Meanwhile In England

[only1swanny]

20 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Only utter morons think the "There's no money left" note was a 'detailed letter', and not just an on-going joke between  in-coming/out-going ministers. I imagine it will never happen again, because utter morons have deemed it serious.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election

Clears it up whichever way people's thoughts lie. 

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

Austerity was a political choice

[BobyBrno]

Interesting comments from the former BOE governor before the election in 2010. 
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/29/mervyn-king-warns-election-victor

"I saw the governor of the Bank of England [Mervyn King] last week when I was in London and he told me whoever wins this election will be out of power for a whole generation because of how tough the fiscal austerity will have to be," Hale said in an interview on Australian TV reported by Reuters.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

44 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Austerity was a political choice

Not really. 

The impact on the economy from the crash was absolutely enormous. Lots of data available. 

The country was short of cash, as was the case all over.

Cuts had to be made and would have been irrespective of who got in.

Either that or borrow and spend stupidly and throw fuel on the fire. We saw various drops in the country's rating when borrowing making it more expensive. 

Austerity is just a descriptor applied at the time. Cuts were inevitable. 

The drop in the economy took 5 years to recover.

I reckon the purse strings were kept tight for too long which didn't help, and neither did the addiction to QE that followed.

 

[BobyBrno]

15 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Not really. 

The impact on the economy from the crash was absolutely enormous. Lots of data available. 

The country was short of cash, as was the case all over.

Cuts had to be made and would have been irrespective of who got in.

Either that or borrow and spend stupidly and throw fuel on the fire. We saw various drops in the country's rating when borrowing making it more expensive. 

Austerity is just a descriptor applied at the time. Cuts were inevitable. 

The drop in the economy took 5 years to recover.

I reckon the purse strings were kept tight for too long which didn't help, and neither did the addiction to QE that followed.

 

Correct. The term ‘Austerity’ became and still remains an emotive term. From the article I posted. 

." King added the deficit would not be tackled without "significant fiscal consolidation".

‘Significant fiscal consolidation’ doesn’t roll off the tongue so easily.

[Dimron]

3 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Not really. 

The impact on the economy from the crash was absolutely enormous. Lots of data available. 

The country was short of cash, as was the case all over.

Cuts had to be made and would have been irrespective of who got in.

Either that or borrow and spend stupidly and throw fuel on the fire. We saw various drops in the country's rating when borrowing making it more expensive. 

Austerity is just a descriptor applied at the time. Cuts were inevitable. 

The drop in the economy took 5 years to recover.

I reckon the purse strings were kept tight for too long which didn't help, and neither did the addiction to QE that followed.

 

The UK will never be "short of cash" ... it was and still is political, the hair-shirt politics of the Old Etonians took hold

[only1swanny]

7 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Not really. 

The impact on the economy from the crash was absolutely enormous. Lots of data available. 

The country was short of cash, as was the case all over.

Cuts had to be made and would have been irrespective of who got in.

Either that or borrow and spend stupidly and throw fuel on the fire. We saw various drops in the country's rating when borrowing making it more expensive. 

Austerity is just a descriptor applied at the time. Cuts were inevitable. 

The drop in the economy took 5 years to recover.

I reckon the purse strings were kept tight for too long which didn't help, and neither did the addiction to QE that followed.

 

mentions it in that artical I posted, Labour had already started "Austerity" procedures, using the term "We have no money left", hence why it was written on the note.

[Guest]

Austerity was widely regarded as a failure across European countries. It was not a success. They realised after two or three years. We persisted and squashed our economy.

When people say we had to cut spending they are correct but it’s clear that beyond the initial year the policy was an unmitigated disaster that failed every economy because it simply squashed activity and led us down a path of low growth. Then of course we decided to commit economic suicide with Brexit.

One thing that the UK electorate agree on in high numbers now is left wing interventionist economics. The right wing economic policy taken to its logical conclusion has failed. And that debate is settled. Even Johnson realised this. Sunak to his detriment did not. 

Edited July 21, 2024 by bwfcfan5

[BobyBrno]

57 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Austerity was widely regarded as a failure across European countries. It was not a success. They realised after two or three years. We persisted and squashed our economy.

When people say we had to cut spending they are correct but it’s clear that beyond the initial year the policy was an unmitigated disaster that failed every economy because it simply squashed activity and led us down a path of low growth. Then of course we decided to commit economic suicide with Brexit.

One thing that the UK electorate agree on in high numbers now is left wing interventionist economics. The right wing economic policy taken to its logical conclusion has failed. And that debate is settled. Even Johnson realised this. Sunak to his detriment did not. 

This graph would contradict the growth comment. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BobyBrno said:

This graph would contradict the growth comment. 

There were different trajectories going in but the countries that didn’t go the austerity route have much stronger growth than the rest….

The problem with our economy is that almost all the growth is achieved via immigration……which is ok if you are cool with that and it increasing as infinitum…..look at GDP per capita….

[Tonge moor green jacket]

23 hours ago, only1swanny said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election

Clears it up whichever way people's thoughts lie. 

An admission that there was no money left, and huge cuts were planned.

