The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[RED-DOG]

I can't decide whether this thread makes it's protagonists happy or angry.

[kukushkin88]

Just the constant insults about my, and others, level of intellect get very waring, especially from someone believed by the boss, to be such a nice guy.......

You have been missing for ages searching for another source(no doubt you will claim you haven't)

I fully understand many arguments you put up on here, but when given an answer rather than prove your point, you just slag people off with put downs, maintaining they don't understand your point. Not the case, its called discussion, and you need to be pulled up on it.


In terms of the report you have directed us too, it still doesn't prove the previous report was as factual as you made out, in fact it has f all to do with it, citing prevention as the cure for better health care, very little to do with austerity and nothing that proves your point.

In fact it was hard to take a report serious that within the first few lines of content has such appalling mistakes on a Public Health document

 Prevention leads to longer and health lives

 For too long policymakers have failed to health
 and health services as a risk to be managed rather.

Please don't post a link to a long document you(probably haven't read yourself) think will validate your point, when it totally doesn't, in the hope the shear length of it will give folk the impression you are reading all this guff, and therefore a level above some of us.

You have been, and will be, exposed, so you best up your game old lad.

All that I’m evidencing is that austerity causes unnecessary deaths (loads of them). No one has credibly claimed that it doesn’t, you seemed happy enough with Doobs post on the subject

You can’t seriously think I spent the whole weekend looking for that report? It’s like the 6th returned google result, I found it in approx 8 seconds during a time out in Pats/Pitts game and read it this morning. You really think it isn’t a causative factor in deaths, it is what the report is about, clearly.

[Jon MW]

The vast majority of that borrowing was under the coalition and the Tories. It could be argued that austerity held back the economy and caused increased borrowing.

Present public expenditure (% of GDP) is much the same as it was under Labour pre-crisis.  And the present government thinks it's fine to go on a spending splurge, if their recent statements are to believed.  So I suppose you won't be voting for them either.

A lot of the borrowing may have been done under the coalition and the Tories - but that's not what austerity ever meant.

Austerity wasn't to stop borrowing - it was to reduce it.

Click to see full-size image.

This is the first chart that came up, so there are others, but however you measure it the shape is pretty much the same.

But - obviously - a lot of the borrowing was done under the coalition and the Tories, because to stop borrowing at all we have to at least reduce the amount we have borrowed to start with.

I agree it might seem a bit reckless to start going a spending spree now, economically it would suggest further austerity packages should be put in place instead.

[kukushkin88]

Latest figures I’ve seen (article in The Times; sorry I can’t post a link as it’s beyond the paywall) indicate that the UK gov is spending £54bn per annum servicing interest on a national debt of about £1.6tn

And this is with interest rates at near all time lows for the period.

I’m sure Tighty will be able to trace the piece if he has the time & inclination.

Labour would have us believe that their “borrow more to invest in the economy (and spend more on welfare benefits and the NHS black hole)” is the only solution. They can afford this approach, of course, because they’re rarely in power & when they’re not they can always accuse a responsible government as heartless when attempts are made to simply live within our means.

They convince people like kuku that “austerity kills”, when they should just begin to accept that £54bn could be better spent.

Please let us have a Labour party that advocates a balanced budget. I’ll start voting for them too.

Yeah, this is an OK post. The point is that the savings should have been found in areas other than those impacting/killing/causing suffering to the most vulnerable. The argument that austerity was altogether a bad idea is more complicated.

[kukushkin88]

 

Latest figures I’ve seen (article in The Times; sorry I can’t post a link as it’s beyond the paywall) indicate that the UK gov is spending £54bn per annum servicing interest on a national debt of about £1.6tn

And this is with interest rates at near all time lows for the period.

I’m sure Tighty will be able to trace the piece if he has the time & inclination.

Labour would have us believe that their “borrow more to invest in the economy (and spend more on welfare benefits and the NHS black hole)” is the only solution. They can afford this approach, of course, because they’re rarely in power & when they’re not they can always accuse a responsible government as heartless when attempts are made to simply live within our means.

They convince people like kuku that “austerity kills”, when they should just begin to accept that £54bn could be better spent.

Please let us have a Labour party that advocates a balanced budget. I’ll start voting for them too.

Yeah, this is an OK post. The point is that the savings should have been found in areas other than those impacting/killing/causing suffering to the most vulnerable. The argument that austerity was altogether a bad idea is more complicated.

Clearly Stiglitz views are comprehensively on one side of this but it’s appropriate to consider his viewpoint:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/07/austerity-britain-labour-neoliberalism-reagan-thatcher

It is an opinion piece in The Guardian but since he’s writing his own view and is a Nobel Prize winning economist, I don’t think we need to be too concerned about bias. (I found it today on google as well, I didn’t suddenly become a Guardian reader 😊)

[kukushkin88]

Morning,

The headline might be extreme but I agree with the fundamentals of why the current situation exposes some real problems.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045?fbclid=IwAR28QhVhn0HE677j5nFHf3qd8LjTNEmPVY4LvfltJnYX6uewa0VGIsmCwRo

I thought it was every bit as relevant here as the Trump thread.

In case anyone missed this, I think it’s really interesting (please ignore if you don’t of course) It seems to get more relevant by the moment.

[Pokerpops]

Morning,

The headline might be extreme but I agree with the fundamentals of why the current situation exposes some real problems.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045?fbclid=IwAR28QhVhn0HE677j5nFHf3qd8LjTNEmPVY4LvfltJnYX6uewa0VGIsmCwRo

I thought it was every bit as relevant here as the Trump thread.

In case anyone missed this, I think it’s really interesting (please ignore if you don’t of course) It seems to get more relevant by the moment.

It is interesting, and thought provoking to read a paragraph like this

“In sum, the majority of Americans are generally unable to understand or value democratic culture, institutions, practices or citizenship in the manner required,” Rosenberg has concluded. “To the degree to which they are required to do so, they will interpret what is demanded of them in distorting and inadequate ways. As a result they will interact and communicate in ways that undermine the functioning of democratic institutions and the meaning of democratic practices and values.”

Because essentially what it says is that democracy can’t function if it is based on universal suffrage. No matter which side of the political divide you may sit, the ignorance of the electorate will defeat you. Which seems to me to be nonsense. But then, i’m no Nobel Laureate.

Populism, by the way, is not the exclusive preserve of the extreme right. See, Blair, Clinton, Obama et al. See also Momentum/Jeremy Corbyn’s out and out pursuit of the student vote with promises to clear student loans and return to free tertiary education as a matter of right.

A

[doubleup]

Democracy isn't meant to "work".  It is just meant to stop the inevitable centralisation of power and ensuing corruption of any other system.

[MANTIS01]

The people can’t deliver democracy in the manner required? Required by whom? Not the people clearly...

I am one of the world’s best musicians but people buying tunes don’t deliver the sales in the manner required

I am an amazing artist but people don’t deliver the appreciation in the manner required

I am the best looking man in history but women aren’t able to see it in the manner required

[doubleup]

The vast majority of that borrowing was under the coalition and the Tories. It could be argued that austerity held back the economy and caused increased borrowing.

Present public expenditure (% of GDP) is much the same as it was under Labour pre-crisis.  And the present government thinks it's fine to go on a spending splurge, if their recent statements are to believed.  So I suppose you won't be voting for them either.

A lot of the borrowing may have been done under the coalition and the Tories - but that's not what austerity ever meant.

Austerity wasn't to stop borrowing - it was to reduce it.

Click to see full-size image.

This is the first chart that came up, so there are others, but however you measure it the shape is pretty much the same.

But - obviously - a lot of the borrowing was done under the coalition and the Tories, because to stop borrowing at all we have to at least reduce the amount we have borrowed to start with.

I agree it might seem a bit reckless to start going a spending spree now, economically it would suggest further austerity packages should be put in place instead.

Don't see what that has got to do with my post?  I was rebutting the claim that Labour were excessive spenders, when they were spending much the same as the present govt in terms of % gdp.

The coalition and Tories borrowed what they borrowed and that is part of their legacy.  Perhaps they should have been more assiduous collecting taxes?

 

[Jon MW]

The vast majority of that borrowing was under the coalition and the Tories. It could be argued that austerity held back the economy and caused increased borrowing.

Present public expenditure (% of GDP) is much the same as it was under Labour pre-crisis.  And the present government thinks it's fine to go on a spending splurge, if their recent statements are to believed.  So I suppose you won't be voting for them either.

A lot of the borrowing may have been done under the coalition and the Tories - but that's not what austerity ever meant.

Austerity wasn't to stop borrowing - it was to reduce it.

Click to see full-size image.

This is the first chart that came up, so there are others, but however you measure it the shape is pretty much the same.

But - obviously - a lot of the borrowing was done under the coalition and the Tories, because to stop borrowing at all we have to at least reduce the amount we have borrowed to start with.

I agree it might seem a bit reckless to start going a spending spree now, economically it would suggest further austerity packages should be put in place instead.

Don't see what that has got to do with my post?  I was rebutting the claim that Labour were excessive spenders, when they were spending much the same as the present govt in terms of % gdp.

The coalition and Tories borrowed what they borrowed and that is part of their legacy.  Perhaps they should have been more assiduous collecting taxes?

 

I'm sorry I thought the connection wasn't that difficult.

You said, 'the vast majority of that borrowing was under the coalition and the Tories' - I was pointing out that obviously it was because austerity was never about paying back National Debt it was about reducing the deficit.

In more general terms - when a government says they're going to be spending x billion pounds more on the NHS, policing etc year after year - they're quite obviously not relating it to the percentage of GDP that is.

While government income was growing the Labour government spent more and more and more - once the recession hit and government income collapsed; the new government had pretty limited options of how to reduce the costs; that was what austerity was for.

Sometimes the meaningful comparison isn't about the percentage or proportion but the actual amount.

[BigAdz]

Just the constant insults about my, and others, level of intellect get very waring, especially from someone believed by the boss, to be such a nice guy.......

You have been missing for ages searching for another source(no doubt you will claim you haven't)

I fully understand many arguments you put up on here, but when given an answer rather than prove your point, you just slag people off with put downs, maintaining they don't understand your point. Not the case, its called discussion, and you need to be pulled up on it.


In terms of the report you have directed us too, it still doesn't prove the previous report was as factual as you made out, in fact it has f all to do with it, citing prevention as the cure for better health care, very little to do with austerity and nothing that proves your point.

In fact it was hard to take a report serious that within the first few lines of content has such appalling mistakes on a Public Health document

 Prevention leads to longer and health lives

 For too long policymakers have failed to health
 and health services as a risk to be managed rather.

Please don't post a link to a long document you(probably haven't read yourself) think will validate your point, when it totally doesn't, in the hope the shear length of it will give folk the impression you are reading all this guff, and therefore a level above some of us.

You have been, and will be, exposed, so you best up your game old lad.

All that I’m evidencing is that austerity causes unnecessary deaths (loads of them). No one has credibly claimed that it doesn’t, you seemed happy enough with Doobs post on the subject

You can’t seriously think I spent the whole weekend looking for that report? It’s like the 6th returned google result, I found it in approx 8 seconds during a time out in Pats/Pitts game and read it this morning. You really think it isn’t a causative factor in deaths, it is what the report is about, clearly.

I think neither dear chap.

Just clarifying that you don't bother to read in any depth links you then suggest people read, as they don't validate your narrative, which is that austerity DID cause a great many deaths. Now your narrative has changed to it hasn't been proven that it didn't, a massive difference.

Also getting to the bottom of the lofty opinion you have of yourself over those also on here.

[BigAdz]

Latest figures I’ve seen (article in The Times; sorry I can’t post a link as it’s beyond the paywall) indicate that the UK gov is spending £54bn per annum servicing interest on a national debt of about £1.6tn

And this is with interest rates at near all time lows for the period.

I’m sure Tighty will be able to trace the piece if he has the time & inclination.

Labour would have us believe that their “borrow more to invest in the economy (and spend more on welfare benefits and the NHS black hole)” is the only solution. They can afford this approach, of course, because they’re rarely in power & when they’re not they can always accuse a responsible government as heartless when attempts are made to simply live within our means.

They convince people like kuku that “austerity kills”, when they should just begin to accept that £54bn could be better spent.

Please let us have a Labour party that advocates a balanced budget. I’ll start voting for them too.

Yeah, this is an OK post. The point is that the savings should have been found in areas other than those impacting/killing/causing suffering to the most vulnerable. The argument that austerity was altogether a bad idea is more complicated.

To further my point, who actually gives a shit about if you think any post that contradicts yours gets your seal of approval? Who do you think you are to rate each one? Do you think we all sit here waiting for you to mark our work, or asking for a gold star, because your style would suggest you think you are the top dog here.

Yes Tom, he does make me angry!!

[kukushkin88]

Just the constant insults about my, and others, level of intellect get very waring, especially from someone believed by the boss, to be such a nice guy.......

You have been missing for ages searching for another source(no doubt you will claim you haven't)

I fully understand many arguments you put up on here, but when given an answer rather than prove your point, you just slag people off with put downs, maintaining they don't understand your point. Not the case, its called discussion, and you need to be pulled up on it.


In terms of the report you have directed us too, it still doesn't prove the previous report was as factual as you made out, in fact it has f all to do with it, citing prevention as the cure for better health care, very little to do with austerity and nothing that proves your point.

In fact it was hard to take a report serious that within the first few lines of content has such appalling mistakes on a Public Health document

 Prevention leads to longer and health lives

 For too long policymakers have failed to health
 and health services as a risk to be managed rather.

Please don't post a link to a long document you(probably haven't read yourself) think will validate your point, when it totally doesn't, in the hope the shear length of it will give folk the impression you are reading all this guff, and therefore a level above some of us.

You have been, and will be, exposed, so you best up your game old lad.

All that I’m evidencing is that austerity causes unnecessary deaths (loads of them). No one has credibly claimed that it doesn’t, you seemed happy enough with Doobs post on the subject

You can’t seriously think I spent the whole weekend looking for that report? It’s like the 6th returned google result, I found it in approx 8 seconds during a time out in Pats/Pitts game and read it this morning. You really think it isn’t a causative factor in deaths, it is what the report is about, clearly.

I think neither dear chap.

Just clarifying that you don't bother to read in any depth links you then suggest people read, as they don't validate your narrative, which is that austerity DID cause a great many deaths. Now your narrative has changed to it hasn't been proven that it didn't, a massive difference.

Also getting to the bottom of the lofty opinion you have of yourself over those also on here.

My view (not a narrative) on the vast number of deaths caused by austerity, evidenced comprehensively in those two studies as well as in loads of other places, absolutely has not changed.

How can you get that so wrong? Acting like you’ve some how exposed me or caught me out is just strange and further supports the idea that you don’t understand.

My opinion of myself is of no consequence in this context and I doubt of any interest to anyone else, it would probably be helpful for you to try and recover some perspective on it as well.

It was kind of Tony to say nice things about me but it’s surely time for you to stop making a fuss about that as well.

[kukushkin88]

Latest figures I’ve seen (article in The Times; sorry I can’t post a link as it’s beyond the paywall) indicate that the UK gov is spending £54bn per annum servicing interest on a national debt of about £1.6tn

And this is with interest rates at near all time lows for the period.

I’m sure Tighty will be able to trace the piece if he has the time & inclination.

Labour would have us believe that their “borrow more to invest in the economy (and spend more on welfare benefits and the NHS black hole)” is the only solution. They can afford this approach, of course, because they’re rarely in power & when they’re not they can always accuse a responsible government as heartless when attempts are made to simply live within our means.

They convince people like kuku that “austerity kills”, when they should just begin to accept that £54bn could be better spent.

Please let us have a Labour party that advocates a balanced budget. I’ll start voting for them too.

Yeah, this is an OK post. The point is that the savings should have been found in areas other than those impacting/killing/causing suffering to the most vulnerable. The argument that austerity was altogether a bad idea is more complicated.

To further my point, who actually gives a shit about if you think any post that contradicts yours gets your seal of approval? Who do you think you are to rate each one? Do you think we all sit here waiting for you to mark our work, or asking for a gold star, because your style would suggest you think you are the top dog here.

Yes Tom, he does make me angry!!

It might be better not to read my posts maybe? Not sure what else to recommend. A smiley, as a meagre peace offering 😊.