving a huge structural deficit).
One Tory MP worked for Lehman as an architect on their asset platforms. Just for balance like “I would like to pay tribute to the contribution you and your company make to the prosperity of Britain. During its one hundred and fifty year history, Lehman Brothers has always been an innovator, financing new ideas and inventions before many others even began to realise their potential. And it is part of the greatness not just of Lehman Brothers but of the City of London, that as the world economy has opened up, you have succeeded not by sheltering your share of a small protected national market but always by striving for a greater and greater share of the growing global market.”
Whilst you can pin the blame for the GFC on any one entity, you can blame Labour (Brown) for not making hay whilst the sun was still out (and leaving a huge structural deficit).
Edited by fido on Tuesday 19th March 15:28
fido said:
Whilst you can pin the blame for the GFC on any one entity, you can blame Labour (Brown) for not making hay whilst the sun was still out (and leaving a huge structural deficit).
To use a different version of the metaphor; New Labour did fix the roof while the sub was out. Often literally- the increased spending in the 2000s was to bring our national physical infrastructure and public services up to broadly the same standard as our peers and to cover the massive shortfalls in spending in the late 80s/early 90s - the budget surplus the Major government was so proud of was essentially achieved by deferred maintenance on a national scale.Edited by fido on Tuesday 19th March 15:28
Almost across the board metrics for healthcare, social care, education, child poverty, early life attainment and so on went up under New Labour. The only real shortfalls were in public housing and transport infrastructure, but even those saw the deficits in provision closed up a bit.
Look at this graph:
See that little section of rise in late-2009/late-2010?
That's the economy showing pre-GFC-trend growth. Slightly above, actually, as it starts to recover the lost ground. The Brown/Darling 'bail out' plan rested on maintaining public spending (to prime the pump and keep 'social debt' down) while growth would ease, and eventually cover, the debt.
That was snuffed out by the Coalition and since then growth and productivity have struggled to grow and the gap between where we 'would be' and where we are grows. Grows to almost irrecovable levels - the bill (fiscal and social) for putting right the deferred maintenance will be so high that it cannot be supported by the economy.
If UKplc was a factory, the last five CEOs have cut maintenance of the plant and buildings to the bone on the excuse that the CEO in the 2000s put too much debt on the corporate account buying new machines, raising wages and installing a posh canteen. Despite record sales and productivity, this was deemed unaffordable. With no maintenance bills and shopfloor wage freezes, the C-suite earned themselves big bonuses for strong dividends, even as the machinery starts to make ever more worrying knocking noises and smells. The machines can't run as fast as they used to and break down more often. Eventually the machines will fail and there will be no capital in the company safe to repair them or buy new ones, and no means of earning more money by making and selling goods. So the board and the shareholders will just sell the rickety factory and the broken machines to the Chinese and make themselves very rich. The workers? That's another matter...
Edited by 2xChevrons on Tuesday 19th March 16:26
2xChevrons said:
....
Look at this graph:
See that little section of rise in late-2009/late-2010?
That's the economy showing pre-GFC-trend growth. Slightly above, actually, as it starts to recover the lost ground. The Brown/Darling 'bail out' plan rested on maintaining public spending (to prime the pump and keep 'social debt' down) while growth would ease, and eventually cover, the debt.
That was snuffed out by the Coalition and since then growth and productivity have struggled to grow and the gap between where we 'would be' and where we are grows. Grows to almost irrecovable levels - the bill (fiscal and social) for putting right the deferred maintenance will be so high that it cannot be supported by the economy.
And exactly how can you blithely assume the late 09 bounce was going to be maintained rather than being simply a (very) short term rebound from the 08 crash? It might have also crossed your attention that kicking off in mid 2010 onwards, there might have been a debt crisis in the euroland who just happened to be the UK's nearest and largest trading partner that freaked out everyone here and around the developed world sufficiently such that no one that wasn't the US being armed with the power of the USD was able to just continue churning out debt as they pleased....... your solution is to just continue spending with utterly no worries about how that might be funded (or not) but simply duck behind the belief that 'there will be growth'. Well tell that to Spain/Greece/Italy at the time......Look at this graph:
See that little section of rise in late-2009/late-2010?
