Jump to content

General Election 2019 - AND IT’S LIVE!


Frank Grimes
 Share

X in the box for   

467 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, johnthebaptistist said:

It doesn't mean anything to you because your a typical nationalist who just sits and wibbles while your little country gets reamed, freedom my arse !!

No, it doesn't mean anything because those words in that order have literally no meaning at all.  You said jt, explain what it means.

and freaks like you want our country to be reamed forever thats your worldview you utter weirdo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

So you basically advocate a ratchet whereby debt only ever goes up. And you, like successive UK governments will therefore secretly be a big fan of inflation to inflate away the debts. Your logic eventually leads to Argentina, Zimbabwe etc. We don’t have the worlds currency to help us like the USA.

Yes, that is the reality we live in.  The alternative is to enact spending cuts so brutal for so long and tax rises so extreme the economy would grind to.a half and public order would break.down.  We live in a.bubble, but its.the only.option there.is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

So you basically advocate a ratchet whereby debt only ever goes up. And you, like successive UK governments will therefore secretly be a big fan of inflation to inflate away the debts. Your logic eventually leads to Argentina, Zimbabwe etc. We don’t have the worlds currency to help us like the USA.

That's the reality. If you think that the UK can ever realistically cut its debt to zero then you're either (a) not very bright, or (b) trolling. It might fall by a few percent here and there but never to zero. Fortunately, despite what you might have read, the impact of national debt on economic growth is based on very sketchy evidence that relied heavily on an Excel error. It's similar to the "austerity can grow the economy!" argument that cherry picks two examples and conveniently disregards the earlier instance of austerity having a damaging effect on the country's economy (just, FYI, the countries were Ireland and Denmark).

I'm not actually a big fan of "inflating away" the debt - it's almost impossible to do without ending up at a state of hyperinflation.  I've already said that in boom times, yes, the aim should be - via increased taxation and natural declines in welfare spending - to generate a surplus that can partly be used to pay off some debt. But when an "upswing" occurs, then we do it; not now. That would be stupid.

Edited by yoda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:


Fair enough & with the prospect of further downgrades post Brexit I suppose it could become more of an issue, but we're coming from a very high point in terms of creditworthiness and servicing debt is not an onerous expense to the UK currently. Sluggish economic growth is the thing to be angry at instead of debt imo.

It's £48 billion every year I believe.

That sounds pretty onerous to me. Think about what else we could do with that.

Now consider Corbyn's idea of massively increasing the debt and that subsequent repayment fee.

I agree about growth being the only way out of this but you can't rely on it.

Also, we've been downgraded at least once since 2014 and I am sure I heard we were in line for another downgrade. ETA. Noticed you just said that as well.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Kuro said:

No, it doesn't mean anything because those words in that order have literally no meaning at all.  You said jt, explain what it means.

and freaks like you want our country to be reamed forever thats your worldview you utter weirdo.

I can assure you that is certainly not my worldview, quite the opposite, but the current population led by the SNP are quite happy to be continually put down while bleating on about independence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:
48 minutes ago, oaksoft said:
It's £48 billion every year I believe.
That sounds pretty onerous to me. Think about what else we could do with that.
Now consider Corbyn's idea of massively increasing the debt and that subsequent repayment fee.
I agree about growth being the only way out of this but you can't rely on it.
Also, we've been downgraded at least once since 2014 and I am sure I heard we were in line for another downgrade. ETA. Noticed you just said that as well.

It's a big sounding number but it's only a few percent of GDP.

It is a big number full stop.

£48 billion would almost double the amount we could give to support disabled people.

It would cover half the annual state pension amount.

You would probably solve the housing crisis with it because it would create about 400,000 council houses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MixuFixit said:


For 48 billion a year we've had 2 trillion to spend on stuff now. Hence why low growth is the spanner in the works rather than absolute numbers.

What stuff?

Apparently everything is falling apart.

What tangible things have we spent £2 trillion on that made the repayments worthwhile?

Isn't a large slice of that debt due to quantitative easing?

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yoda said:

That's the reality. If you think that the UK can ever realistically cut its debt to zero then you're either (a) not very bright, or (b) trolling. It might fall by a few percent here and there but never to zero. Fortunately, despite what you might have read, the impact of national debt on economic growth is based on very sketchy evidence that relied heavily on an Excel error. It's similar to the "austerity can grow the economy!" argument that cherry picks two examples and conveniently disregards the earlier instance of austerity having a damaging effect on the country's economy (just, FYI, the countries were Ireland and Denmark).

I'm not actually a big fan of "inflating away" the debt - it's actually almost impossible to do without ending up at a state of hyperinflation.  I've already said that in boom times, yes, the aim should be - via increased taxation and natural declines in welfare spending - to generate a surplus that can partly be used to pay off some debt. But when an "upswing" occurs, then we do it; not now. That would be stupid.

Nothing, if not predictable, Yoda. Just when do think times were ever good enough to start reducing debt? Your attitude ends up at payday lenders (junk bonds) borrowing on shite terms or at the pawn shop handing over assets (to China). All the time waiting for that big win at the bookies that’s coming up at the weekend (after the next election).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Nothing, if not predictable, Yoda. Just when do think times were ever good enough to start reducing debt? Your attitude ends up at payday lenders (junk bonds) borrowing on shite terms or at the pawn shop handing over assets (to China). All the time waiting for that big win at the bookies that’s coming up at the weekend (after the next election).

That's naive the economy of a state is nothing like an individual or a household.  What will probably happen is eventually our debt problems will lead to our governments using our mi!itary to assauge them.  WWIII when china wants paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, johnthebaptistist said:

I can assure you that is certainly not my worldview, quite the opposite, but the current population led by the SNP are quite happy to be continually put down while bleating on about independence. 

What?  You just haver utter pish.  Just shut up you total weirdo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MixuFixit said:


The QE one is interesting because the debtor and creditor are both the B of E.

A certain proportion of virtually every bit of government expenditure has been supported by that 2 trillion. Lots of things are falling down and a strong case could be made for more borrowing and more state intervention but that's poison to Tories.

To be fair, the QE thing isn't something I fully understand but I am aware of it.

As far as more borrowing is concerned, I think you're going to get that no matter who gets in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it ironic that those who were beating the Tories up with the debt clock as they tried to sort the economy and get it on an even keel are now the same people advocating spending £hundreds of billions on planting trees, nationalising railways and a high speed broadband give away. Even the Nationalists who were goading the Tories claiming their economic measures in deficit reduction wasn't working just want to get their hands on their own credit cards so they can piss away more money than we could ever afford. 

 

 

Edited by Malky3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kuro said:

That's naive the economy of a state is nothing like an individual or a household.  What will probably happen is eventually our debt problems will lead to our governments using our mi!itary to assauge them.  WWIII when china wants paid.

Great. 

You know what? Call me a wuss, but I would rather we spent 5% less and taxed 5% more, than end up playing nuclear strike chicken with China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

Isn't it ironic that those who were beating the Tories up with the debt clock as they tried to sort the economy and get it on an even keel are now the same people advocating spending £hundreds of billions on planting trees, nationalising railways and a high speed broadband give away. Even the Nationalists who were goading the Tories claiming their economic measures in deficit reduction wasn't working just want to get their hands on their own credit cards so they can piss away more money than we could ever afford. 

 

 

We could have full fiscal autonomy, which, at least we would be making our own decisions.  As the status quo prevails, we have to watch the westminster boys club jizzing away squillions on mainly london and the south east, while we have to doff our cap and await the glorious lords, masters and overlords handing us our pocket money.

At least if we were the authors and drivers of our own destiny, this current subservience would be finished for good.  If it took a number of years for full adjustment to Independence to be realised, then i'd be happier treading in our own murky puddles, rather than being continually shat upon from a great height by westminster, whilst being held on a very tight leash.

I'm not interested in any of your copy and paste £12.6bn wanking material. You should be aware that, despite your self-proclaimed position as the oracle on all things Indy, there are many like me who have had enough of living in one of the non-equal countries in a "union of equal partners".    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Great. 

You know what? Call me a wuss, but I would rather we spent 5% less and taxed 5% more, than end up playing nuclear strike chicken with China.

But you're talking 50% not five, for decades.  It's not feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MixuFixit said:
3 hours ago, oaksoft said:
It's £48 billion every year I believe.
That sounds pretty onerous to me. Think about what else we could do with that.
Now consider Corbyn's idea of massively increasing the debt and that subsequent repayment fee.
I agree about growth being the only way out of this but you can't rely on it.
Also, we've been downgraded at least once since 2014 and I am sure I heard we were in line for another downgrade. ETA. Noticed you just said that as well.

It's a big sounding number but it's only a few percent of GDP.

It is a big number. About 5% of al gov spending. Two thirds of all Education spend. One third of all Health spend. As much as defence. More than Public Order & Safety. More than Housing. More than Social Services. Twice what we spend on Transport. And this is just to tread water and pay the interest only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dominic Rabb's a c**t pass it on.....     

 

                                                                               https://news.sky.com/story/harry-dunn-foreign-secretary-dominic-raab-defends-seeking-legal-costs-from-family-11865519

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kuro said:

But you're talking 50% not five, for decades.  It's not feasible.

Why? Gov spends £800bn pa. And is currently paying £48bn pa interest. So take an extra £40bn tax and spend £40bn less and you can pay down £32bn debt pa. For decades, admittedly.

Since we’re talking China - the longest journey starts with a single step...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...