Don’t get me started on the media, today listening to the radio on the way home the main stories were:

News of the world phone hacking
Murdoch’s bid to seize the rest of BSkyB
The cutting of the world service
Sheridan goes to jail for perjuring himself during a legal battle with a paper.

Soon, we will only have news about news* and the denial of the public right to know what is really going on out there will be complete. All this from a supposedly impartial broadcaster.

*[EDIT] Better stick a wink in here: 😉

Don’t get me started on the media

Why?
Are you as well infomed on this as on the Noble prizes ?
Better stick a wink in here 😉

didnt the figures actually show a 0% growth for last qtr once the effects of poor December weather on consumer spending was removed from the equation

It had other effects besides consumer spending…

Are you as well infomed on this as on the Noble prizes ?

LOL. 😆

My point was that because someone has a Nobel prize, does not mean that they are infallible and using quotes from one particular individual does not an argument win. Useful to reinforce a point but ‘he says this so it must be true’ doesn’t really cut it.

I keep on seeing the same old faces popping up to defend their own favourite lying thieves, whatever end of the political spectrum they come from but no one is talking about the real issues, like the sanity of perpetuating a system that requires everlasting growth just to afford to pay its own debts. The wisdom of allowing governments to be in the pockets of the corporations. That were taken into 2 illegal wars on false premises at the behest of those business interests most likely to profit from them.

Erm ok I agree with most of that – but that wasn’t what this thread was about. And are you really claiming people don’t talk about, eg the fact that we were taken into two illegal wars? No never seen any discussion of that on here. 😕

My point was that because someone has a Nobel prize, does not mean that they are infallible and using quotes from one particular individual does not an argument win. Useful to reinforce a point but ‘he says this so it must be true’ doesn’t really cut it.

No, but don’t you think it’s interesting that the head of the CBI said basically the same thing. And of course then there’s the actual figures themselves. I’m not claiming to be definitely right of course, but it doesn’t look good does it.

Certainly appears to be working.. didnt the figures actually show a 0% growth for last qtr once the effects of poor December weather on consumer spending was removed from the equation ?

Yes, except the actual effect of the weather is a complete guess – could be more could be less. And even if it’s right it still means we went from recession, to growth, now back to no growth – and this is before the effect of the cuts properly kicks in.

i know i had to google it as i was not sure iirc a noble prize winner was in to homeopathy.
Good points grumm

Erm ok I agree with most of that – but that wasn’t what this thread was about.

I was responding to your question as to whether I have a better explanation of why we are entering a double dip recession than ‘The Tories did it’. I might have deviated slightly at the end. 😳

the head of the CBI said basically the same thing. And of course then there’s the actual figures themselves. I’m not claiming to be definitely right of course, but it doesn’t look good does it.

It looks absolutely horrendous whichever way you look at it, but I think if Labour kept going the way they were going they would have run us all into the ground before admitting they wrong. That or they would have had to make cuts in much the same way as the coalition. As it is, we will never know. Now it is the Tories turn to do it in a subtly different way rather than tackling the major issues like monetary and banking reform.

went from recession, to growth, now back to no growth

I think that the ‘to growth’ bit was an illusion caused by pumping billions of borrowed pounds into the economy. It will come back and bite us much harder in the end than the legitimate suffering of a housing readjustment ever would have done.

On the subject of TFD

Sancho:
“yes 82 was the high point of TFD, but it was coming down, and then started rising again under Labour.”

You seem very pleased that it fell from its highest point in history, though that’s kind of what highest point means. The Tories presided over a net rise- yes it did fall but it didn’t fall as far as it rose.

In a nutshell:
Under Labour fell every year from 75 to 79
Tories take over 79, immediately rises hard every year til 82. Then falls again til 1993 but throughout the whole time of government only twice is it less than in 78.
Begins to rise again in 94 and trends upwards pretty constantly til 2002.
Labour of course take over in 1997 and it continued to trend upwards before falling again to exactly the 2002 level in 2010.
Labour absolute highest point (June 4th I believe) was lower than 7 of the Tories’ 17 years. Their average is substantially lower than the tories.

Here is a nice graph, unfortunately can’t get it to hotlink:
http://www.adamsmith.org/tax/Tax%20Freedom%20Day/About%20TFD_files/DatesOverTimeGraph.png

So there you go- Tories the party of high tax, by a country mile.

It’s really boring, the way people of a certain political persuasion always have to pin the blame for all the problems of the economy on the party which they oppose. Grow up guys!

Any rational person would understand that there is culpability on both sides and as we had 13 years of Labour, they played a massive part in causing the mess we are in right now.

You can try and blame banks and the global situation, but ultimately, the governments of the day permitted the reckless lending and encouraged profligate personal spending because they lusted for the additional tax revenues! If they so impotent in running the affairs of the nation, why do we bother to have any political party in power?? If this is true, parlianent seems like a total waste of money to me!

By default, socialist governments spend like crazy in order to bribe the poorer element of electorate. The longer the socialists spend, the more broke we become, damaging the economy and more people end up one pay cheque from state dependency. The socialist admininsration regard this as a win win situation which is why they accelerate spending with borrowed money which you and I and future generations will have to pay for. People not yet even born will be bearing the brunt of this wastefulness and the cynical politicians of the last administration are well aware that they will be dead and buried long before the shit really hits the fan. Shame on them!

In the UK we rock from left to right administrations in an unending cycle of political and economic stupidity. The left spend spend spend and the right try to rectify the damage, cutting back and often throwing the baby out with the bath water.

After a lengthy period of conservative government, the coffers are recharged just in time for Labour to come in and spend it all (and some). Labour then claim how brilliant they are, but in reality, they would not have the opportunity to provide such luxuries unless a Conservative goverment had provided the funds. The conservatives tell us how good the books are looking whilst we see little benefit. We just have to pay more for less.

Neither parties get to do the right thing it seems. The left are funded by a bunch of union thugs and the right are funded by a bunch of toffs. Both sides are detached from reality! The normal person in the wide band in between these extremes is not represented, but are just deceived. The electorate vote according to what they as individuals will get out of the deal, not for what is best for the future prosperity of the nation. The system is corrupt and broken and no politicians can be trusted as they just lie through their teeth!

All I know is that being in the middle ground makes me the enduring cash cow for the luxuries afforded to those who haven’t earned them and knowing the rich are able to swerve paying their fair share. I get no support and little benefit back from the mountain of cash i have paid in cash throughout my life, not from either party, coallition or whatever the party of the day is. The situation sucks and makes me want to emmigrate!

Politicians of any persuasion need to focus on building prosperity and allowing a great deal more social justice. For individuals, personal responsibility, hard work and consideration of others is what is required, but we are all too wrapped up in ourselves to make a value judgement when casting our vote. In light of this, I think democracy is a big fail!

Happy days!

. The situation sucks and makes me want to emmigrate!

Bye

I wonder where you think its better – remembering that actually in the UK we pay low taxes compared to most similar countries and get more for our taxers.

I guess you don’t use the roads, will never fall ill, have not ridden trail centres, did not go to school and so on – all funded from taxation,

In the UK we rock from left to right administrations in an unending cycle of political and economic stupidity.

It’s the same everywhere!

I get no support and little benefit back from the mountain of cash i have paid in cash throughout my life

You can’t go to the doctors then? Drive on roads, put your kids in school? You don’t have your rubbish collected? You don’t benefit from economic development? You didn’t have an education yourself?

Actually, you are being that short sighted, perhaps you haven’t 🙂

remembering that actually in the UK we pay low taxes compared to most similar countries and get more for our taxers.

You see TJ – the problem is, that thats impossible, unless you fund it by borrowing! (i.e. just what Gordon did)

You either pay higher taxes, or you get less, you cannot have it both ways!

Zulu – wrong. The NHS is the example – funded from taxation whereas in say Germany you pay more tax than here then you pay insurance for your healthcare on top of the tax you pay

So we pay less tax here than germany – and get more for it – ‘cos healthcare is included here.

The NHS is very efficient – this is why this can happen. German healthcare cost much more to administrate

You see you shouldn’t believe the tory propaganda – use your scepticism on it.

The reality is we are low tax and low spending with an efficient public services.

The reality is we are low tax and low spending with an efficient public services.

Yes, the Thatcherite policies that you so despise really improved our country, I’m glad you’ve come around to my way of thinking at last – Imagine where we would have been without them 😆

You either pay higher taxes, or you get less, you cannot have it both ways! – zulu

Zulu – wrong. So we pay less tax here than germany – and get more for it – ‘cos healthcare is included here. TJ

I’m glad you’ve come around to my way of thinking at last – zulu
So he has come round to your way of thinking by explaining why your view was wrong ….your logic, as always , is rock solid.

The NHS is very efficient

We now have more bureaucrats and administrators in the NHS than we have hospital beds.

– Nick Clegg, campaigning in London, 3 May 2010

To me this would imply that we are not as highly efficient as you seem to think.

Or that nick clegg is talking balderdash. Teh NHS is far more than inpatient hospitals and infact inpatinet beds have been falling for decades as treaments become more effective and efficinet

Continual reorganising has lead to higher admin costs but the last comparison I wsaw was that NHS admin costs were half of those of the german healthcare system – mainly due to the simple funding in the UK. Teh picture will not be so good in England now due to political nonsense – foundation trusts for example

We now have more bureaucrats and administrators in my doctor surgery than we have Doctors
well they have admin staff to answer the phone who work PT so there are more of them than Dr, one who deals with general admin for the whole centre , centre manager etc. It makes a good headline but what can be done as they need a lot of support to free up doctors to do their job. Would you prefer the Dr answers the phone and books appointments to reduce admin and bureaucracy or just treat people ?

Or that nick clegg is talking balderdash.

Factcheck seem to disagree but don’t let that get in your way.

It is weird that all of the people I know who work for the NHS seem to bitch about it all the time but when someone else criticises it they leap to it’s defence. It is similar to the way that parents treat their kids.

Someone recently said that the NHS is the closest thing we have to a national religion and it would appear TJ that you are an evangelist. The thing is that health provision should not be an emotional affair, it should be guided by reason and good accounting.

From an article in the Telegraph in 2008:

NHS productivity fell by 2.0 per cent a year between 2001 and 2005, according to the Centre for the Measurement of Government Activity, the ONS unit that monitors public spending. That was the period of the biggest funding increase in NHS history.

From 2005 to 2006, productivity fell less quickly, by 0.2 per cent.

From 1995 to 2006, the NHS annual budget more than doubled from £39 billion to £89.7 billion.

As I said before, I am no fan of the Tories but to hear you lot bleat on about Labour as if it were all okay before the coalition was formed just makes me laugh.

It is a perfect example of fitting the world to your viewpoint rather than adjusting your viewpoint to fit the world.

Reason and good accounting eh

There are simple reasons why productivity in that crude measure fell

1) More flexibility = more waste. Long waiting times mean you can plan to use 100% of resources. want to be flexible you cannot as you need to leave capacity spare to create the flexibility

2) improvements in care. Spend more on treating one patient with a better outcome it appears as lower productivity

You see on healthcare I like facts and evidence based practice not cant and propaganda – and I have no time for some of Labours policies on healthcare either

The thing is that health provision should not be an emotional affair, it should be guided by reason and good accounting.

Good accounting? Is that why the NHS needs all those managers?

1) More flexibility = more waste. Long waiting times mean you can plan to use 100% of resources. want to be flexible you cannot as you need to leave capacity spare to create the flexibility

That is interesting and I am sure in some measure true but to more than double the spending and not see a considerable productivity gain is a propagandists wet dream and rightly so.

Do you not understand – output increased greatly – productivity fell for the two reasons I put.

Those two measures actually have little meaning in the context of healthcare. Price of everything and value of nothing.

£four trillion debt any one? borrowing money we have no chance of paying back anyone? its a cumulative effect. labour put us in this position then obviously pulled the wool over every ones eye with quantative easing (or borrowing on top of the massive debt we’ve already accumulated). by the way i didn’t vote tory. i voted bnp (joking) it was UKIP (still joking). tandem jeremy for nick griffins position; i think you’ld make a good politician. 😆

We could bat statistics back and forth all day I am sure, but from what I have read and what I have seen, the labour government poured money into the NHS and for every 100 they put in they got 10 back out. Healthcare has improved but not in the order of magnitude of expenditure.

Anyways, this has nowt to do with a double dip recession so I shall at this point bow out of this exchange.

TJ – Serious question – Are you, by any chance, Polly Toynbee’s next door neighbour?

Its just that I read her articles in the Guardian and the country she lives in seems fantastic. Its a socialist utopia built by Gordon and Tony.

Judging from your posts, you must live there too. Just the two of you. You and Polly. I wish I did. It sounds great. The country I live in is nothing like that at all unfortunately 🙁

yes but your country has Hora …every cloud has asilver lining

So there you go- Tories the party of high tax, by a country mile.

I’m not sure that it is fair to describe it as “by a country mile”. Yes maybe if you look at the whole picture taxation is a bit higher under the Tory governments than under Labour governments, but I’m sure some would want to argue that there are mitigating circumstances to explain this fact.

What is absolutely indisputable is that the Tories are NOT the party of low tax, despite the almost universally believed myth – even some on the left fall for that one.

And something else which is also false, is the other universally believed myth that the Tories are the party of low government spending. If you look at public spending as percentage of GDP between 1979 and 1997 when the Tories were in government, you will see that it averages over 40%. In the period between 1997 and 2010 when Labour were in power, it averages below 40%.

The claim that the Tories are the party of low taxation and low public spending, whilst labour are the party of high taxation and high public spending, is a complete, but very successful, myth.

And we are witnessing the creation of a completely new myth today – the myth that Labour are the party of budgetary deficits, whilst the Tories on the other hand are the party of budgetary balances.

In the period since the end of the second world war Britain has almost always experienced budgetary deficits. Even throughout the 1950s, a period when the British people were famously told by a Conservative prime minister “you’ve never had it so good” Britain had budget deficits.

There has only been 4 occasions since the end of WW2 when Britain hasn’t had budget deficits. 3 of those occasions occurred under Labour governments. Only once since the end of the War has Britain not had a budget deficit under the Tories. Despite the fact that he Tories have been in power most of that time.

The problem for the Tories is that they are not generally seen as the party which naturally serves the interests of ordinary people, that role has been historically been associated with the Labour Party.

The Tories however need to win general elections, if they are to serve the interests of the wealthiest sections of society. So they have very successfully, with the help of their billionaire buddies in the media, created myths which say that whilst Labour might have the best intentions, it is they who can manage the economy best. And that ultimately benefits everyone (trickle-down economics as Ronald Reagan called it)

It is a common perception amongst working class people, that despite the fact that they don’t like the Tories, the Tories must be better at managing a capitalist economy – they are after all capitalists themselves.

There is a certain amount of logic there, however, actual facts prove this to be false. The problem with capitalism is capitalism itself. So for capitalism to work best, it requires governments which accept the failings of capitalism – something which is more likely to come from a Labour government.

And it is for this reason that the interventionist economic policies of John Maynard Keynes have historically been so successful. Keynes was not a socialist btw. It is also precisely for this reason that we are in mess today – decades of a deluded belief that capitalism and the markets always know best.