That's the economy showing pre-GFC-trend growth. Slightly above, actually, as it starts to recover the lost ground. The Brown/Darling 'bail out' plan rested on maintaining public spending (to prime the pump and keep 'social debt' down) while growth would ease, and eventually cover, the debt.
That was snuffed out by the Coalition and since then growth and productivity have struggled to grow and the gap between where we 'would be' and where we are grows. Grows to almost irrecovable levels - the bill (fiscal and social) for putting right the deferred maintenance will be so high that it cannot be supported by the economy.
pmanson said:
It's a no from me, a close acquaintance of Bill Gates and another WEF stooge.
They are unelectable whatever happens though
What is it with Bill Gates, much like Soros that make people think there's some grand conspiracy?They are unelectable whatever happens though
I know Windows 10 was a bit s
t but c'mon man, let it go.skwdenyer said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
When it comes to sh*t, it clearly has not occurred to you, that if hundreds of thousands more homes are built, then billions MORE gallons of sewage will be the inevitable result. Or perhaps you believe that people who live in all these extra dwellings don't ever need to use their toilets, or kitchen sinks? Try putting a new sewage treatment plant any where near where people have these new houses and see what opposition you get. The population of the UK has rocketed.
As for your figures above, the same could be said of the numbers achieved by the current shower in No10. Air quality for example was not even such an issue back in the 90's and early 2000's No one has reversed anything. All that has happened is that the UK, has undergone a population rise the like of which has never been seen in its history. Consequently its infrastructure, Roads, countryside, trains, sewage treatment, hospitals, schools, and medical facilities have been swamped and overwhelmed.
Population growth peaked in 2012. The last big growth period was post-war, peaking in 1965. Annual growth back then was about 0.68% pa, which is higher than the average between 1997 and 2016, say.As for your figures above, the same could be said of the numbers achieved by the current shower in No10. Air quality for example was not even such an issue back in the 90's and early 2000's No one has reversed anything. All that has happened is that the UK, has undergone a population rise the like of which has never been seen in its history. Consequently its infrastructure, Roads, countryside, trains, sewage treatment, hospitals, schools, and medical facilities have been swamped and overwhelmed.
Back then we responded by building masses of new housing and infrastructure. We didn’t get it all right. But compare that to our response this time around. Where was the investment?
The big difference today is the old age dependency ratio. We’ve so many retirees to look after. By not taxing them properly, we’ve created a rod for our own back.
super7 said:
skwdenyer said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
When it comes to sh*t, it clearly has not occurred to you, that if hundreds of thousands more homes are built, then billions MORE gallons of sewage will be the inevitable result. Or perhaps you believe that people who live in all these extra dwellings don't ever need to use their toilets, or kitchen sinks? Try putting a new sewage treatment plant any where near where people have these new houses and see what opposition you get. The population of the UK has rocketed.
As for your figures above, the same could be said of the numbers achieved by the current shower in No10. Air quality for example was not even such an issue back in the 90's and early 2000's No one has reversed anything. All that has happened is that the UK, has undergone a population rise the like of which has never been seen in its history. Consequently its infrastructure, Roads, countryside, trains, sewage treatment, hospitals, schools, and medical facilities have been swamped and overwhelmed.
Population growth peaked in 2012. The last big growth period was post-war, peaking in 1965. Annual growth back then was about 0.68% pa, which is higher than the average between 1997 and 2016, say.As for your figures above, the same could be said of the numbers achieved by the current shower in No10. Air quality for example was not even such an issue back in the 90's and early 2000's No one has reversed anything. All that has happened is that the UK, has undergone a population rise the like of which has never been seen in its history. Consequently its infrastructure, Roads, countryside, trains, sewage treatment, hospitals, schools, and medical facilities have been swamped and overwhelmed.
Back then we responded by building masses of new housing and infrastructure. We didn’t get it all right. But compare that to our response this time around. Where was the investment?
The big difference today is the old age dependency ratio. We’ve so many retirees to look after. By not taxing them properly, we’ve created a rod for our own back.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff