Labour ?

Hmack posted:

Drewy posted:

The catastrophe is brewing nicely. Nothing to do with brexit. 

Perhaps you'd better explain?

Moody's downgraded Britain's rating from AAA the day after the referendum, and has stated that "the UK's  medium term outlook is weaker than it would have been had Britain voted to remain part of the EU".

It has also stated that our national credit rating might be downgraded again if the Government fails to retain access to the single market as part of its Brexit negotiations.

Just one ratings agency, but a major player in the market -  definitely something to do with Brexit!

Actually we were stripped of AAA status in 2013, though this was somewhat under-reported as it showed austerity wasn't working, and so didn't fit the preferred narrative. After the referendum result, the outlook was downgraded from stable to negative.

IMO that's one thing that reflects that Osborne was a bad chancellor but a superb shaper of political discourse - even though the strategy wasn't working, everyone agreed with it (and as evidenced here, many still broadly do). If he came back to politics, I suspect he'd be bad for the country, yet quite effective.

MDS posted:

Worth keeping some perspective about the UK's deficient, least people think we're on the point of calling in the receivers. Last year, 2016/17, the interest on the UK's debt was about £39 billion. A large number, I grant you, but the total government income for that year was over £716 billion.  So the interest represents less than 6%.  

I know the UK's debt is sometimes compared (mistakenly, IMV) to household debt. But on that basis I think most people with a mortgage would live with interest payments of that level.  And when I last looked the accumulated deficit was about £1.7tn i.e. less than 2.5 times the total annual income. Again, in household mortgage terms, hardly 'over-leveraged'.   

MDS - good points but of course a mortgage is secured against an asset which should be of greater value.  I think the Government's debt is more akin to a credit card albeit at a more competitive interest rate.

Regards,

Lindsay 

i actually believe, perhaps naively, that the country communicated a message to our political leaders at the last election.

The Tories didnt win. Neither did Labour.

my best guess at the specific message is that these two parties should try to forge some scheme to get us out of this potentially poisonous Brexit  hiatus, at least (there are other important issues -- not least terrorism in UK)

this, in my view, is a a hell of a lot better than TM trying to strike some very dirty deal with DUP -- giving this party leverage that it really doesnt deserve -- and potentially compromising British neutrality on the GF agreement.

i know there are entrenched positions on both sides -- but given all the other issues facing us -- this may be time to put this aside -- if only temporarily.

but of course, such is "politics", i dont believe such an approach would ever get any sympathy from either side -- great pity - so we end up with this extremely untidy, almost 'seedy'  situation where TM is trying, effectively, to "buy" DUP votes. This cant be good for democracy surely???

just a random thought...

enjoy...

ken

Drewy posted:

The catastrophe is brewing nicely. Nothing to do with brexit. 

The catastrophe is ENTIRELY due to Brexit, but not just the idiots that voted to leave, but the pathetic PM, her advisors and right-wing cohorts, the wooley, sheepish MPs in the Conservative party who are too wary to force a "soft/reasonable " Brexit (if we must leave !) plus the devious opposition parties who want unreasonable concessions in exchange for any wavering support. Its this entire group of pathetic little idiots that are going to screw up Brexit and the UK.

That's the second person on here, in as many days, who has referred to those who voted for Brexit as "idiots".

You really do need to wind your necks in, chaps. 

The Strat (Fender) posted:

MDS posted:

Worth keeping some perspective about the UK's deficient, least people think we're on the point of calling in the receivers. Last year, 2016/17, the interest on the UK's debt was about £39 billion. A large number, I grant you, but the total government income for that year was over £716 billion.  So the interest represents less than 6%.  

I know the UK's debt is sometimes compared (mistakenly, IMV) to household debt. But on that basis I think most people with a mortgage would live with interest payments of that level.  And when I last looked the accumulated deficit was about £1.7tn i.e. less than 2.5 times the total annual income. Again, in household mortgage terms, hardly 'over-leveraged'.   

MDS - good points but of course a mortgage is secured against an asset which should be of greater value.  I think the Government's debt is more akin to a credit card albeit at a more competitive interest rate.

Regards,

Lindsay 

Agreed, Lindsay, but even if you took a narrow definition of assets owned by government in terms of buildings etc the ONS estimated the value at about £850bn a year or so back.  Moreover, while the rest of us gear our borrowing to our income and the latter is for most households generated by earnings, government income doesn't have to plan around retirement dates.  Long-term debt is the norm, and the institutions doing the lending are normally quite keen to have the security of UK government debt (I recall reading that the tightening of pension fund regulation has added to this trend).  Unlike for us who have to go through hoops to get banks etc to lend to us, the UK gvnt has no such problem.  And of course, for HMG, inflation is a friend because it both erodes the value of the debt and inflates tax receipts used to pay off the interest e.g. today's announcement that CPI has reached at 2.9% will flow through into a bigger tax take for taxes like VAT. 

ken c posted:

i actually believe, perhaps naively, that the country communicated a message to our political leaders at the last election.

The Tories didnt win. Neither did Labour.

my best guess at the specific message is that these two parties should try to forge some scheme to get us out of this potentially poisonous Brexit  hiatus, at least (there are other important issues -- not least terrorism in UK)

this, in my view, is a a hell of a lot better than TM trying to strike some very dirty deal with DUP -- giving this party leverage that it really doesnt deserve -- and potentially compromising British neutrality on the GF agreement.

i know there are entrenched positions on both sides -- but given all the other issues facing us -- this may be time to put this aside -- if only temporarily.

but of course, such is "politics", i dont believe such an approach would ever get any sympathy from either side -- great pity - so we end up with this extremely untidy, almost 'seedy'  situation where TM is trying, effectively, to "buy" DUP votes. This cant be good for democracy surely???

just a random thought...

enjoy...

ken

 

 

I wonder who among our political leaders is big enough to genuinely seek some cross-party consensus, setting to one side party interest for the good of the country?

The seeming impasse in Northern Ireland governance might provide an opportunity. The Conservatives' need to get into bed with the DUP has made the situation even worse in the eyes of the Sinn Fein. It's very hard to see the SoS for NI being seen as impartial in trying to broker a deal to re-establish democratic government in the NI assembly.  Could TM persuade Corbyn to offer one of his frontbenchers to fulfil the brokerage role? Labour would be seen as more objective in the eyes of SF and it would be a test of the mettle of Corbyn and co to step up and do some real government work. If it worked it could be a step towards some genuine cross-party co-operation on Brexit.   

dave marshall posted:

That's the second person on here, in as many days, who has referred to those who voted for Brexit as "idiots".

You really do need to wind your necks in, chaps. 

It's ok, I've been called worse things in my time.

Its the same old thing, everything is down to brexit, they won't hear it any other way. Because they voted remain and they were defeated they want brexit to be a total failure. I find it very tiring, people need to snap out of it.

The fact is, brexit is the white elephant in the china shop.

During TM’s speech announcing the general election she said “let us put forward our plans for brexit, and our alternative programmes for government, and then let the people decide.

The tories had already put forward their plan for exit, leave the single market and leave the customs union. Well the people did decide, they decided to give that cunning plan a miss.

So, the government can’t take us out of the single market, therefore we won’t be able to implement border controls. Which is a moot point, as we’ve now realised we actually need large number of immigrants.

The only sensible option is, the major parties, get together, with a calculator, determine realistically the true cost of brexit. If the cost is too high, collectively announce the cancellation of brexit.

No one party will get the blame or the credit. It’s the only way forward.

dave marshall posted:

That's the second person on here, in as many days, who has referred to those who voted for Brexit as "idiots".

You really do need to wind your necks in, chaps. 

Why? Economically Brexit makes no sense. It's purely down to ideology. Brexit may happen, but it doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it. Global warming is happening but that doesn't mean everyone needs to like it. 

HH

Hungryhalibut posted:

dave marshall posted:

That's the second person on here, in as many days, who has referred to those who voted for Brexit as "idiots".

You really do need to wind your necks in, chaps. 

Why? Economically Brexit makes no sense. It's purely down to ideology. Brexit may happen, but it doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it. Global warming is happening but that doesn't mean everyone needs to like it. 

I would defend to the hilt your right to your opinion on the whole Brexit question, particularly where your views differ from my own.

However, calling others who may disagree with your point of view, "idiots", betrays a rather less charitable attitude, I feel.

fatcat posted:

The only sensible option is, the major parties, get together, with a calculator, determine realistically the true cost of brexit. If the cost is too high, collectively announce the cancellation of brexit.

No one party will get the blame or the credit. It’s the only way forward.

I like it. But imagine the loss of face.

MDS posted:

ken c posted:

i actually believe, perhaps naively, that the country communicated a message to our political leaders at the last election.

The Tories didnt win. Neither did Labour.

my best guess at the specific message is that these two parties should try to forge some scheme to get us out of this potentially poisonous Brexit  hiatus, at least (there are other important issues -- not least terrorism in UK)

this, in my view, is a a hell of a lot better than TM trying to strike some very dirty deal with DUP -- giving this party leverage that it really doesnt deserve -- and potentially compromising British neutrality on the GF agreement.

i know there are entrenched positions on both sides -- but given all the other issues facing us -- this may be time to put this aside -- if only temporarily.

but of course, such is "politics", i dont believe such an approach would ever get any sympathy from either side -- great pity - so we end up with this extremely untidy, almost 'seedy'  situation where TM is trying, effectively, to "buy" DUP votes. This cant be good for democracy surely???

just a random thought...

enjoy...

ken

 

 

I wonder who among our political leaders is big enough to genuinely seek some cross-party consensus, setting to one side party interest for the good of the country?

The seeming impasse in Northern Ireland governance might provide an opportunity. The Conservatives' need to get into bed with the DUP has made the situation even worse in the eyes of the Sinn Fein. It's very hard to see the SoS for NI being seen as impartial in trying to broker a deal to re-establish democratic government in the NI assembly.  Could TM persuade Corbyn to offer one of his frontbenchers to fulfil the brokerage role? Labour would be seen as more objective in the eyes of SF and it would be a test of the mettle of Corbyn and co to step up and do some real government work. If it worked it could be a step towards some genuine cross-party co-operation on Brexit.   

yes, MDS -- these are the sorts of approaches i had in mind -- and i think should definitely be considered. In my view, because i dont really believe we have any real workable alternatives. This DUP 'supply and confidence' arrangement is a very bad idea in my view and is a recipe for the very instability TM is trying to avoid, here and in NI.

the trick is to figure out how Labour can help the country without necessarily losing their identity. but i believe they should step to the mark at least till we have an agreed Brexit strategy and negotiation. The we should have another election afterwards -- only fair. then TM ill either have a clear majority or Labour will, or...?

enjoy

ken

MDS posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

MDS posted:

Worth keeping some perspective about the UK's deficient, least people think we're on the point of calling in the receivers. Last year, 2016/17, the interest on the UK's debt was about £39 billion. A large number, I grant you, but the total government income for that year was over £716 billion.  So the interest represents less than 6%.  

I know the UK's debt is sometimes compared (mistakenly, IMV) to household debt. But on that basis I think most people with a mortgage would live with interest payments of that level.  And when I last looked the accumulated deficit was about £1.7tn i.e. less than 2.5 times the total annual income. Again, in household mortgage terms, hardly 'over-leveraged'.   

MDS - good points but of course a mortgage is secured against an asset which should be of greater value.  I think the Government's debt is more akin to a credit card albeit at a more competitive interest rate.

Regards,

Lindsay 

Agreed, Lindsay, but even if you took a narrow definition of assets owned by government in terms of buildings etc the ONS estimated the value at about £850bn a year or so back.  Moreover, while the rest of us gear our borrowing to our income and the latter is for most households generated by earnings, government income doesn't have to plan around retirement dates.  Long-term debt is the norm, and the institutions doing the lending are normally quite keen to have the security of UK government debt (I recall reading that the tightening of pension fund regulation has added to this trend).  Unlike for us who have to go through hoops to get banks etc to lend to us, the UK gvnt has no such problem.  And of course, for HMG, inflation is a friend because it both erodes the value of the debt and inflates tax receipts used to pay off the interest e.g. today's announcement that CPI has reached at 2.9% will flow through into a bigger tax take for taxes like VAT. 

MDS - while HMG shouldn't have trouble in raising debt it is still evaluated in the markets as a quasi-corporate when it comes to risk & pricing etc.  The issue with the current profile of National Debt ('ND') is the way it has grown so quickly, why this has been the case (structurally e.g. are we now locked in to a year on year debt requirement even in a cycle upswing?). Take the wars out of the graphs and UK ND has historically been low/modest and back in the Thatcher years we were running budget surpluses. hence why we had the AAA rating - this also supporting £ as a global reference economy.  

