C4 Conservative leader debate

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Greenmile
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1079 times
Has Liked: 4239 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by Greenmile » Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:29 pm

dsr wrote:You have certainly misunderstood. And I don't think that what I said was that complicated, but I can see how you misunderstood.

You mentioned that austerity was the cause of crushing poverty. I took that to mean that you believed there wasn't crushing poverty before and austerity caused it to happen - austerity created poverty where poverty hadn't been.

Obviously if by "caused" you meant that there was already poverty and austerity failed to solve it, then you wouldn't understand my response.
This has been covered by Martin, but I obviously didn’t mean poverty never existed before the introduction of austerity. Austerity just made it a lot worse.

I am interested as to why you mentioned 2011, though. Austerity policies began in 2010. Was this just a mistake on your part, or are you referring to something I’m not aware of?

Greenmile
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1079 times
Has Liked: 4239 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by Greenmile » Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:30 pm

elwaclaret wrote:It is not me that became hostile, as someone who researches for a living I’m not interested in coming on a social media message board to take a busman holiday shock.

My statements were made in good faith, from knowledge gained on other things (I study history) so I’m aware of sources and legitimately of them, I don’t do Facebook etc. To filter the information, and this is the only social media I frequent regularly. If the reparations payments are not an open source yet, then that is a different issue. To suggest I was thinking of WWI understandable if you do not know my background, though designed to insult if you do. It may be that certain tasks I regularly engage in may rely on information that is not in the public Domain .... yet I make or made no claim about that on this thread, as I believed it to be fairly common knowledge as I genuinely believe that the information, given its subject matter is more likely have come from open source i.e. The BBC or documentaries, rather than any research directly into the falklands... though I accept this may be a case of study overlapping politics.

As I say it is not my direct field and so if the information is known to me it is not central to my study and so is not pre- referenced. If I am indeed in error, I apologise unreservedly if my musings on the subject were indeed in error, the only defence I offer is I STILL do not believe it to be so.... though my research will be more focused on modern history next semester.
It would have been quicker to just type “I made it up”, or even “someone else made it up and I fell for it”.
These 2 users liked this post: Devils_Advocate Claret-On-A-T-Rex

elwaclaret
Posts: 8925
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1984 times
Has Liked: 2874 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by elwaclaret » Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:34 pm

AndrewJB wrote:This is how the BBC explain the "brexit warchest". It's not money saved, but room made to borrow an additional £26 Billion. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48824320" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It doesn’t explain the reduction in debt though, it sort of insinuates that it was as a result of austerity... I’d have thought that was as open to rebuke or at least serious questioning as any claim made on here, by anyone.

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by martin_p » Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:44 pm

elwaclaret wrote:It doesn’t explain the reduction in debt though, it sort of insinuates that it was as a result of austerity... I’d have thought that was as open to rebuke or at least serious questioning as any claim made on here, by anyone.
It doesn’t say there’s a reduction in debt, just that forecasted borrowing is less than the self imposed limits Hammond has set so there’s an extra £26bn there to be borrowed. This is all borrowing though, so by definition the debt goes up.

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by dsr » Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:48 pm

Greenmile wrote:This has been covered by Martin, but I obviously didn’t mean poverty never existed before the introduction of austerity. Austerity just made it a lot worse.

I am interested as to why you mentioned 2011, though. Austerity policies began in 2010. Was this just a mistake on your part, or are you referring to something I’m not aware of?
It's not an exact date. If there was no poverty in 2010, then it must have started in 2011. The mass crushing poverty didn't start on the day Cameron appropriated his stupid word "Austerity". Pretend I was referring ot the exact date the coalition government was formed, if you like.

elwaclaret
Posts: 8925
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1984 times
Has Liked: 2874 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by elwaclaret » Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:50 pm

martin_p wrote:It doesn’t say there’s a reduction in debt, just that forecasted borrowing is less than the self imposed limits Hammond has set so there’s an extra £26bn there to be borrowed. This is all borrowing though, so by definition the debt goes up.
I understand it is borrowing, but something created the sudden shift from austerity to heavy spending (at least going forward)... if you buy into the austerity worked to such a level as to create this room then I respect your position, fully on it’s feasible merit.

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by martin_p » Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:51 pm

elwaclaret wrote:I understand it is borrowing, but something created the sudden shift from austerity to heavy spending (at least going forward)... if you buy into the austerity worked to such a level as to create this room then I respect your position, fully on it’s feasible merit.
I don’t buy it, the headroom has been created to deal with the fallout of a no deal Brexit, there was no choice.

Greenmile
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1079 times
Has Liked: 4239 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by Greenmile » Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:53 pm

dsr wrote:It's not an exact date. If there was no poverty in 2010, then it must have started in 2011. The mass crushing poverty didn't start on the day Cameron appropriated his stupid word "Austerity". Pretend I was referring ot the exact date the coalition government was formed, if you like.
Ok.

Of course nobody is saying there was no poverty in 2010. That’s a ludicrous misrepresentation of what I did say.

elwaclaret
Posts: 8925
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1984 times
Has Liked: 2874 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by elwaclaret » Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:55 pm

martin_p wrote:I don’t buy it, the headroom has been created to deal with the fallout of a no deal Brexit, there was no choice.
But the announcements on renewed public investment, pre date any lightbulb “war chest” moment by at least six months... so the fiscal position had changed...

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by martin_p » Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:00 pm

elwaclaret wrote:But the announcements on renewed public investment, pre date any lightbulb “war chest” moment by at least six months... so the fiscal position had changed...
They don’t pre-date Brexit and ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’, they don’t pre-date the collapse of the Tories in the polls.

Besides, this is a one off £26bn, not £26bn a year. If it has been caused by a debt repayment as I think you’re suggesting that £26bn would be available year on year. That’s why it’s dishonest of the prospective PMs to be claiming this can be used for tax cuts, it’s not sustainable year on year.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by AndrewJB » Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:22 pm

elwaclaret wrote:I understand it is borrowing, but something created the sudden shift from austerity to heavy spending (at least going forward)... if you buy into the austerity worked to such a level as to create this room then I respect your position, fully on it’s feasible merit.
Nothing has changed, except the minds of senior cabinet ministers and Theresa May who are worried this constant hammering of the poor might be damaging their re election prospects. All they've done is proclaim that austerity is now finished (although that original 2015 target of no deficit is still a long way away), but there's little evidence anything concrete has happened in that direction. And all of this shows that austerity - especially that kind practiced by this government - was a calculated economic choice. The government chose to make the lives of all of those people worse, and if we consider history, there are no examples of a country prospering by balancing their books on the backs of the least fortunate citizens, and yet a lot of examples of countries prospering despite debt by building welfare states and progressive fairer societies.
This user liked this post: longsidepies

elwaclaret
Posts: 8925
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1984 times
Has Liked: 2874 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by elwaclaret » Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:31 pm

martin_p wrote:They don’t pre-date Brexit and ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’, they don’t pre-date the collapse of the Tories in the polls.

Besides, this is a one off £26bn, not £26bn a year. If it has been caused by a debt repayment as I think you’re suggesting that £26bn would be available year on year. That’s why it’s dishonest of the prospective PMs to be claiming this can be used for tax cuts, it’s not sustainable year on year.
Fully agree, the Tax cuts are unjustifiable in many of aspects, political, moral and financial.
But the financial position must have changed considerably in order for us to qualify for increased borrowing. While I really do not want to labour ( or even continue to opine, Particularly). It is my belief that just prior to the sudden spending shift, about a month before the anniversary, a new debt repayment agreement was either made or ended regarding payments for I believe it was the Falklands that had greatly eased our debt crisis allowing for this further borrowing.

As I have admitted several times, I am not THAT interested as to be willing to research it, it was just my understanding from the information I had picked up, from sources of least academic integrity (ie the BBC) sources I would not consider creditable enough for a paper, but are credible enough to be worthy of comment and acceptance (I hope still) as holding a decent level of integrity. If the available evidence is not available on open source, I both accept, commend and applaud your and others scepticism.

Truely, if it mattered enough to me personally I would research it myself, or I may well even have a body of work relating to this subject soon; in which case I will either supply references for you or wholeheartedly hold my hand up as being in error... for now I will stand by my understanding, based on an interested observer level analysis, going of what I have seen/ heard around the topic.

elwaclaret
Posts: 8925
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1984 times
Has Liked: 2874 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by elwaclaret » Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:33 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Nothing has changed, except the minds of senior cabinet ministers and Theresa May who are worried this constant hammering of the poor might be damaging their re election prospects. All they've done is proclaim that austerity is now finished (although that original 2015 target of no deficit is still a long way away), but there's little evidence anything concrete has happened in that direction. And all of this shows that austerity - especially that kind practiced by this government - was a calculated economic choice. The government chose to make the lives of all of those people worse, and if we consider history, there are no examples of a country prospering by balancing their books on the backs of the least fortunate citizens, and yet a lot of examples of countries prospering despite debt by building welfare states and progressive fairer societies.
There could of course be a great deal in that.

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by RingoMcCartney » Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:52 pm

aggi wrote:That does seem to be the case. You do get gullible people describing him as a terrorist-loving marxist and such like.
It's well documented that he has previously had close links to terrorist groups. It's also a fact that it could be argued that many of his personal views are close to , if not identical to , Marxist ideals. He can justify, presumably, those links and views.

To have his mental capacity and physical health besmerched and brought into question in such an insidious and sinister way, by the civil service and their co-conspirators in the media . Shows just how low the Establishment is prepared to go. Once that seed has been planted, it's very difficult for Corbyn to counter the corrosive effects of this clear attempt to tarnish him.

Ironically it's a tactic that has been used by brutal Far Left regimes on their political dissidents for decades.

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by martin_p » Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:12 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Fully agree, the Tax cuts are unjustifiable in many of aspects, political, moral and financial.
But the financial position must have changed considerably in order for us to qualify for increased borrowing. While I really do not want to labour ( or even continue to opine, Particularly). It is my belief that just prior to the sudden spending shift, about a month before the anniversary, a new debt repayment agreement was either made or ended regarding payments for I believe it was the Falklands that had greatly eased our debt crisis allowing for this further borrowing.

As I have admitted several times, I am not THAT interested as to be willing to research it, it was just my understanding from the information I had picked up, from sources of least academic integrity (ie the BBC) sources I would not consider creditable enough for a paper, but are credible enough to be worthy of comment and acceptance (I hope still) as holding a decent level of integrity. If the available evidence is not available on open source, I both accept, commend and applaud your and others scepticism.

Truely, if it mattered enough to me personally I would research it myself, or I may well even have a body of work relating to this subject soon; in which case I will either supply references for you or wholeheartedly hold my hand up as being in error... for now I will stand by my understanding, based on an interested observer level analysis, going of what I have seen/ heard around the topic.
Ok, I accept your sincerity on the matter. But internet sources indicate that the Falklands War cost the U.K. about £700m which really is a drop in the ocean in public finance terms. Even if all of that money were borrowed and has been now paid off it really isn’t significant enough to effect the ability of the government to spend money, certainly not to the tune of £26bn.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by AndrewJB » Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:21 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Fully agree, the Tax cuts are unjustifiable in many of aspects, political, moral and financial.
But the financial position must have changed considerably in order for us to qualify for increased borrowing. While I really do not want to labour ( or even continue to opine, Particularly). It is my belief that just prior to the sudden spending shift, about a month before the anniversary, a new debt repayment agreement was either made or ended regarding payments for I believe it was the Falklands that had greatly eased our debt crisis allowing for this further borrowing.

As I have admitted several times, I am not THAT interested as to be willing to research it, it was just my understanding from the information I had picked up, from sources of least academic integrity (ie the BBC) sources I would not consider creditable enough for a paper, but are credible enough to be worthy of comment and acceptance (I hope still) as holding a decent level of integrity. If the available evidence is not available on open source, I both accept, commend and applaud your and others scepticism.

