Tory Conference OR "We are so going to screw you next year!"

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#41
nigegilb said:
Alsacien said:
nigegilb said:
Oh right so the alternative is to break up the City of London, we'll be better off then won't we?
You talk nonsense.
And I never thought anyone on these boards would be so afraid of democracy.
I'm afraid of idiots with pointless arguments derailing the country to such and extent that we have to go to the IMF or the ECB and sign an unconditional surrender document.

But please feel free to enlighten me with your economic wisdom and understanding of the financial situation that faces UK - so far I have seen nothing to suggest you have any knowledge of the topic at all, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.
 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#42
nigegilb said:
Alsacien said:
nigegilb said:
Oh right so the alternative is to break up the City of London, we'll be better off then won't we?
You talk nonsense.
And I never thought anyone on these boards would be so afraid of democracy.

EU investment fund rules would finish the City of London
He knows, too, though he is too polite to say so, that the proposal is at least partly driven by envy: by the resentment in Paris and Frankfurt of London’s pre-eminence.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...t-fund-rules-would-finish-the-city-of-london/
Anyone who listens to Hannan is an even bigger fool - he was the one suggesting UK should model itself on ICELAND! :D :D :D
 
#43
So how would you describe the last 12 years of economic management?

It's simple stupid, City of London contributes 20% UK GDP and it's future is under threat from Brussels. There that wasn't too difficult was it. Still with me?

Still afraid of democracy? I suggest you move to Brussels.........
 

Ventress

LE
Moderator
#44
As stated elsewhere the Tories have to undo the cock-up Liarbour have created. Unfortunately it wont be painfree. The Canadians went through the same process where they got into some much public debt they had to demolish hospitals as they couldnt afford to run them- empty of otherwise. The debt is there and wont go away and now thanks to the halfwits of labour we will be paying for the next ten years. Cheers Gordon you wookie-eyed arrse!
 
#45
There is a fairly simple choice. Two ways out of the current predicament.

1) Public spending. Increased public borrowing. Limits the impact on aggregate demand, stops unemployment ballooning, human misery. At the same time tighter controls over the banking sector and other key markets. If anybody wants to tell me that markets are always self-righting they have been living in a cave for the last 3 years. Of course we then have to pay off the debt later, but is national debt really a bad thing? - Yes, but at what point? What levels of national debt can we live with? Quite high actually. Nobody wants to see us go under for fear of ruining the City of London - which would really screw the world eceonomy. Hopefully the recovery strengthens the state owned banks and we see a return that we can use to pay off our national debt. But this is a 5-10 year plan, and no mistakes.

2) Spending cuts, rein in public borrowing. This will destroy the fragile recovery we are on now. Don't doubt it for a second. Unemployment will go through the roof, with an attendant increase in benefits costs (ever wonder why the benefits bill was higher under Maggie than ever before?). But, if the banks we own survive we will have a couple of assets and low debt so can then possibly spend some of the money trying to rebuild our society. Oh, and if they do survive, they will be sold to the very cnuts who helped get us into this mess because Brown and Bliar didn't bother regulating them properly - the banks.


Viscerally, I would go for avoiding the debt and screwing everybody else over because I have a fear of debt. But in reality, I would probably go for public spending out of the recession.

The problem I have is that none of the parties are now suggesting option 1 because the tories / monetarists have the ascendancy. So I get three choices of option 2 - all saying the same thing but in slightly different accents. Oh deep fcuking joy.
 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#46
nigegilb said:
So how would you describe the last 12 years of economic management?

It's simple stupid, City of London contributes 20% UK GDP and it's future is under threat from Brussels. There that wasn't too difficult was it. Still with me?

Still afraid of democracy? I suggest you move to Brussels.........
Deregulated markets brought it to where it was and we never should have become so dependant on that.
That has to change, or do you think you know better than every economist in the western world?
If the City is as dynamic as I think it is, it will be able to adapt in the medium term. Frankfurt and Paris are tiny in comparison - but the world is doing more business in Euros than Sterling......
 
#47
nigegilb said:
So how would you describe the last 12 years of economic management?

It's simple stupid, City of London contributes 20% UK GDP and it's future is under threat from Brussels. There that wasn't too difficult was it. Still with me?

Still afraid of democracy? I suggest you move to Brussels.........
No it doesn't. It produces 9%. In fact when the German git suggested it was 15% the other week in order to threaten it from Brussels on this forum, people were ready to jump down his throat.

If you are going to use facts, get a grip.

By the way - how exactly is it under threat? What proportion of it is under threat? Why is that dangerous to UK plc? What alternative measures might be suggested?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#48
OK

We have tried Labour and Tory over the past 30 years and we are still deep in the do-do regardless which party is in. Luib-Dems have been a joke since the First World War.

