McDonnell's la la land economics- Don't need no number$
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Too much in fighting coupled with a PM that doesn't exactly inspire leadership amongst all sectors of her cabinet, let alone the wider world. She's simply not a strong enough person for the role. She might like to think herself a modern day Thatcher. But she doesn't deserve the comparison. Cameron had a better handle on being in charge. Only good thing is that we've still got 4 and half years before the next GE. By which time she wont be in charge and Brexit will have happened.
And I say this as someone that will never vote for Labour or Libdem
jonnyb said:
Einion Yrth said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Currently there's no need, they're being given enough rope...When Jeremy speaks, he uses layman terms which the rest of the country understands.
Most the time, May actually makes sense compared to Labour but most UK people don't have a clue what she is going on about. Bad PR.
amgmcqueen said:
The tories numbers don't add up either. How much have they borrowed since 2010...?
A hell of a lot. Problem is people don't like austerity...even the austerity lite that we've only had a taster of and any serious efforts to knock down the deficit are met with thousands of pillocks on Facebook posting memes against them and why Corbyn has all the answers.amgmcqueen said:
The tories numbers don't add up either. How much have they borrowed since 2010...?
When you're left with a financial meltdown and a structural deficit of £150 billion a year then naturally the level of borrowing will go up, I can't believe I've just read such a simplistic quote on PH.That aside, banks were sitting on huge levels of toxic bonds, and the requirement was created for banks to accumulate a certain proportion of safe bonds, and that's the gilts issued by the government.
Hence why gilt yields are actually quite low, compared to the amount of government borrowing. Much of this was simply banks replacing toxic bonds with stable gilts.
On a wider note, after all the politician bashing that's become fashionable over the years, coupled with the 'anger' at politicians pay, nobody in their right mind would become an MP nowadays. Hence why we have the s
t shower we've got.Wiccan of Darkness said:
When you're left with a financial meltdown and a structural deficit of £150 billion a year then naturally the level of borrowing will go up, I can't believe I've just read such a simplistic quote on PH.
That aside, banks were sitting on huge levels of toxic bonds, and the requirement was created for banks to accumulate a certain proportion of safe bonds, and that's the gilts issued by the government.
Not really. It was a liquidity crisis, not a credit crisis.That aside, banks were sitting on huge levels of toxic bonds, and the requirement was created for banks to accumulate a certain proportion of safe bonds, and that's the gilts issued by the government.
Wiccan of Darkness said:
Hence why gilt yields are actually quite low, compared to the amount of government borrowing. Much of this was simply banks replacing toxic bonds with stable gilts.
Who bought these ‘toxic bonds’?QE involved the government buying gilts from institutional investors.
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 19th November 21:49
sidicks said:
amgmcqueen said:
The tories numbers don't add up either. How much have they borrowed since 2010...?
Did you miss the massive inherited deficit?sidicks said:
amgmcqueen said:
Serious question....how long can we keep blaming it on Blair and Brown before the tories take responsibility for their own actions?
Serious question, do you understand the extent of the damage - £150bn deficit - that was inherited?amgmcqueen said:
sidicks said:
amgmcqueen said:
The tories numbers don't add up either. How much have they borrowed since 2010...?
Did you miss the massive inherited deficit?amgmcqueen said:
Yes I do....are you able to answer the question?
It would appear not, by virtue of your original comment - I think that being able reduce the deficit by £100bn whilst increasing spending each and every year, is pretty reasonable, all the while the ill-informed public complain about ‘austerity’...amgmcqueen said:
Serious question....how long can we keep blaming it on Blair and Brown before the tories take responsibility for their own actions?
Whilst Labour oppose every single cut in Government spending, then I would say indefinitely. Blair expanded PFI on a scale never seen, many of those contracts are 25 years. Brown decimated private pensions, sold the Gold reserves and ramped public sector pay without reforming working practices.
Cutting £150bn off annual spending is no small thing whilst you are trying to get re elected.
Yet still if Labour got in tomorrow they would borrow even more money.... madness!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff