Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#21
would make an intresting bye elction,a 2000 vote win,could be a close call.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#22
No PaulB - totally different.
The deficit is the amount spent day in day out in excess of income.
This is like having an income of £2,000 a month and spending £2,800 a month with the difference being added to the credit card and paying off only the minimum as part of the £2,800 you are spending. In doing so you are building up debt that has to be serviced and that adds more and more interest increasing the deficit even further.
Debt is the amount of capital you owe - different.
The problem is this...
According to Keyseyan economic theory (much applauded by Labour) you can increase the deficit in the bad times to cover the fall in tax revenue and pay for increased out of works benefits and possibly some infrastructure projects to help 'stimulate' the economy. So far so good.
The problem was that Keynes also says that the deficit should be reduced/balanced and debt repaid in the growth part of the economic cycle.
It is the latter part Labour ignored and did the opposite.
Look at what happened in the 1990 recession, a deficit was allowed to grow in the Keynseyan style and was starting to be reduced during the recovery, by 1997 when Blair/Brown were elected, Ken Clarke was making inroads into the deficit. Indeed that deficit reduction, fuelled by economic growth was subject to an election pledge by Brown to carry on limiting spend plans to those planned by Ken Clarke. Spending through to 2001 by Labour, at least what was 'on balance sheet', did indeed meet that pledge and the deficit carried on reducing and was on course to be eliminated by the next cyclical downturn. (I will not get into Brown's off balance sheet fiddling here). Once the period of the spending pledge was over Brown reversed policy and started increasing spending and reversed the deficit reduction. By 2007 when the downturn started the economy was already struggling under the weight of a massive deficit so that the economic damage (acknowledged by Darling) of not addressing it was worse than that of reducing the deficit during the downturn.
Ideally you would not reduce spending in a downturn but when you have the starting point of a massive deficit already then you have no sensible alternative but to cut it.
I have said it before... Brown boasted he had 'banned boom and bust' and ran the economy as if he really had, to all our cost.
Remember - the economy always works in cycles of growth and contraction, it is like a law of nature. In the growth phase and when things are all going well it is the time to prepare for when things get worse, build up reserves and get rid of debt. That is what Brown failed to do, he did the opposite.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#23
There are plenty of people around who think when labour get in at the next election (which they will) everything will be fine.
They're in cuckooland
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#24
Stop all china's imports across the west and see all the factories and production come back, and jobs and growth.
This coupled with realistic working practise especially in the public sector.
Ie, give the employers the rights to employ as he thinks fit to run his business whiteout overburdening unworkable employment rights.
This should get rid of the need for parasitical employment agencies tacking a cut of workers money, freeing up money to spend in the grater economy.
Dump the EU and stop free movement of cheep labour from countries with currencies that are not reasonably balanced with the £ the Mark, the gilder, frank, dollar
Reform HSE, based on commonsense.
Build prisons and bring back the rope.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#25
# 17 ...spot on...every country was caught out.....any Government would have had a
deficit...
For two years we have had zero...sometimes minus..economic growth.
Without economic growth we will lose our AAA status and we will have no chance
reducing the deficit.
We need Plan ``B``
Mencsch is a pebble in the pond..............
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#26
plan b reg?
our chancellor will not countenance such a thing, he is a rabbit caught in the headlights.
hopefully his degree in history will see us through this economic crisis.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#27
I shall look at this in the cold light of day...I am far too prone to humour at the moment. (I'm sure something serious can be said...in the fullness of time)
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#28
looking like to the world we are seen as also rans
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 663- Registered: 20 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,136
#29
I can not say that I am sorry to see Louise Mensch go, as PaulB has said she was one very irritating lady she enjoyed the lime light, and she certianly did her fair share of Labour bashing.
She is sighting family commitments as part of the reason for the move to America, surely that is something you think about before taking on such a time consuming job as an MP.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#30
To be fair to cameron he did move mountains to try to accomodate this lady.
as for labour bashing, seems a lot of people doing that these days.
any update jan on what labour would do in govt different to the co olition???
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 663- Registered: 20 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,136
#31
Sadly Keith that is not my call thats for those on high to decide.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#32
Reg - oh do stop your repeating your fantasies. Just because the UK was not alone in irresponsible deficit spending during the growth cycle does not excuse the sheer irresponsibility of what they did.
Got caught out you say!!! what a joke. You, it seems, too believed Brown's conceit when he claimed he had banned boom and bust. No-one with even the slightest knowledge of the economy believed that, even if that ass Brown did.
Incidentally - no, not every government went on unsustainable spending sprees like Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland the UK and a few others. Germany did not, Norway did not, neither did most of our competitors in the Far East.
If you want to make a credible argument then you have to provide figures from reliable economic sources that can challenge what I am saying. But you cannot because I am telling it straight. Just repeating your fantasies about the economy does not make them true.
Keith (B)
I have sympathy with much of what you say except:
1/ A trade war would be massively destructive to the UK far more so than free trade. There are many lessons in history that show this so no stopping of China's imports - the UK, a trading nation, would suffer most.