For a change why don't we try ANARCHY. It probably could not be much worse than today's mess :twisted:
 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#49
Bazzinho1977 said:
There is a fairly simple choice. Two ways out of the current predicament.

1) Public spending. Increased public borrowing. Limits the impact on aggregate demand, stops unemployment ballooning, human misery. At the same time tighter controls over the banking sector and other key markets. If anybody wants to tell me that markets are always self-righting they have been living in a cave for the last 3 years. Of course we then have to pay off the debt later, but is national debt really a bad thing? - Yes, but at what point? What levels of national debt can we live with? Quite high actually. Nobody wants to see us go under for fear of ruining the City of London - which would really screw the world eceonomy. Hopefully the recovery strengthens the state owned banks and we see a return that we can use to pay off our national debt. But this is a 5-10 year plan, and no mistakes.

2) Spending cuts, rein in public borrowing. This will destroy the fragile recovery we are on now. Don't doubt it for a second. Unemployment will go through the roof, with an attendant increase in benefits costs (ever wonder why the benefits bill was higher under Maggie than ever before?). But, if the banks we own survive we will have a couple of assets and low debt so can then possibly spend some of the money trying to rebuild our society. Oh, and if they do survive, they will be sold to the very cnuts who helped get us into this mess because Brown and Bliar didn't bother regulating them properly - the banks.


Viscerally, I would go for avoiding the debt and screwing everybody else over because I have a fear of debt. But in reality, I would probably go for public spending out of the recession.

The problem I have is that none of the parties are now suggesting option 1 because the tories / monetarists have the ascendancy. So I get three choices of option 2 - all saying the same thing but in slightly different accents. Oh deep fcuking joy.
Don't worry Baz, with all this new taxation and financial regulation business for accountants will be booming :D
(Of course some other scenarios would see your books full of work liquidating company assets on bankruptcy - whose side are you really on :wink: )
 
#50
Auld-Yin said:
OK

We have tried Labour and Tory over the past 30 years and we are still deep in the do-do regardless which party is in. Luib-Dems have been a joke since the First World War.

For a change why don't we try ANARCHY. It probably could not be much worse than today's mess :twisted:
Yep.

Cos I would trust people who think the way to bring about world harmony is throwing paint at McDonalds. They obviously have a really tight grip on reality. :(
 
#51
nigegilb said:
So how would you describe the last 12 years of economic management?

It's simple stupid, City of London contributes 20% UK GDP and it's future is under threat from Brussels. There that wasn't too difficult was it. Still with me?

Still afraid of democracy? I suggest you move to Brussels.........
So the most pragmatic thing would be to accept defeat on the Lisbon Treaty and then fight tooth and nail to maintain the City. Don't forget that a strong City is a European as well as a National asset. Just because Germany or France want something doesn't mean they will get their way, another good reason to have a strong leader in place with very clearly defined policies that people can understand and get behind and have confidence that their case is being argued.
 
#52
Alsacien said:
Don't worry Baz, with all this new taxation and financial regulation business for accountants will be booming :D
(Of course some other scenarios would see your books full of work liquidating company assets on bankruptcy - whose side are you really on :wink: )
Don't worry. No matter hwo the country goes belly up - the accountants will get their fees still. Career choice? Nailed it :D
 
#53
Auld-Yin said:
OK

We have tried Labour and Tory over the past 30 years and we are still deep in the do-do regardless which party is in. Luib-Dems have been a joke since the First World War.

For a change why don't we try ANARCHY. It probably could not be much worse than today's mess :twisted:
I think we gets governements we deserve regardless of the party
 
#54
Markintime said:
nigegilb said:
So how would you describe the last 12 years of economic management?

It's simple stupid, City of London contributes 20% UK GDP and it's future is under threat from Brussels. There that wasn't too difficult was it. Still with me?

Still afraid of democracy? I suggest you move to Brussels.........
So the most pragmatic thing would be to accept defeat on the Lisbon Treaty and then fight tooth and nail to maintain the City. Don't forget that a strong City is a European as well as a National asset. Just because Germany or France want something doesn't mean they will get their way, another good reason to have a strong leader in place with very clearly defined policies that people can understand and get behind and have confidence that their case is being argued.
This is the key thing. If Europe want us to integrate further and become a bigger part of their club - why would they want to destroy one of the things that would benefit them? If you are trying to chat a bird up you don't cut her nose off cos you don't like your own very much. (Yes, I know that was the worst analogy ever).
 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#55
Markintime said:
nigegilb said:
So how would you describe the last 12 years of economic management?

It's simple stupid, City of London contributes 20% UK GDP and it's future is under threat from Brussels. There that wasn't too difficult was it. Still with me?