Only an utter moron can't accept the truth of the situation. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

An admission that there was no money left, and huge cuts were planned.

Only an utter moron can't accept the truth of the situation. 

Debt to GDP was about 68% in 2010. It’s 99.5% now. What does ‘no money left’ actually mean?

[bolty58]

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

An admission that there was no money left, and huge cuts were planned.

Only an utter moron can't accept the truth of the situation. 

...and the 'comrade' I suspect that you are referring to must be top of the pile when it comes to utter morons.

[BobyBrno]

59 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Debt to GDP was about 68% in 2010. It’s 99.5% now. What does ‘no money left’ actually mean?

It was 43% in 1997 when Labour took over. It was bound to rise after the deep recession as has been pointed out in the articles posted. 

It was 84% in 2019 after peaking at 86 % and coming down until COVID hit. 
Not sure what your point is. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

It was 43% in 1997 when Labour took over. It was bound to rise after the deep recession as has been pointed out in the articles posted. 

It was 84% in 2019 after peaking at 86 % and coming down until COVID hit. 
Not sure what your point is. 

I’d have thought the point was pretty clear by the question asked. What does ‘no money left’ actually mean?

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Just now, BobyBrno said:

It was 43% in 1997 when Labour took over. It was bound to rise after the deep recession as has been pointed out in the articles posted. 

It was 84% in 2019 after peaking at 86 % and coming down until COVID hit. 
Not sure what your point is. 

His point is that when a major issue occurs  it's not the government's fault, if that is a labour one. (The 2008 one certainly wasn't their fault).

However, if something similar happens under a Conservative government, then it is their fault. Irrespective of reality. 

Cock waving around such figures misses the point- over the decades we, as a nation, have gradually increased public spending as a proportion of "income".

I once posted a graph showing this, going back a long way; and apart from the wars you could see an almost linear increase.

Perhaps a sign of increasingly civilised society, but inevitably, that has risks associated with it

 

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

7 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

His point is that when a major issue occurs  it's not the government's fault, if that is a labour one. (The 2008 one certainly wasn't their fault).

However, if something similar happens under a Conservative government, then it is their fault. Irrespective of reality. 

I'm willing to bet that's not his point

[BobyBrno]

6 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

I’d have thought the point was pretty clear by the question asked. What does ‘no money left’ actually mean?

And what is the answer? 68%🤷‍♂️

The US is 123%. I heard Rachel Reeves this morning praising Bidenomics. 🤷‍♂️

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

And what is the answer? 68%🤷‍♂️

The US is 123%. I heard Rachel Reeves this morning praising Bidenomics. 🤷‍♂️

The question has not been answered. What does ‘no money left’ actually mean in the context of an economy? 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

His point is that when a major issue occurs  it's not the government's fault, if that is a labour one. (The 2008 one certainly wasn't their fault).

However, if something similar happens under a Conservative government, then it is their fault. Irrespective of reality. 

Cock waving around such figures misses the point- over the decades we, as a nation, have gradually increased public spending as a proportion of "income".

I once posted a graph showing this, going back a long way; and apart from the wars you could see an almost linear increase.

Perhaps a sign of increasingly civilised society, but inevitably, that has risks associated with it

 

No. It was a simple question. What does ‘no money left’ in the context of a national economy mean? You said it, and all I asked was what does that actually mean?

[Cheese]

40 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

...and the 'comrade' I suspect that you are referring to must be top of the pile when it comes to utter morons.

Lemon Party imminent.

[BobyBrno]

15 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

The question has not been answered. What does ‘no money left’ actually mean in the context of an economy? 

I didn’t make the point, though the question has been asked many times since 2010. I asked what your point about the debt was. Maybe you should have referred to the deficit rather than debt.

 

Edited July 21, 2024 by BobyBrno

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

I didn’t make the point, though the question has been asked many times since 2010. I asked what your point about the debt was. Maybe you should have referred to the deficit rather than debt.

 

It still hasn’t answered what does ‘no money left’ mean? Let’s try it another way. In 2010 the UK government in its entire history had borrowed around 980Bn. In the last 14 years we’ve borrowed in the U.K. about £1.7TRILLION. That is more money than we’ve borrowed since economies started counting.

So again without any comment about the spending or reasons for it - what does the statement that there was ‘no money left’ in 2010 mean? 

[London Wanderer]

Rangers fans at their finest today

Calling cricket players P*** batards on a Saturday afternoon. 
 

Muppets

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-cricket-players-forced-abandon-29584353.amp

[BobyBrno]

49 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

It still hasn’t answered what does ‘no money left’ mean? Let’s try it another way. In 2010 the UK government in its entire history had borrowed around 980Bn. In the last 14 years we’ve borrowed in the U.K. about £1.7TRILLION. That is more money than we’ve borrowed since economies started counting.

So again without any comment about the spending or reasons for it - what does the statement that there was ‘no money left’ in 2010 mean? 

I don’t know why you keep asking me but at a guess, I’d say he wasn’t being literal. 
The deficit chart I posted does give some indication of where we were then though and where we are now.  You can interpret it any way you wish.