Inflation, while good for debtors (borrowers), is very bad for the wider economy as it transfers wealth to the richer end of society and penalises those on low and fixed incomes (e.g. the growing realm of pensioners), with some very nasty implications .e.g. wage costs cycling. This is why the BoE is mandated to control it via monetary measures and controls. In our current economic circumstances, any material inflation (say >2% p.a.) has the ability to be very harmful, not just economically but also politically. As I mentioned a few posts back, the BoEs primary weapon for controlling inflation is interest rates - but this route in our current circumstances would seem to be ruled out?  And don't forget HMG is now a much bigger slice of the overall economy than it has been historically.  

As to pension funds and long term Gilt holders the issues can be equally profound i.e. if market rates of interest increase the capital value of the holdings fall. One of the major issues facing the pension funds has been the availability of longer term yielding assets which offer a decent return and come with an acceptable risk profile, and can be matched to their annuity/pension commitments. It remains a major challenge, especially given the volatility of the equity markets, where the returns are much higher but so are the risks to capital and income.

Happy Listener posted:

Take the wars out of the graphs and UK ND has historically been low/modest and back in the Thatcher years we were running budget surpluses. hence why we had the AAA rating - this also supporting £ as a global reference economy.

Just in the interests of party fairness (it's a thread entitled Labour, after all), I'd point out that in the Thatcher era there were budget surpluses in 3 years, then successive deficits until the 4 years with budget surpluses under Labour.

I can't/don't want to contest the rest of the analysis, but felt the need to point out that the 'Thatcher = good, Labour = bad' stereotypical folk view of economics is inaccurate.

dave marshall posted:

HH

Hungryhalibut posted:

dave marshall posted:

That's the second person on here, in as many days, who has referred to those who voted for Brexit as "idiots".

You really do need to wind your necks in, chaps. 

Why? Economically Brexit makes no sense. It's purely down to ideology. Brexit may happen, but it doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it. Global warming is happening but that doesn't mean everyone needs to like it. 

I would defend to the hilt your right to your opinion on the whole Brexit question, particularly where your views differ from my own.

However, calling others who may disagree with your point of view, "idiots", betrays a rather less charitable attitude, I feel.

Dave, you are quite correct. Calling supporters of Brexit 'idiots' was inappropriate and I apologise unreservedly. 

I think they are wrong though, but if we go ahead - and I hope and suspect we won't - we won't really know for some years.

Already Brexit has hit the £ and led to inflation of 2.9% and registration of EU nurses, when we don't have enough of our own, has dropped by 96% apparently. Very few supporters of Brexit can give a positive reason, other than keeping out the immigrants that we need to run our economy of stopping European laws that keep our own Government in check. Maximum working hours? Statutory leave? Clean beaches? All European legislation. Why do we want to get rid of it? 

I was most amused to hear Jeremy Corbin say in the Commons yesterday that he offered a strong and stable government, whereas May offered a coalition of chaos. In bed with bigots. Oh dear. 

Corbyn wants to form a government with the 'few not the many'?

I hope his new found popularity doesn't go to his head?

Hungryhalibut posted:

I was most amused to hear Jeremy Corbin say in the Commons yesterday that he offered a strong and stable government, whereas May offered a coalition of chaos. In bed with bigots. Oh dear. 

So whats new?  Its easy to promise all kind of things from the side lines like JC but its a different situation when one is in the present siruation as TM.  For all her faults she is steering the ship while JC is the disgruntled sailor dreaming of a mutiny.

dave marshall posted:

That's the second person on here, in as many days, who has referred to those who voted for Brexit as "idiots".

You really do need to wind your necks in, chaps.

I only referred to the IDIOTS that voted for Brexit, not ALL the people who voted for Brexit.

Romi posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

I was most amused to hear Jeremy Corbin say in the Commons yesterday that he offered a strong and stable government, whereas May offered a coalition of chaos. In bed with bigots. Oh dear. 

So whats new?  Its easy to promise all kind of things from the side lines like JC but its a different situation when one is in the present siruation as TM.  For all her faults she is steering the ship while JC is the disgruntled sailor dreaming of a mutiny.

It's interesting that the right (led by the press) have recently been showing quite strong anti-democratic tendencies. First has been the dismissal of those who voted for remaining in the EU even though the vote to leave was by a bare majority (remember the 'saboteurs'). Now with a hung parliament and with the Tories achieving a small majority over Labour in the popular vote, the views of the 40% who voted for Labour seem to have no legitimacy. The comment here suggests that the Tories have a legitimate right to rule whereas those who vote for something different are mutineers against that natural order!

Clive

Dave***t posted:

Happy Listener posted:

Take the wars out of the graphs and UK ND has historically been low/modest and back in the Thatcher years we were running budget surpluses. hence why we had the AAA rating - this also supporting £ as a global reference economy.

Just in the interests of party fairness (it's a thread entitled Labour, after all), I'd point out that in the Thatcher era there were budget surpluses in 3 years, then successive deficits until the 4 years with budget surpluses under Labour.

I can't/don't want to contest the rest of the analysis, but felt the need to point out that the 'Thatcher = good, Labour = bad' stereotypical folk view of economics is inaccurate.

Yes, and I seem to recall that Chancellor Gordon Brown ran a surplus or two under New Labour so the issue seems to transcend party politics.    

Hungryhalibut posted:

dave marshall posted:

HH

Hungryhalibut posted:

dave marshall posted:

That's the second person on here, in as many days, who has referred to those who voted for Brexit as "idiots".

You really do need to wind your necks in, chaps. 

Why? Economically Brexit makes no sense. It's purely down to ideology. Brexit may happen, but it doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it. Global warming is happening but that doesn't mean everyone needs to like it. 

I would defend to the hilt your right to your opinion on the whole Brexit question, particularly where your views differ from my own.

However, calling others who may disagree with your point of view, "idiots", betrays a rather less charitable attitude, I feel.

Dave, you are quite correct. Calling supporters of Brexit 'idiots' was inappropriate and I apologise unreservedly. 

I think they are wrong though, but if we go ahead - and I hope and suspect we won't - we won't really know for some years.

Already Brexit has hit the £ and led to inflation of 2.9% and registration of EU nurses, when we don't have enough of our own, has dropped by 96% apparently. Very few supporters of Brexit can give a positive reason, other than keeping out the immigrants that we need to run our economy of stopping European laws that keep our own Government in check. Maximum working hours? Statutory leave? Clean beaches? All European legislation. Why do we want to get rid of it? 

 

Regarding the desire to not have to comply with EU laws, from all I hear it seemsvery likely that  to agree any form of trading deal the EU will insist that we still comply with their laws - and without the scope for derogation or tardiness/laxness in implementation - I gather that bodies involved such as DEFRA are anticipating a huge increase in workload, and ongoing not just initially.

Sadly Brexit is showing every sign that it is going to cost the UK dear indeed. The idiots, putting it kindly, are those that without doing the necessary extensive research argued otherwise to persuade people to vote for it, and maybe those who allowed themselves to be led by sensationalist claims that pandered to prejudices.

MDS posted:

Dave***t posted:

Happy Listener posted:

Take the wars out of the graphs and UK ND has historically been low/modest and back in the Thatcher years we were running budget surpluses. hence why we had the AAA rating - this also supporting £ as a global reference economy.

Just in the interests of party fairness (it's a thread entitled Labour, after all), I'd point out that in the Thatcher era there were budget surpluses in 3 years, then successive deficits until the 4 years with budget surpluses under Labour.

I can't/don't want to contest the rest of the analysis, but felt the need to point out that the 'Thatcher = good, Labour = bad' stereotypical folk view of economics is inaccurate.

Yes, and I seem to recall that Chancellor Gordon Brown ran a surplus or two under New Labour so the issue seems to transcend party politics.    

I think it's called the economic cycle. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

MDS posted:

Dave***t posted:

Happy Listener posted:

Take the wars out of the graphs and UK ND has historically been low/modest and back in the Thatcher years we were running budget surpluses. hence why we had the AAA rating - this also supporting £ as a global reference economy.

Just in the interests of party fairness (it's a thread entitled Labour, after all), I'd point out that in the Thatcher era there were budget surpluses in 3 years, then successive deficits until the 4 years with budget surpluses under Labour.

I can't/don't want to contest the rest of the analysis, but felt the need to point out that the 'Thatcher = good, Labour = bad' stereotypical folk view of economics is inaccurate.

Yes, and I seem to recall that Chancellor Gordon Brown ran a surplus or two under New Labour so the issue seems to transcend party politics.    

I think it's called the economic cycle. 

Indeed.  It's true that during the early/mid-90s recession the Conservative fell into deficit but by 1997 had recovered very well.  Labour fell into deficit by 2002/3 and from there on no matter whoever has been in government it's been  negative.