Penny Mordaunt - PM for PM
Discussion
2xChevrons said:
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.
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...
and we have exactly the same sAlmost 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
tshow now, except the current lot didn’t manage to actually build up money, just strip everything to the bone for fk all benefit.isaldiri said:
It might have also crossed your attention that kicking off in mid 2010 onwards, there might have been a debt crisis in the euroland
Like Austerity, that was all based on economic illiteracy and some crap maths that made people panic about an arbitrary debt to gdp level that they had decided was catastrophic to go past.Electro1980 said:
isaldiri said:
It might have also crossed your attention that kicking off in mid 2010 onwards, there might have been a debt crisis in the euroland
Like Austerity, that was all based on economic illiteracy and some crap maths that made people panic about an arbitrary debt to gdp level that they had decided was catastrophic to go past.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.
The problem there is it's back to front; the sewage plant needs to be constructed at the same time as the houses, then no-one can object. 
Where infrastructure like that is in planning limbo govt ministers will need to gird themselves to call it in and rubber stamp it.
MrGTI6 said:
beagrizzly said:
I would vote for Penny just because she's hot.
The problem the Tories have is that their voters are generally 70+VAT. Having a GILF as the party leader is unlikely to appeal to anyone other than the dwindling and decrepit. I'll tell you what is 'general' is your sweeping statement.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff