Islamic education plot in UK

[Drummond]

A story that's now a few days old, over here on this side of the Pond. A cautionary tale (to put it mildly) absolutely calling for perpetual diligence against Islamic intentions ...

From a local paper serving Birmingham, England's 'Second City' ..

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/jihadist-plot-take-over-birmingham-6782881


An alleged plot by Islamic fundamentalists to take over Birmingham schools by ousting headteachers and staff through dirty tricks campaigns is being investigated.

The city council and the Birmingham Mail have received documents which purport to show Jihadists are targeting schools and orchestrating false allegations against staff, including non-Muslims, in an operation dubbed Trojan Horse.

Meanwhile, West Midlands Police have reopened a fraud investigation at one school named in the supposed leaked letter – and Ofsted is currently conducting a snap inspection at another.

The documents claim to be leaked written correspondence from one Birmingham fundamentalist to another in Bradford and details plans to roll out Trojan Horse to Bradford as well as Manchester.

The letter states some Birmingham headteachers have already been forced out and predicts others will follow.

Once ousted, the Muslim fundamentalist group allegedly tries to install its own supporters in key positions to encourage the school to educate children on strict Islamic principles, including the segregation of boys and girls in some lessons.

To achieve the aim some schools apply for Academy status, effectively taking them out of the control of the local education authority, and allowing them to be run on religious lines.

The alleged plot is said to involve recruiting Salafi parents and staff – hard-line followers of Islam – to help spread false allegations about school leaders, including claiming sex education is being promoted to Muslim schoolchildren or Christian prayers.

One passage in the documents states: “We have caused a great amount of organised disruption in Birmingham and as a result we now have our own Academies and are on our way to getting rid of more headteachers and taking over their schools.

“Whilst sometimes the practices we use may not seem the correct way to do things you must remember this is a ‘Jihad’ and as such all means possible to win the war is acceptable.’’

Birmingham City Council was sent the documents in December and has alerted West Midlands Police and the Department for Education.

This week Ofsted inspectors launched a surprise inspection at Park View Academy in Alum Rock , where it has previously been reported one staff member has complained non-Muslim employees are being discriminated against. It was also claimed the school was attempting to introduce Islamic studies to the curriculum.

Lindsey Clark, Park View’s executive head, reportedly said faith classes were being organised, but for after-school lessons. She said it was a ‘safeguarding issue’ for children allegedly being hit in local madrasahs.

Any 'they are not Islamic' comments to offer, Jafar ?

[logroller]

Possibly just a false flag attack by right-extremist bigots.

[Drummond]

Possibly just a false flag attack by right-extremist bigots.

And then again, 'possibly' nothing of the kind ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2575759/Revealed-Islamist-plot-dubbed-Trojan-Horse-string-schools-Birmingham-self-styled-Jihad.html


Muslim fundamentalists are plotting to take over state schools, according to leaked documents.

Activists have launched a campaign to oust headteachers using dirty tricks such as spreading false allegations and packing governing bodies with their supporters.

The plot, which ringleaders have named Operation Trojan Horse, has emerged in documents drawn up by the group and leaked to a local newspaper.

The dossier names several schools in the Birmingham area as targets of alleged plots.

The authors of the documents discuss extending the ‘jihad’ operation to Bradford and Manchester – cities with rapidly growing Muslim populations.

Apparently written by fundamentalist Salafist Muslims, the papers outline a five-point guide to forcing out a headteacher and installing supporters in key positions to ensure a school is run according to Islamic principles.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/birmingham-council-investigates-muslim-fundamentalist-plot-to-take-over-local-schools-9177506.html


Details of an extraordinary plot by Islamic fundamentalists to take control of several non-faith schools in Birmingham by "jihad" have come to light sparking a major investigation by police, the city council and the Department for Education.

Documents leaked to the Birmingham Mail describe the campaign, dubbed Operation Trojan, outlining a step-by-step guide on how to infiltrate school staff with hardline Muslim supporters who can push through plans to transfer the schools into academies, meaning they will not be subject to local authority rules and can be run independently - with the ultimate aim of imposing fundamental Islamic values.

Further plots by religious fundamentalists to infiltrate schools are likely to occur if more schools opt out of local council control, Labour’s children’s minister said on Friday. Birmingham Selly Oak MP Steve McCabe said the extraordinary Salafist plot was not the first time that such groups had tried to oust headteachers and replace them with extremist sympathisers.

Mr McCabe told the Independent: “This is not the first time this has happened.

The MP commenting, Logroller, is NOT a Right-winger ! Nor is the 'Independent' a Right-wing newspaper.

[jimnyc]

I hope that in some of these letters and other documentation they were able to gather names involved, or specifics that would allow them to perhaps corroborate the story. And if found to be true, I can imagine a host of charges they should/could receive as a result.

[logroller]

And then again, 'possibly' nothing of the kind ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2575759/Revealed-Islamist-plot-dubbed-Trojan-Horse-string-schools-Birmingham-self-styled-Jihad.html



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/birmingham-council-investigates-muslim-fundamentalist-plot-to-take-over-local-schools-9177506.html



The MP commenting, Logroller, is NOT a Right-winger ! Nor is the 'Independent' a Right-wing newspaper.
Documents were 'leaked' to the Birmingham Mail, which has a pronounced conservative slant....possibly just a coincidence. Nonetheless, this is a heinous accusation and deserving of condemnation.


The alleged plot was condemned by Inayat Bunglawala, chair of Muslims4UK, a group which aims to promote active Muslim engagement in British society. He said: "The contents of this document are very disturbing. On the face of it this would appear to be part of a radical agenda by a tiny yet highly committed group of activists to impose their very conservative and bleak vision of Islamic teachings in our schools by fomenting division and distrust against the existing school leadership. It constitutes highly objectionable and unethical behaviour."http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/07/alleged-plot-birmingham-schools-islamic-principles

So there you have a muslim condemning such...or is it that he is not a real muslim and the salafi sect speaks the truth of Islam? No doubt jihadis and terrorists would say the latter; would you agree?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

[
QUOTE=logroller;685149]Documents were 'leaked' to the Birmingham Mail, which has a pronounced conservative slant....possibly just a coincidence. Nonetheless, this is a heinous accusation and deserving of condemnation.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/07/alleged-plot-birmingham-schools-islamic-principles

So there you have a muslim condemning such...or is it that he is not a real muslim and the salafi sect speaks the truth of Islam? No doubt jihadis and terrorists would say the latter; would you agree?[/QUOTE] Over 1400 years of lies , deceptions and mass murder that eliminated over 250 million souls says this type of deceit and STRATEGY is right in line with how they operate. Yet you seem to ignore such historic and undeniable evidence. My question is why? Do you think factual history is in fact not true? Or is the desire to defend those that seek total destruction of the Jews AND Christianity some addiction you have? Myself , I don't have to let a damn tiger bite my arm off for me to know its dangerous and should either be caged or stayed the hell well clear of..-Tyr

[Drummond]

Documents were 'leaked' to the Birmingham Mail, which has a pronounced conservative slant

WHAT Conservative 'slant' ??

You are, I think, confusing the Birmingham Mail with the Daily Mail. One is a national newspaper. The other is a newspaper local to Birmingham, West Midlands. The national newspaper is known for its pro-Conservative editorials and columnists (I'd recommend Leo McKinstry's articles to anybody). The same is NOT true for the local paper. In fact ...

http://violenceagainstwhites.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/exposing-the-liberal-bias-in-the-birmingham-mails-coverage-of-the-evf-demo/


.. 'Exposing the Liberal bias in the Birmingham Mail’s coverage of the EVF demo (http://violenceagainstwhites.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/exposing-the-liberal-bias-in-the-birmingham-mails-coverage-of-the-evf-demo/)'



Read it for yourself ..


....possibly just a coincidence. Nonetheless, this is a heinous accusation and deserving of condemnation.

You want to condemn the accusation ?

It's interesting, Logroller. Left wing sources such as the BBC and the Guardian are trying to say it's all 'alleged'. Yet, even the 'Independent' newspaper, which these days often veers to the Left, did not try to make that claim themselves.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/07/alleged-plot-birmingham-schools-islamic-principles

So there you have a muslim condemning such...or is it that he is not a real muslim and the salafi sect speaks the truth of Islam? No doubt jihadis and terrorists would say the latter; would you agree?

