Official Eastleigh By-election thread

[jonny70]

MX7 said:

Having a deficit isn't necessarily a catastrophe.

From 2007 the deficit became unsustainable. That's my point.

emmh no you dont run a deficit during the boom years cause then you are screwed during the downturn.Keynesian economics involves borrowing during the downturn to stimulate growth and during the boom time paying the debt off and maintaining a balanced budget.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/IMF+warns+Brown+over...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/796ab7d6-cb44-11db-b436-...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4483657/IMF-adv...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3333125.stm

Different articles from years 2001,2003 and 2007 about the iMF warning Brown to curb his spending that he is borrowing too much. So wheres your theory about building up defcits during boom times / i await your response.

[MX7]

jonny70 said:

emmh no you dont run a deficit during the boom years cause then you are screwed during the downturn.Keynesian economics involves borrowing during the downturn to stimulate growth and during the boom time paying the debt off and maintaining a balanced budget.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/IMF+warns+Brown+over...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/796ab7d6-cb44-11db-b436-...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4483657/IMF-adv...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3333125.stm

Different articles from years 2001,2003 and 2007 about the iMF warning Brown to curb his spending that he is borrowing too much. So wheres your theory about building up defcits during boom times / i await your response.

It's like Strawman Central here.

Someone said that the deficit isn't being reduced, which is wrong. Then I said "Labour's spending was ludicrous", but pointed out that their deficit wasn't at a disastrous level for the majority of the time, and now you want me to defend Labour's spending?

I don't think Labour got much right, but attacking them for their deficit record is like attacking Nick Griffin for his choice of shoes.

[anonymous-user]

MX7 said:

Labour's spending was ludicrous, but, in the main, they could afford it. In the last few years their income dropped off significantly, but their spending continued.

MX7 said:

From 2007 the deficit became unsustainable. That's my point.

My point is, and I think the data shows it, that they couldn't afford it and it wasn't sustainable before 2007 either. The quotes above appear to be saying otherwise, no straw men in sight.

[anonymous-user]

anyway back on topic... IMO the tory party are completely fvcking delusional to pretend this result is not important. furthermore their dismissal of those votes as just protests who will all come back into line if they know whats good for them at the ge is so fvcking condescending i imagine many eastleigh tories who voted ukip are now thinking fvck you. i would be. the number of people i've spoken to the last few days who intend to vote ukip as a warning shot to the tories and to hell with the consequenses is amazing; its not like they got a tory party the last time they voted for them anyway... i just can't see myself voting for anyone which is a bit depressing

[FiF]

For a while now I've been of the opinion that the only thing that will sort the right out is a disaster as happened in Canada.

Unfortunately by the time it's all sorted Balls et al will have lived up to his name android many of the older end will never see it recover.

[MX7]

fbrs said:

My point is, and I think the data shows it, that they couldn't afford it and it wasn't sustainable before 2007 either. The quotes above appear to be saying otherwise, no straw men in sight.

Maastricht requires that "The ratio of the annual government deficit to gross domestic product (GDP) must not exceed 3% at the end of the preceding fiscal year. If not, it is at least required to reach a level close to 3%. Only exceptional and temporary excesses would be granted for exceptional cases."

Labour achieved that from '97-'07.

I don't consider the deficit to be disastrous up until '07.

[anonymous-user]

MX7 said:

fbrs said:

My point is, and I think the data shows it, that they couldn't afford it and it wasn't sustainable before 2007 either. The quotes above appear to be saying otherwise, no straw men in sight.

Maastricht requires that "The ratio of the annual government deficit to gross domestic product (GDP) must not exceed 3% at the end of the preceding fiscal year. If not, it is at least required to reach a level close to 3%. Only exceptional and temporary excesses would be granted for exceptional cases."

Labour achieved that from '97-'07.

I don't consider the deficit to be disastrous up until '07.

ignoring that the sgp was all but written out of maastrict by france and germany in 2004 and subsequently ignored by everyone, it presupposes that gdp is not built upon the best part of a trillion pounds of personal debt. i have no problem with anyone running a budget deficit (although the wisdom of doing so during boom years is, er, questionable) provided the resulting gdp growth is its self sustainable.

obviously borrowing to invest and increase gdp is desirable i think we agree. borrowing to pad the public sector and welfare nests, whilst the economy surges on a collosal wave of personal debt and using the resultant gdp increase as justification for the spending is, imo, not desirable

[London424]

MX7 said:

fbrs said:

My point is, and I think the data shows it, that they couldn't afford it and it wasn't sustainable before 2007 either. The quotes above appear to be saying otherwise, no straw men in sight.

Maastricht requires that "The ratio of the annual government deficit to gross domestic product (GDP) must not exceed 3% at the end of the preceding fiscal year. If not, it is at least required to reach a level close to 3%. Only exceptional and temporary excesses would be granted for exceptional cases."

Labour achieved that from '97-'07.

I don't consider the deficit to be disastrous up until '07.

The point is that during that time we should have been running a surplus, so that when the crash came we'd have a nice little buffer ready to help us out.

Therefore we are now in an absolutely disastrous position.

