Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#1
.. Coffee House. Or so he said to Andrew Neil.
Pity he doest actually take on board some of the economic truths he is therefore exposed to and persists in what are frankly his out and out economic lies.
He did not get away with it when up against a sharp cookie like Neil though and Balls weakly changed tac and went through all kinds of convoluted lies and misinformation.
This man really was one of those who are guilty for the mess we are in tied in closely with Brown while he merrily trashed the economy over 13 disastrous years. Labour will never have any kind of economic credability with his in this role but then, from their track record, they do not deserve any such credability even with someone else.
Anyway - here is the Speccy take on it.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7809143/did-balls-cause-the-recession.thtmlKeith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#2
predictions of a landslide labour victory
cameron the most unpopular leader
hunt about to be laid off(loads of redundancy though) and still getting his
£100,000 a year as an m.p.
Cant all be wrong
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#3
Ah well now we are not going to get an unbiased view from the Spectator. Many of you will remember that tousled haired Boris was editor there, and you can see what party he belongs to. So any message is coming with a slant.
Reasonably interesting Newsnight last night. On the government side you had Danny Alexander, he of the flaming locks, and for Labour you had Ed Balls..and I can never look at him these days without recalling Howard's comment about his 'syrup'. I keep looking for the join but alas I think his hair is all real.
But the Ed Balls message was that "the Osborne policy is a failure". Balls reminded us that he (Balls)predicted a double dip recesson 18 months ago especially if we carried on the way we were going, taking money out of the economy.
Who is to say now he isnt/wasnt right. The double dip has hit us now...bigtime. many experts see no growth on the horizon either. None. Where is it to come from with manufacturing shrinking.
Danny Alexander spouted the standard line that we are sticking to our HMG path. But....
here's the thing...he refused to debate with Balls. he told Newsnight seemingly that he would come on...but would not debate with Balls. So he sat there the whole time and said nothing, no retort, nothing.
Odd.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#4
Think he will jump ship once the general election is known
looks like he has no problem with the tories
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#5
I take it you mean Keefy that he (Alexander) will jump ship to the Tories, him being a Libdem..yes could be a strong possibility. He enjoys the power, would be one heck of an anti climax careerwise to remain hindered by a Libdem ball and chain future.
I used this picture on the Leveson thread to show Jeremy Hunt. But you can also see Danny Alexander in the same shot in very comfortable mode sitting with all the Tories. Thats him with the spectacles for the uninitiated.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#6
yes he would sit without an problem with the tories(alexandra)
what will he do when labour has the landslide victory which is predicted
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
so what was the point of him going on, sounds as daft as when jack straw sat their po-faced when nick griffin was sharing a platform.
if ed b*lls was allowed to spout off with his opponent not disagreeing then the t.v. audience would take it that the former was in the right.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#8
PaulB - the double dip was not a hard prediction given the depth of the 'Brown stuff' we were in after 13 years of Balls-ups. I have covered that in my blog after all and explained why a double dip was likely.
What is absolutely certain are the clear and obvious economic mismanagement that got us into this position.
Look again at my blog.
One example: When should a government deficit spend and build up debt?
Should it be in the growth phase of the economy?
Or in the contraction stage of the cycle?
Follow that on and using common sense and logic again.
When should a government reduce and balance a deficit, the growth phase or the contraction phase?
This is not rocket science. Anyone can understand this. You cannot spend more than you have income indefinitely and debt has to eventually be repaid. People will not lend to you either if they are worried about that ability to service debt, they will charge more to offset their risk and may refuse to lend if it goes too far. Governments are not immune to this as we can see in the Eurozone.
Brown and his mate Balls did exactly the opposite to what common sense dictates.
The result of what they did was a massive debt and a massive deficit right at the start of the economic slowdown. From that starting point you are in difficulty and people will not just keep on lending you money to carry on deficit spending and borrowing - it has to be cut. Again, not rocket science, pure logic.
Balls and his like lie through their teeth and pretend they can work miracles spending money they do not have without suffering consequences.
That is a cruel deceit that places politics before the economics and reality.
Of course we know why they did that. Brown's massive illusion that he somehow pulled off King Canute's trick and defied nature, or in this case overcame the basic laws of economics - the economic cycle itself - Brown said it - he thought he had 'banned boom and bust' and ran the economy as if he had done so.
Having left us in the weakest ever position at the start of the slowdown it is hardly surprising that we have the worse economic conditions just about ever. Specially when we add the consequences of his messing around with banking regulation that left them vulnerable at the start of the slowdown.
We were living for years on a bubble of debt and the bubble has burst. What we are seeing is what we call in financial services a correction. You do not improve things by pumping air into a burst bubble as Balls seems to advocate.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#9
couldn't someone have told that to danny alexander barry because he certainly doesn't know judging by his performance last evening.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#10
Come on Howard - he is a LimpDem after all....
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#11
and soon to be a tory(alexandre
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#12
dont you mean a limp tory barry.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#13
tories to lose by 100 seats
lib dems to retain just 18 seats
not looking baz
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#14
and a partridge in a pear tree.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#15
Aren't they still borrowing?? Borrowing is still increasing isn't it?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#16
by the day the deficit is geting wider and we are being told that the cuts are supposed to reduce it.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#17
Keith Bibby - yes the deficit remains and that means borrowing is still increasing. The original Osborne plan had that being the case to 2015 (Darling's based on an absurdly optimistic set of forecasts was to 2020 plus...) and now, because of Eurozone problems, Osborne's target has been re-set to 2016.
This shows the lie of Balls about 'savage cuts' - the cuts to core spending have only been 0.8%, not nearly enough.
That is why I am saying we need faster deeper cuts. Osborne has only done the minimum to keep the lenders happy.
The deficit Howard is the amount of money being spent over and above income so, yes, cuts will reduce it but its being done too slowly and not deep enough. Only when the deficit has been balanced and into surplus will we see debt levels reduce.
We need growth as well and reducing the public spending burden is part of what is needed to free up business to grow the economy.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#18
Since the Con-Dems took over, every single utility bill has been raised, fuel has risen, food has risen, the whole cost of living has increased.
Benefits have gone down, clinics and homes have closed, disabled care and children's care have been cut and much more.
Yet we are still being told that the "deficit remains" the same, so where has all this money gone?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#19
..and the food banks have doubled this year.120,000 families now rely on them.The present economic policy can only
increase this shameful situation.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#20
Barry if you where PM what do you think the uk government should cut ?
email: dover7@msn.com