Still afraid of democracy? I suggest you move to Brussels.........
So the most pragmatic thing would be to accept defeat on the Lisbon Treaty and then fight tooth and nail to maintain the City. Don't forget that a strong City is a European as well as a National asset. Just because Germany or France want something doesn't mean they will get their way, another good reason to have a strong leader in place with very clearly defined policies that people can understand and get behind and have confidence that their case is being argued.
If I was to play devils advocate :evil:
I could say that UK's EU joker card - (its GDP that would make the Eurozone the biggest trading block in the world) - could be played in return for relocating the ECB to London, and giving the City the lead on new financial regulation. Other centres in Europe would become null overnight :wink:
 
#56
Cabana said:
Labours current way to fix problems is to borrow 100s of millions a month (from where I don't know)
er... Actually Cabana my dear boy you'd better take a seat.... its £533m A DAY!

Yes, the govt is borrowing half a billion every day.

Link
 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#57
Deadreckon said:
Cabana said:
Labours current way to fix problems is to borrow 100s of millions a month (from where I don't know)
er... Actually Cabana my dear boy you'd better take a seat.... its £533m A DAY!

Yes, the govt is borrowing half a billion every day.

Link
But that's not important is it, lets talk about an EU treaty instead :roll: That's the real issue facing UK, in fact its probably the EU that is making us borrow all that cash because of its laws blah blah blah unelected blah unaccountable blah soviet blah facist blah blah....... :roll:
 
#58
Deadreckon said:
Cabana said:
Labours current way to fix problems is to borrow 100s of millions a month (from where I don't know)
er... Actually Cabana my dear boy you'd better take a seat.... its £533m A DAY!

Yes, the govt is borrowing half a billion every day.

Link
Nah its not. If you read the article its £272m per day - half what you have suggested. It to do with annual revenue cycles mate.

Mind you, that is still £272 MILLION EVERY DAY, but at least it is a realistic number, not a fantasy one thought up by the Daily Mail.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
#59
Auld-Yin said:
OK

We have tried Labour and Tory over the past 30 years and we are still deep in the do-do regardless which party is in. Luib-Dems have been a joke since the First World War.

For a change why don't we try ANARCHY. It probably could not be much worse than today's mess :twisted:
But, then, who would run things? (Hee Hee!)
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#60
Bazzinho1977 said:
There is a fairly simple choice. Two ways out of the current predicament.

1) Public spending. Increased public borrowing. Limits the impact on aggregate demand, stops unemployment ballooning, human misery. At the same time tighter controls over the banking sector and other key markets. If anybody wants to tell me that markets are always self-righting they have been living in a cave for the last 3 years. Of course we then have to pay off the debt later, but is national debt really a bad thing? - Yes, but at what point? What levels of national debt can we live with? Quite high actually. Nobody wants to see us go under for fear of ruining the City of London - which would really screw the world eceonomy. Hopefully the recovery strengthens the state owned banks and we see a return that we can use to pay off our national debt. But this is a 5-10 year plan, and no mistakes.

2) Spending cuts, rein in public borrowing. This will destroy the fragile recovery we are on now. Don't doubt it for a second. Unemployment will go through the roof, with an attendant increase in benefits costs (ever wonder why the benefits bill was higher under Maggie than ever before?). But, if the banks we own survive we will have a couple of assets and low debt so can then possibly spend some of the money trying to rebuild our society. Oh, and if they do survive, they will be sold to the very cnuts who helped get us into this mess because Brown and Bliar didn't bother regulating them properly - the banks.


Viscerally, I would go for avoiding the debt and screwing everybody else over because I have a fear of debt. But in reality, I would probably go for public spending out of the recession.

The problem I have is that none of the parties are now suggesting option 1 because the tories / monetarists have the ascendancy. So I get three choices of option 2 - all saying the same thing but in slightly different accents. Oh deep fcuking joy.
Baz,

There is a reason why those countries which adhere to your preferred economic model make up the economic basket cases of the global village.

Unless you are talking about large scale infrastructure investment serviced by the private sector, you will simply create a money pit.

Further, if you let your debt get out of control, your credit rating is reduced, making that debt significantly more expensive to service.

The idea that the Public Sector can drive an economy was enthusiastically championed by John Prescott which tells you how smart it is. If a bloated Public Sector and printing money could drive an economy, Zimbabwe would be in the G8.

The Private Sector is the only way out of this and that means reducing business taxes and rates. That's what pays for the Public Sector so the Public Sector is going to get cut. Don't believe that there's an alternative, softer option, because there isn't. Global finance doesn't work that way and it's probably only the prospect of a change in government next year that's stayed action against us so far.
 

Latest Threads

Top