[MX7]

London424 said:

The point is that during that time we should have been running a surplus, so that when the crash came we'd have a nice little buffer ready to help us out.

Where did I say otherwise?

[Andy Zarse]

MX7 said:

London424 said:

The point is that during that time we should have been running a surplus, so that when the crash came we'd have a nice little buffer ready to help us out.

Where did I say otherwise?

You said you didn't consider the deficit as disastrous. I beg to differ. The one thing you cannot deny is that the trend was in completely the wrong direction. IMO economic trends are more important than snapshots.

[MX7]

Andy Zarse said:

You said you didn't consider the deficit as disastrous. I beg to differ. The one thing you cannot deny is that the trend was in completely the wrong direction. IMO economic trends are more important than snapshots.

The trend is that we run with a deficit. There have only been 6 years since '79 when we had a surplus, and ironically 4 of them were under Brown.



Right up until '07 I believe that it was manageable.

[FiF]

MX7 said:

Right up until '07 I believe that it was manageable.

That's quite believable, with a bit of effort and good management.

Now, out of interest, what were the decisions eg PFI perhaps, that caused it to go so haywire in 2008 2009 and early 2010?

Was it that Labour knew they were in for a kicking at the next election and just decided to really stuff it up for anyone who followed. Being mean spirited with the interpretation of the infamous "I'm afraid there is no money" note at the Treasury one can only wonder. Could they really be that malicious?

[Pesty]

can we have john major back

[FiF]

Time for this perhaps.



Nowt changes does it?

[Wombat3]

FiF said:

MX7 said:

Right up until '07 I believe that it was manageable.

That's quite believable, with a bit of effort and good management.

Now, out of interest, what were the decisions eg PFI perhaps, that caused it to go so haywire in 2008 2009 and early 2010?

Was it that Labour knew they were in for a kicking at the next election and just decided to really stuff it up for anyone who followed. Being mean spirited with the interpretation of the infamous "I'm afraid there is no money" note at the Treasury one can only wonder. Could they really be that malicious?

No , just that unbelievably stupid and late in realising just how badly they'd fked up. The economy is like a supertanker - it doesn't change direction overnight so if you look at Brown's budget surpluses they were basically created for him by the Tories & he then managed to snuff them out within a couple of years & it was all downhill from there.

The scary part is that PFI spending isn't included in those figures - that's why the loved it so much. It was a like a limitless credit card where he could run downstairs every month, intercept the statement when it dropped on the mat & then burn it before anyone saw it!

Edited by Wombat3 on Wednesday 6th March 01:43

[Andy Zarse]

MX7 said:

The trend is that we run with a deficit. There have only been 6 years since '79 when we had a surplus, and ironically 4 of them were under Brown.



Right up until '07 I believe that it was manageable.

This includes PFI right?

[FiF]

Wombat says it doesn't which I find absolutely terrifying if that is the case.

[toppstuff]

Andy Zarse said:

MX7 said:

The trend is that we run with a deficit. There have only been 6 years since '79 when we had a surplus, and ironically 4 of them were under Brown.



Right up until '07 I believe that it was manageable.

This includes PFI right?

No it does not include PFI.

This chart should be glued to the forehead of every Labour voter when they bleat about the problems with this country and try to blame the Tories.

[Wombat3]

toppstuff said:

Andy Zarse said:

MX7 said:

The trend is that we run with a deficit. There have only been 6 years since '79 when we had a surplus, and ironically 4 of them were under Brown.



Right up until '07 I believe that it was manageable.

This includes PFI right?

No it does not include PFI.

This chart should be glued to the forehead of every Labour voter when they bleat about the problems with this country and try to blame the Tories.

As above, my understanding is that it does not.

And that would be bad enough if the PFI deals were actually all good/sound deals when looked at in isolation - but they are not

I found this:

"The 717 PFI contracts currently under way across the UK are funding new schools, hospitals and other public facilities with a total capital value of £54.7bn, but the overall ultimate cost will reach £301bn by the time they have been paid off over the coming decades. Much of this difference is due to ongoing running costs built into the contracts, but the schemes have also been criticised for providing poor value for money compared with the interest rates the government would pay if it borrowed money directly to pay for the schemes."

In other words, Brown knowingly paid more to hide what was in effect extra borrowing. Hanging would be too good.....

And

"For example, Barts Health NHS Trust in London says the construction of new medical facilities at its two main sites will cost £1.1bn, but the document reveals that the eventual cost will be £7.1bn by the time the contract is fully paid off in 2048-49."

We (the tax payer) have been taken to the cleaners. The annual cost of PFI will peak in somewhere around 2017/18 at around £11Bn by all accounts - which is a fair chunk of change.

Edited by Wombat3 on Wednesday 6th March 10:55

[MX7]

Andy Zarse said:

This includes PFI right?

No, unfortunately I don't think it does.

However, I suspect that the privatisation in the 80s and 90s also massaged the figures a bit, so it's swings and roundabouts.

It's not right that we don't have entirely transparent figures, but you can only go by the figures that you are given.

Edited by MX7 on Wednesday 6th March 12:04