|
Re: UK election results thread
Originally Posted by bcworld
(Post 11648021)
Let's be clear about the '90s recession'. The recession ended in Q3 of 1991. SIX Years later the economy had still not turned a surplus.
Finally we're in agreement that the economic performance of the two parties was not that much different over those two periods of decent economic growth. Remember this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession The UK was largely unaffected. Perhaps the ramp up in public spending was the reason why? The UK economy was the envy of Europe at the time. |
Re: UK election results thread
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11648653)
6 years after the recession it was on a debt reduction path. No? Year on year debt reduction, until Tony started destroying that. What more do you need? Perhaps you could explain to me as a TB fan (I obviously hit raw nerves attacking Labors greatest ever leader) how he could get year on year deficit increases?
I'm not taking a position on TB...simply disputing your dogma that right wing governments always do x and left wing governments always do y. So I'll take that as a yes that 6 years after a recession amounting to -1% of GDP it's OK to be running budget deficits, even when the economy has been running positive for years. Remember, we're talking about an annual budget deficit here (on the graph), no debt was being paid down, it was being added to that whole time...until 1998-2001 anyway! We're obviously not looking at the same budget deficit graph here...or you refuse to look at it. Whatever it is there's little point carrying on this circular discussion. |
Re: UK election results thread
Originally Posted by GarryP
(Post 11648017)
I really don't think you could be as silly and obtuse as that. You're trolling.
What they show is that the prime problem of debt came from the GFC and the need to bail out the banks and financial institutions. A need generated because Maggie removed regulation from those banks and financial institutions - and successive right wing pundits prevented reregulation. Thus what those graphs demonstrate is that Labour actually does as well or better as a tory administration, and that the prime problem was far right generated. That should be no surprise, the idea of cutting services/austerity has been shown to be a net negative for the economy, for the explanation given. You know full well that zeroing STEM tuition fees and supporting small business would not have been "accused supporting the rich and their business mates" - but you are right they couldn't have announced it - they are too backward looking and set on giving that money to their funders and mates in the mining industry. Face it, the far right just isn't fit to ever have a management or leadership role. They lack vision, are institutionally corrupt, and forever try to drag things backward to the 1950s. Big fan of STEM ivestment. But you know that. I've been banging on about it for years. You keep telling me it won't work. Bill Shorten must read BE. |
Re: UK election results thread
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11648670)
If you want to look back 20 years then why not go further? Why was Maggie forced to deregulate? You should be saying, yes Tony should have done a little better and been a bit more forward thinking 20 years later. You know 'what's good for the 80's may not be applicable in the naughties'. Never mind though, he is Labors greatest ever leader. :)
One is the wreaking ball; one the conservation order. You can't knock everything down or everyone's sleeping on the streets. You also can't preserve everything exactly as is, otherwise you never move forward and adapt. Right tool, right time. Blair's problem is he was too right wing - and he wasn't knocking over enough of the dangerous wobbly structures of the tory years. Imagine if the financial institutions and banks had been reined in - no Fred the Shred, no trillions in bailouts, actual accountability. Instead he was cozing up to dunce. In the end the problem is all the politicians are the wrong people to have a vision and a plan of the way forward - lawyers, accountants, pol sci majors - in short, liars who think you can redefine the world by faking the words and numbers. Forget the ideologies, rip them apart for tools, and give those tools to rational people, capable of taking onboard evidence and making concrete steps to improve things with some big system vision of how it all works. Saying which...
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11648670)
Big fan of STEM ivestment. But you know that. I've been banging on about it for years. You keep telling me it won't work. Bill Shorten must read BE.
I will say that it won't work alone, that you need a wider structure to harness it, but at heart we are in a world where one STEM major is worth 10 arts grads - and if we were rational we'd be recognising that. And saying that tuition for STEM is free, whilst arts grads have to pay, would help to ensure the best mind jumped the right way when going to college. |
Re: UK election results thread
Originally Posted by Grayling
(Post 11648443)
Why did you hate your's then?
Thought you were a 'right on neocon'...so why run away from SA? I love SA. I killed for my country - love doesn't come stronger than that! |
Re: UK election results thread
Originally Posted by Amazulu
(Post 11648704)
You're not a left-winger so I wasn't really thinking of you
I love SA. I killed for my country - love doesn't come stronger than that! You still ran away and now carry on with your pathetic right wing posturing from another country. |
Re: UK election results thread
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11648670)
If you want to look back 20 years then why not go further? Why was Maggie forced to deregulate? You should be saying, yes Tony should have done a little better and been a bit more forward thinking 20 years later. You know 'what's good for the 80's may not be applicable in the naughties'. Never mind though, he is Labors greatest ever leader. :)
Big fan of STEM ivestment. But you know that. I've been banging on about it for years. You keep telling me it won't work. Bill Shorten must read BE. She's in the news today: Margaret Thatcher backed paedophile peer even though she knew of his sordid activities | UK | News | Daily Express Thatcher's dream for UK investors has become a nightmare - Telegraph |
Re: UK election results thread
Originally Posted by OzTennis
(Post 11649011)
Maggie wasn't forced to do anything; deregulation was part of her ideology.
She's in the news today: Margaret Thatcher backed paedophile peer even though she knew of his sordid activities | UK | News | Daily Express Thatcher's dream for UK investors has become a nightmare - Telegraph |
Re: UK election results thread
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11649197)
Another glowing report for the conservatives. You lefty guys need to stop taking with one hand and giving with the other :)
|
Re: UK election results thread
Originally Posted by OzTennis
(Post 11650080)
You definitely are trolling - covered up paedophiles and the central plank of her economic policies hasn't worked. End of attempt at debate.
|
Re: UK election results thread
Originally Posted by Gibbo
(Post 11646516)
Oh my, you live in a beautiful spot. I don't immediately recognise it, it's been many years since I visited anywhere in the SW other than Dumfries. Guessing, because of the water, if Dumfries, I'd say somewhere along the Glencaple or Bankend roads. However, I tend to feel that it is in the Stewartry. Maybe above Rockcliff or Kippford, or farther along near Kirkcudbright or Gatehouse.
That's the best I've got so please put me out of my misery! |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 6:37 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.