Truely, if it mattered enough to me personally I would research it myself, or I may well even have a body of work relating to this subject soon; in which case I will either supply references for you or wholeheartedly hold my hand up as being in error... for now I will stand by my understanding, based on an interested observer level analysis, going of what I have seen/ heard around the topic.
Nothing has significantly changed. Borrowing more money has always been an option, and austerity also has always been a choice.

elwaclaret
Posts: 8925
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1984 times
Has Liked: 2874 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by elwaclaret » Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:26 pm

martin_p wrote:Ok, I accept your sincerity on the matter. But internet sources indicate that the Falklands War cost the U.K. about £700m which really is a drop in the ocean in public finance terms. Even if all of that money were borrowed and has been now paid off it really isn’t significant enough to effect the ability of the government to spend money, certainly not to the tune of £26bn.
Has the US backing been included in that? as it was mainly done covertly as the USA was officially neutral... I’m not defending/entrenching my position, just offering possibilities as to exactly what kind of an agreement it was... it my even have been further deferment... but at the back of my mind a BIG boost came across from the USA to enable the sudden poles of austerity to public investment to happen virtually overnight

elwaclaret
Posts: 8925
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1984 times
Has Liked: 2874 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by elwaclaret » Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:31 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Has the US backing been included in that? as it was mainly done covertly as the USA was officially neutral... I’m not defending/entrenching my position, just offering possibilities as to exactly what kind of an agreement it was... it my even have been further deferment... but at the back of my mind a BIG boost came across from the USA to enable the sudden poles of austerity to public investment to happen virtually overnight
(Edit ) my whooliness of what exactly it was, was the reason I originally shied from mentioning the Falklands outright, because that was all over the news itself at the time. It could equally be deferment of payments due to start for Iraq etc. As I say a lot of this will only come out for certain in years to come... this **** is going to be putting kids off history for the next 100 years... they should have called it Corn Laws II

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by martin_p » Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:34 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Has the US backing been included in that? as it was mainly done covertly as the USA was officially neutral... I’m not defending/entrenching my position, just offering possibilities as to exactly what kind of an agreement it was... it my even have been further deferment... but at the back of my mind a BIG boost came across from the USA to enable the sudden poles of austerity to public investment to happen virtually overnight
Probably not as the figure was published in 1982. But CIA documents declassified 30 years later indicate that US assistance was mainly intelligence and a bit of fuel.

elwaclaret
Posts: 8925
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 1984 times
Has Liked: 2874 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by elwaclaret » Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:37 pm

martin_p wrote:Probably not as the figure was published in 1982. But CIA documents declassified 30 years later indicate that US assistance was mainly intelligence and a bit of fuel.
See edit above... see, I am trying to remember lol.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by AndrewJB » Tue Jul 02, 2019 6:40 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:It's well documented that he has previously had close links to terrorist groups. It's also a fact that it could be argued that many of his personal views are close to , if not identical to , Marxist ideals. He can justify, presumably, those links and views.

To have his mental capacity and physical health besmerched and brought into question in such an insidious and sinister way, by the civil service and their co-conspirators in the media . Shows just how low the Establishment is prepared to go. Once that seed has been planted, it's very difficult for Corbyn to counter the corrosive effects of this clear attempt to tarnish him.

Ironically it's a tactic that has been used by brutal Far Left regimes on their political dissidents for decades.
Corbyn is on record countless times opposing terror, and violence from whoever doles it out. "Close ties" is unlikely.

Quora has some interesting answers to the question; is Corbyn a Marxist? https://www.quora.com/Is-Jeremy-Corbyn-a-Marxist-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by Imploding Turtle » Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:12 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:It's well documented that he has previously had close links to terrorist groups. It's also a fact that it could be argued that many of his personal views are close to , if not identical to , Marxist ideals. He can justify, presumably, those links and views.

To have his mental capacity and physical health besmerched and brought into question in such an insidious and sinister way, by the civil service and their co-conspirators in the media . Shows just how low the Establishment is prepared to go. Once that seed has been planted, it's very difficult for Corbyn to counter the corrosive effects of this clear attempt to tarnish him.

Ironically it's a tactic that has been used by brutal Far Left regimes on their political dissidents for decades.

So close, Ringo. You're so close to understanding. Now all you need to do is join up those two parts together.
This user liked this post: Greenmile

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:08 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I see we're still blaming the Labour party in the UK for the global financial meltdown that trashed the global economy. :roll:
Hi IT, was there any where in what I posted that I said the Labour party in the UK was to blame for the global financial meltdown that trashed the global economy?

What I said - and maybe you know this already - is that Blair/Brown had built their spending beyond a sustainable level. Others have posted about GB's belief that he'd ended "boom and bust." As we all learnt, he hadn't, though he was spending like it would always be boom!

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by dsr » Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:30 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Corbyn is on record countless times opposing terror, and violence from whoever doles it out. "Close ties" is unlikely.
He is on record as saying he opposes terror. Probably when he invited the IRA into the House of Commons immediately after the Brighton bomb, perhaps to introduce them to some of the people they were trying to murder, he did so claiming that on balance murdering his work colleagues was probably not "the thing to do". Murdering MPs was a bit of a social faux pas, he thought. But Corbyn was certainly not opposing terror. At best, he was taking a neutral position on whether or not MPs ought to be murdered for their views.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:37 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Byrne's note was following in the tradition of Reggie Maudling, who left a similar note to Callaghan when he took over the Exchequer in '64.

Britain was exposed to the financial crash due to lack of regulation around financial services, and for that we blame Thatcher (for deregulating), and the Major, Blair, and Brown governments for not reversing the more dangerous elements of this deregulation. During their time in opposition, the Tories called for more deregulation, and until the financial crisis hit, Osborne promised to match Labour's spending.

While in government, Labour could and should have taken a more interventionalist approach. At a time when all the certainties about economics were under question, Labour could have used QE to invest in the economy in a more proactive way, by funding infrastructure, and greening the economy. They could have turned the nationalised banks into investment engines for British business. And they could have overhauled banking regulations, taxation, and repatriated some British money from abroad.

The the Tories took power their reason for austerity was to bring the deficit down to zero by 2015. Not only did they fail to do this, and in doing so pretty much treble our national debt, but their policies have tipped a lot of people into miserable lives, and effectively transferred a lot of wealth from the poorest in the country to the richest.
Hi Andrew, I'd not heard that before about Reggie Maudling. What did his note say? Were there any other occasions when an outgoing treasury minister chose to leave a "joke" note for the next guy? June 1970, Wilson to Heath? 1974, Heath to Wilson? 1979 Callaghan to Thatcher? 1997 Major to Blair? Of course, I've referenced the PMs - I can't remember who were the Chancellors or other treasury ministers. What jolly japes! :lol:

Hmm, I wouldn't blame Thatcher for the absence of financial regulation. The "big bang" in 1986, I think, was a much needed breaking up of the old monopolies - and the most ingrained "old boys" system. It allowed much needed restructuring of the city of London and was the foundation of the building of London as the "world financial centre" competing successfully with New York in many things. Even more important, it drew in many of the foreign banks and today continues as the foundation of London's diversity.

Brown made a mistake in replacing the Bank of England supervision of the banks to the FSA. That led to the BoE being on the side lines when the banks started to develop their Retail Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBS). Yes, the UK was involved in Asset Backed Securities (ABS), just like the US. Everyone - well, everyone who was being listened to - thought it was great that lending risk was being distributed and shared among many many participants, that the risk was spread so widely that it just wouldn't matter if anyone defaulted. Governments "loved" rmbs because it appeared to show that even people who didn't have much money could buy their own house. I'm sure you've seen "The Big Short." I'm sure you know that 2007/08 the financial crisis broke when all the financial sector realised that this clever idea was fatally flawed. Remember, September 2007, Northern Rock was effectively bust - before that it had been lending 125% mortgages, one hundred and twentyfive per cent, and there was little to no scrutiny of your ability to pay back the mortgage. NR's abs/rmbs programme was called "Granite" - granite, the northern rock! Now that was a great joke. :oops: Brown's "sticky fingers" were all over the banks rmbs programmes. If he'd taken a more prudent view (do you remember "prudence," poor girl?) he'd have realised it was very thin ice, fake promises and got the regulators to put a stop to it before we went over the cliff edge. But, politicians feel great when everyone is borrowing, buying houses and maxing their credit cards - it gives the appearance that their management of the economy is a success.

Yes, I agree, Osborne promised to match the Labour govt's spending - what opposition party has ever said "we will spend less...." Surely, no one has to put something on the side of a bus before we ask "is that true?" However, I don't remember the Tory's campaigning in the 2010 to spend the same - the country, and the world, was much too deep in all the bad stuff for anyone to want to say that then.

I'll leave it at that. I have experience of the "National Enterprise Board" - it tried to set up the DeLorean Motor Company in NI. Back to the Future, here we come! ;)

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:57 pm

Cost of the Falklands war? There are various articles that report the cost as either side of $2 billion. If you are old enough to remember this short war, it took place in 10 weeks between April and June 1982. That's hardly going to make a dent in the government's budget contingency most years.

Remember, we have the OBR that reviews and has independent commentary on the government's budgets. I doubt there's any significant "hidden" stuff going on. Certainly, nothing that was forgotten and has now led to spare funds. I think the £26 billion v forecast is that tax receipts are higher than forecast, maybe a little underspend in some areas, though that's less likely...

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by RingoMcCartney » Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:50 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Corbyn is on record countless times opposing terror, and violence from whoever doles it out. "Close ties" is unlikely.

Quora has some interesting answers to the question; is Corbyn a Marxist? https://www.quora.com/Is-Jeremy-Corbyn-a-Marxist-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think inviting the IRA to parliament could been seen has having "Close ties".

Whether some of his personal views are close to, or indeed marxist is open to debate.

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2636 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by RingoMcCartney » Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:51 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:So close, Ringo. You're so close to understanding. Now all you need to do is join up those two parts together.
See above.

Greenmile
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1079 times
Has Liked: 4239 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by Greenmile » Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:49 am

Paul Waine wrote:Good morning, Greenmile. Interesting to hear you say that the note was the joke - and not the way that Labour "trashed" the economy. I'm sure some will want to believe you...
Paul Waine wrote:Hi IT, was there any where in what I posted that I said the Labour party in the UK was to blame for the global financial meltdown that trashed the global economy?
:roll: :roll: :roll:
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:29 am

Greenmile wrote::roll: :roll: :roll:
Good morning, again, Greenmile.

OK. You've got me. We've all got to be so careful to ensure that other readers know when we are addressing the subject of the conversation - the UK economy in this case - and not another subject that wasn't part of that specific conversation - the global economy.

You know, it would be a bit like saying "the Clarets got a great win in their last game" - referering to a win by Burnley only to have someone else come along and say "but, I thought the clarets lost" when the other clarets were Aston Villa, West Ham or maybe Scunthorpe (though, an admission, I've no idea whether Scunthorpe are ever refered to as "the clarets."

Have a great day.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by aggi » Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:39 am

With this talk of how labour trashed the economy so made the global economic crisis so much worse for the UK, which countries were well prepared for it and came out with minimal damage.

Obviously not the Mediterranean or Scandinavian countries or the US. I don't remember Germany or France being much better but I could be mistaken. Which developed economies should we have followed the lead of?

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by AndrewJB » Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:19 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Andrew, I'd not heard that before about Reggie Maudling. What did his note say? Were there any other occasions when an outgoing treasury minister chose to leave a "joke" note for the next guy? June 1970, Wilson to Heath? 1974, Heath to Wilson? 1979 Callaghan to Thatcher? 1997 Major to Blair? Of course, I've referenced the PMs - I can't remember who were the Chancellors or other treasury ministers. What jolly japes! :lol:

Hmm, I wouldn't blame Thatcher for the absence of financial regulation. The "big bang" in 1986, I think, was a much needed breaking up of the old monopolies - and the most ingrained "old boys" system. It allowed much needed restructuring of the city of London and was the foundation of the building of London as the "world financial centre" competing successfully with New York in many things. Even more important, it drew in many of the foreign banks and today continues as the foundation of London's diversity.

Brown made a mistake in replacing the Bank of England supervision of the banks to the FSA. That led to the BoE being on the side lines when the banks started to develop their Retail Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBS). Yes, the UK was involved in Asset Backed Securities (ABS), just like the US. Everyone - well, everyone who was being listened to - thought it was great that lending risk was being distributed and shared among many many participants, that the risk was spread so widely that it just wouldn't matter if anyone defaulted. Governments "loved" rmbs because it appeared to show that even people who didn't have much money could buy their own house. I'm sure you've seen "The Big Short." I'm sure you know that 2007/08 the financial crisis broke when all the financial sector realised that this clever idea was fatally flawed. Remember, September 2007, Northern Rock was effectively bust - before that it had been lending 125% mortgages, one hundred and twentyfive per cent, and there was little to no scrutiny of your ability to pay back the mortgage. NR's abs/rmbs programme was called "Granite" - granite, the northern rock! Now that was a great joke. :oops: Brown's "sticky fingers" were all over the banks rmbs programmes. If he'd taken a more prudent view (do you remember "prudence," poor girl?) he'd have realised it was very thin ice, fake promises and got the regulators to put a stop to it before we went over the cliff edge. But, politicians feel great when everyone is borrowing, buying houses and maxing their credit cards - it gives the appearance that their management of the economy is a success.

Yes, I agree, Osborne promised to match the Labour govt's spending - what opposition party has ever said "we will spend less...." Surely, no one has to put something on the side of a bus before we ask "is that true?" However, I don't remember the Tory's campaigning in the 2010 to spend the same - the country, and the world, was much too deep in all the bad stuff for anyone to want to say that then.

I'll leave it at that. I have experience of the "National Enterprise Board" - it tried to set up the DeLorean Motor Company in NI. Back to the Future, here we come! ;)
Maudling's note: Upon being forced out of the post by the election defeat, Maudling left a note to his successor, James Callaghan, simply stating "Good luck, old cock.... Sorry to leave it in such a mess." and wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_ ... _Exchequer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You might not think Thatcher's deregulation helped bring about the financial crash, but Nigel Lawson did: (again from wiki) In 2010, Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor at the time of the Big Bang, appeared on the radio programme Analysis to discuss the banking reform. He explained that the 2007–2012 global financial crisis was an unintended consequence of the "Big Bang".[5] He said that UK investment banks were previously very cautious, as they operated with their own money, but after merging with major retail banks, the depositors' savings were put at risk, and according to the programme this led U.S. banks to follow suit.[5]

Again with deregulation the fault also lies with Major, Blair, and Brown for not seeing the issue and fixing it. Let's not also forget that the Tories championed further deregulation, as Gordon Brown's "light touch" as Chancellor wasn't enough for them. If this isn't bad enough, we still have financial organisation that are "too big to be allowed to fail" Not enough has been done to reform banking.

A state bank might not always make the correct or best investment decisions, though its unlikely one would get us into as much trouble as the free market banks did ten years ago. Investment led growth is far better for our economy than growth led by asset value appreciation.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by aggi » Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:48 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Yes Martin, that is the IFS weakness I referred to.

It would be the most efficient way if stimulating the economy was not a by-product of the tax package. You don’t encourage small business growth by tinkering with tax credits, and those small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy.

You say this money is to pay for public services - actually, it is fiscal headroom due to the booming economy, the public services have no more claim to it than we do. However, I have said often on here that a more balanced approach to government would be welcome with public services being appropriately funded. I won’t vote for a PM who strips them bare.
I think booming may be overselling it a little

https://www.markiteconomics.com/Public/ ... ca7bc1dbd3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Greenmile
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1079 times
Has Liked: 4239 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by Greenmile » Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:53 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Good morning, again, Greenmile.

OK. You've got me. We've all got to be so careful to ensure that other readers know when we are addressing the subject of the conversation - the UK economy in this case - and not another subject that wasn't part of that specific conversation - the global economy...
Don’t you think those two subjects might be linked, Paul? Or do you reckon the UK economy was coincidentally “trashed” at the same time as the global economy?

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:29 pm

AndrewJB wrote:Maudling's note: Upon being forced out of the post by the election defeat, Maudling left a note to his successor, James Callaghan, simply stating "Good luck, old cock.... Sorry to leave it in such a mess." and wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_ ... _Exchequer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You might not think Thatcher's deregulation helped bring about the financial crash, but Nigel Lawson did: (again from wiki) In 2010, Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor at the time of the Big Bang, appeared on the radio programme Analysis to discuss the banking reform. He explained that the 2007–2012 global financial crisis was an unintended consequence of the "Big Bang".[5] He said that UK investment banks were previously very cautious, as they operated with their own money, but after merging with major retail banks, the depositors' savings were put at risk, and according to the programme this led U.S. banks to follow suit.[5]

Again with deregulation the fault also lies with Major, Blair, and Brown for not seeing the issue and fixing it. Let's not also forget that the Tories championed further deregulation, as Gordon Brown's "light touch" as Chancellor wasn't enough for them. If this isn't bad enough, we still have financial organisation that are "too big to be allowed to fail" Not enough has been done to reform banking.