2/ Employment agencies do a necessary and important job that help youngsters in particular get into jobs and I mean permanent full time jobs. The route may be via temporary short-term working but that is only a stage on the way for those who prove themselves. They also help companies remain competitive and solvent in slack periods. The flexibility they provide is essential to help retain and increase employment. 'Freeing up money' no - it would reduce margins and make companies less competitive, encourage more risk adverse employment and growth strategies. This would reduce job security not increase it as well as reduce the overall number of jobs.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#33
Getting back to this self promoting woman...
Who needs protectionism when you can just move to the United States?!
Also who needs to admit to doing Class A drugs when your husband manages Metallica and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. It's not as if these bands are 'anti drugs'. (even youth cannot be used as an excuse).
Louise Mensch has just shown herself to be a 'Master of Puppets' and by the time she reaches the states I'm sure this will all be water 'Under the Bridge'. (Westminster perhaps)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#34
doesn't live down your road though darren.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#35
No Howard, she 'lives' in Corby. I'm sure her children are at that 'free school' that she mentions in the letter reproduced by Barry.
In fairness, I don't really see as if she has any problem maintaining her seat. 'Living' in Corby, is totally possible whist 'living' in New York.
On an a unrelated note: I took the tunnel over to France last week and had a great day 'living' in France.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#36
Barry.
There are too many agencies all trying to undercut each other. it's just a race to the bottom.
Agencies prudes nothing, they sell nothing.
All they do is take a cut, it's just an extra form of tax on the workers doing the jobs, the jobs already exists
The purpose of agencies among factory worker construction worker and the lower paid jobs is to, Sercombe navigate employment law,
If you do away with utopian employment practises you do not need the bourdon of agencies.
British Workers detest agencies; they don't like paying a %. Of there money to a midlmad.
Amongst the working class, the political party that abolishes agencies gets the vote.
These agencies treat workers like shit; they even take weekly admin fees from workers to process there tax and national insurance.
(Pay to get paid) it's just not right.
PS. we sell more to the Irish than china, it's a one way street in trade.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#37
You made me smile there Howard - £60,000 for a Market-Manager indeed.
Roger
Judith Roberts- Registered: 15 May 2012
- Posts: 637
#38
I work in Louis Mensch's Corby and East Northants. constituency. It is an unusual constituency being comprised of Corby a working class town that prospered with the heyday of the steel industry and very upmarket rural villages and the public school dominated market town Oundle. It is a very beautiful area, much like the Cotswolds, but without the tourists. There is a perceived image of Corby as a deprived town, it was in the 80s, but it has managed to attract a lot of new industry to the town and has a lot going for it now. Corby is still dominated by families who moved down from Glasgow to work in the steel industry who will always vote labour. The more rural areas will always vote conservative. I am sure labour will win a bye-election now, but in a general election it will always follow the national trend.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#39
Keith (B) Competition is a good thing. If you want to make British businesses less competitive by reducing how efficiently they deal with peaks and troughs in orders then by all means ban agencies. That will just result in lost orders for British businesses, fewer jobs, bankruptcies and more unemployment.
Having two sons who started with different agencies and now both in full time work for local companies I can see how they benefit the young unemployed school leavers as well.
Protectionism in trade will also seriously damage our economy. It is not just a matter of how much we sell to China, it is a developing market and utilising that market in both production and sales is beneficial. Start putting up trade blocks and it will end in tears for the UK as that kind of thing can escalate - even wars have started for less reason than that. Incidentally - I observe developments in China professionally as well, as it is an increasingly important investment opportunity. China's economic growth is now shifting from one driven by capital investment to one driven by consumer demand. This is a natural development cycle for an emerging economy and I am not sure just how long we can even regard China as developing any more. This presents a massive export market to us and you are suggesting locking our businesses out of it.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#40
Very interesting stuff all round...interesting one Judith. Small world isnt it. I'm sure you know Judith what she looks like, but in case one or two of the guys are having trouble putting a face to the name her she is...
If she was having trouble finding time for the kids, did she have to take on all those extra roles...HoC committees, late night TV appearances and so on, no not at all...but she gobbles up limelight. The picture shows her on one such committee, every single time the cameras were on she sat forward and poor old Damian Collins, who I was trying to get a picture of one time as he is the Folkestone MP, was eclipsed.... she always sat totally forward always completely blocking him out of camera shot..!!lol Grrrrr!!
In the end I got a picture of her and gave up on him..what can ye dooo
I will eat my hat if Labour dont win that seat now. Current trend is drifting towards Labour. I heard the guy from Conservative Home on 'the World Tonight' last night and he was expressing much doubt and concern on Camerons leadereship,,,he said the current kerfuffle/failure with Clegg on boundary changes could cost the Conservatives 20 seats at the next election...the massed ranks of Tories are not happy with Camerons failure to woo Clegg on this one. Much disgruntlement with the rank and file.