Binners – no I live in the real world not the world of tory (or labour) propaganda. For example – crime – down dramatically and significantly under labour. Its not what the propaganda sheets would have you believe but there is no doubt this is true.

I repeatedly say that many of the policies of Labour are not to my liking, that I don’t always vote labour.

However I do live in the real world where I can see the results of increased healthcare spending.

With that I too will bow out as we are a long way from the original premise which has bee so succinctly put to bed by Ernie.

TandemJeremy – Member

“Reason and good accounting eh
There are simple reasons why productivity in that crude measure fell
2) improvements in care. Spend more on treating one patient with a better outcome it appears as lower productivity”

This is the one that boils my blood… When I broke my hip, I was given a very modern treatment which was a lot more complex than the traditional hip replacement and increased my hospital time. It also increased the physio time enormously, and chances are there’ll be more surgery and more physio at some point. So that’s inefficient apparently. But the reason there was so much more physio, is that a hip replacement would have had no real possibility of a full recovery, whereas with the in-situ traction methods it’s possible to have almost a normal functioning, durable leg.

So it’s inefficient but it’s lifechanging. I’d not be posting on here if I’d had a full hip replacement I reckon because it’s not likely I’d be riding bikes. And I’m hardly alone. So screw your inefficiency- modern medicine is more complex, more expensive, often more time consuming and far, far better.

This made me laugh this morning

😀

As I said before, I am no fan of the Tories but to hear you lot bleat on about Labour as if it were all okay before the coalition was formed just makes me laugh.
It is a perfect example of fitting the world to your viewpoint rather than adjusting your viewpoint to fit the world.

No, new Labour were in most ways a huge dissapointment, and I didnt vote for them last time. They did do a few good things though.

The new government has done a few good things too, but mostly really awful things.

George Soros tells David Cameron: change direction or face recession

So thats the outgoing Head of the CBI, A nobel prize winning economist and now a man who makes fortunes on the markets all telling Osbourne athat he is wrong. Quite a bit of economic expertise there compared to Osbournes 🙄

TandemJeremy – Member

George Soros tells David Cameron: change direction or face recession

So thats the outgoing Head of the CBI, A nobel prize winning economist and now a man who makes fortunes on the markets all telling Osbourne athat he is wrong. Quite a bit of economic expertise there compared to Osbournes

I think he might as well resign if he needs to listen to all those “experts”. He should have a bet with them to see if they can run the economy properly.

As a leader he can either listen to everyone who thinks s/he is an expert or run it his own way. The decision is his so good or bad he must live by it.

The rest of the so-called financial/economy experts … why not be a politician and stand for an election to change things for good rather trying to look clever?

🙄

Well said, Northwind.

The rest of the so-called financial/economy experts … why not be a politician and stand for an election to change things for good rather trying to look clever?

Because George Soros has worked his way from being a waiter, to become the 35th richest man in the world (despite giving £millions away) solely by speculating and working the financial markets – something he could not have done if he had been merely a politician ?

To be fair though, George Soros is passionately against free-market neo-liberalism – he coined the phrase “market fundamentalists”, so I would hardly expect him to be supporting David Cameron’s economic gobbledygook.

So it’s inefficient but it’s lifechanging. I’d not be posting on here if I’d had a full hip replacement I reckon because it’s not likely I’d be riding bikes. And I’m hardly alone. So screw your inefficiency- modern medicine is more complex, more expensive, often more time consuming and far, far better.

Great to hear. Personally I am happy to pay more tax to hear more stories like that.

George Soros has worked his way from being a waiter, to become the 35th richest man in the world (despite giving £millions away) solely by speculating and working the financial markets – something he could not have done if he had been merely a politician ?

we should establish whether he has a “short” position on the UK economy before giving him air time. Or does that not matter as long as he agrees with your point?

I repeatedly say that many of the policies of Labour are not to my liking, that I don’t always vote labour.

who else UKIP? 😉