A state bank might not always make the correct or best investment decisions, though its unlikely one would get us into as much trouble as the free market banks did ten years ago. Investment led growth is far better for our economy than growth led by asset value appreciation.
Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the Reggie Maudling stuff. I was only 10 at the time. Not quite the same as the "no money left" - and maybe Maudling didn't intend his note as a joke. Not much of a punch line, anyway....

I will have to disagree with Nigel Lawson. I've got some experience of the financial regulations from 1988 onwards. Brown's removal of the Bank of England and transfer of reg authority to FSA was the critical failing. None of the other regs really matter one way or another. Yes, UK merchant banks (we didn't call them "Investment banks") were a lot more limited. However, it was the US IBanks that set the tone - the US definietly wasn't following a UK bank lead. (BTW: many European banks were also in on the same activities, German, French, Netherlands etc. And, all these banks operated out of London and New York - not just their home base).

"Risking their depositors' savings" is much more a political statement, not an economic certainty so far as the big Ibanks are concerned. Yes, Northern Rock and a number of the small banks/building societies were "well out of their depth" The new regulations brought in poast-2008, both in the US and EU (including UK) are more a statement that the politicians don't understand the financial system. They have "thrown out the baby with the bath water" so to speak. But, that is a very long conversation. Maybe if the UK government had "stood back" and allowed Northern Rock to fail Sept 2007, and similarly, US gov't had allowed Bear Stearns to fail in March 2008, maybe the world financial crisis would have been averted.... hard to know either way, but the mis-steps of governments in the early stages may have slowed the necessary corrective actions of many of the other banks.... It would make an exciting research paper....

Interesting that you mention "investment led growth" - that's how the banking system works. But, it's not how a state owned banking system would work - that would inevitably be a "preserve employment" and investment where politics says we should invest. That might sound a little "harsh." State owned banks is one of the reason the soviet union failed.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:41 pm

Greenmile wrote:Don’t you think those two subjects might be linked, Paul? Or do you reckon the UK economy was coincidentally “trashed” at the same time as the global economy?
Hi Greenmile, I think you misunderstand my point. The Labour government had set the UK economy up for failure with the actions before the financial crisis started. If the government had understood what they were doing the UK could have been in a much better place when the US investment banks and the European banking systems both got into trouble. If you like, you can consider the UK economy "dancing blindfolded along a cliff top" - led there by Gordon Brown with his economic policies. It only needed a little gust of wind, and the UK economy would fall.

If that doesn't suit. Consider that Northern Rock failed in Sept 2007. We had the first run on a bank in the UK since, sometime in the mid-19th century. That was 12 months before Lehman Bros failed and the "world financial crisis" truly "took off."

Also, consider that if the Bank of England was still regulating London banks then it might have said to RBS "are you really confident about buying Abn Amro?" That could have saved RBS... Similarly, Lloyds could have avoided difficulties if Gordon Brown had been stopped in "asking" Lloyds Bank to take over HBOS. It would have been a lot easier for the UK if HBOS had failed rather than Lloyds, one of the 5 largest UK banks. Of course, Gordon Brown thought he was saving HBOS by getting Lloyds to buy them - but that didn't work. And, if RBS had been stopped from buying Abn Amro, it's possible that the latter's problems would all have stayed in Amsterdam. However, it's not unreasonable to think that Gordon Brown was keen for RBS to grow bigger - bigger banks pay bigger bonuses, and think of all that lovely income tax on those bankers' bonuses.

It's just another view.... but, I'm not a politician.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by aggi » Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:10 am

I wonder whether Boris' 20,000 new police will be as successful as the 5,000 new police he promised in London when he was mayor (where the number of police actually decreased).

Hunt on the other hand has gone with the really pressing issues, a new vote on fox hunting.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by tiger76 » Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:13 am

More promises that will never be delivered,and even if BoJo increases police numbers by 20,000,that still only brings them back to 2010 levels.

Meanwhile Jeremy Hunt is living up to his name and wants to lift the ban on fox hunting.

It's good to know their priorities are what most of the public discuss around their breakfast tables isn't it. :roll:

And of course all these spending commitments will only to come to fruition if there isn't a no-deal brexit,which both candidates are strongly backing as an option.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48864019

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: C4 Conservative leader debate

Post by AndrewJB » Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:38 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... k-hustings" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Continuing to promise everything to everyone.

Post Reply