Yes, we have a Leftie paper doing what they usually do ... finding ways to promote ethnic minority issues and causes, even at the expense of national interests.

And as to your question: maybe certain sects in Islam are more peaceful than others. BUT .. those less peaceful are decidedly murderous. And not just in one area, but in areas ACROSS THE WORLD.

For the issue central to this thread, we have a manifestation of some of the more aggressive and arrogant aspects of Islamic behaviour .. that, here, of ousting good teachers and officials, to ensure that Islamic-friendly replacements win out.

... Or do you still prefer only to believe our Left wing press, instead ?

[jafar00]

Why would they reveal their secret plot to take over the world by making press releases about it?

Drummond.


Part of the inquiry will focus on whether the plot is genuine or fake.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-26482599

They don't even know if this is real or not. I wanted to see pictures of the letters to see if they used any Islamic language at all but all they released are some blurry photos of what appear to be documents with some kind of writing on them.

This is all too clumsy and I cry fake.

[Drummond]

Why would they reveal their secret plot to take over the world by making press releases about it?

Since when were the more arrogant of your brethren shy about advertising themselves and their intentions ?

Besides .. in this case, I'm sure they didn't INVITE police interest !!


Drummond.


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-26482599

They don't even know if this is real or not. I wanted to see pictures of the letters to see if they used any Islamic language at all but all they released are some blurry photos of what appear to be documents with some kind of writing on them.

This is all too clumsy and I cry fake.

Heh heh.

Logroller uses the Guardian to support him. You, Jafar, have just used the BBC. BOTH ARE LEFT-OF-CENTRE NEWS ORGANISATIONS.

Need I say more ?

[fj1200]

A story that's now a few days old, over here on this side of the Pond. A cautionary tale (to put it mildly) absolutely calling for perpetual diligence against Islamic intentions ...

Let me guess, you've been fighting lefties and "muzzies" in the same manner for decades now to no avail. Perchance you should rethink your methods.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why would they reveal their secret plot to take over the world by making press releases about it?

Drummond.


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-26482599

They don't even know if this is real or not. I wanted to see pictures of the letters to see if they used any Islamic language at all but all they released are some blurry photos of what appear to be documents with some kind of writing on them.

This is all too clumsy and I cry fake.

And with zero evidence of it being fake you already allege that it is! Simply amazing that you fail to see just how damn biased that is. I myself have not made statements its definitely true but did point out its right in line with tactics employed throughout history by those seeking to spread Islam's influence and power. Care to give us what evidence you have that makes you so confident that it is a fake attempt ??? Surely you have some such evidence, right????? -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Let me guess, you've been fighting lefties and "muzzies" in the same manner for decades now to no avail. Perchance you should rethink your methods. Tis' far better that even an unsuccessful fight be carried on than that no fight at all even be attempted!
Wouldn't you agree given the enormity and severity of the threat?? Or do you deny that the threat even exists? Inquiring minds would like to know... ;)--Tyr

[fj1200]

Tis' far better that even an unsuccessful fight be carried on than that no fight at all even be attempted!
Wouldn't you agree given the enormity and severity of the threat?? Or do you deny that the threat even exists? Inquiring minds would like to know... ;)--Tyr

A thinking individual would question why the fight is unsuccessful. A thinking individual would determine that failing tactics should be changed. Fighting for the sake of fighting is fruitless.

[Drummond]

Let me guess, you've been fighting lefties and "muzzies" in the same manner for decades now to no avail. Perchance you should rethink your methods.

You know what, FJ ? You just might have a point !!!

'To no avail', you say ? Well ... now, why would that be ?

I can think of only one possible answer.

Over the timeframe you suggest, what's the one obvious component in dealing with Lefties and 'Muzzies' which has enabled them to thrive ?

Answer: TOLERANCE.

Where the 'Muzzies' (YOUR term) are involved ... it's all too clear. Successive Socialist regimes have fallen over themselves, in my corner of the world, to 'progressively appease'. To be 'understanding' of mindsets, cultures, faiths, not our own. Result ... well, we see one tackled in this thread ! Opportunism indulged in, actually taken to criminal lengths (subject to police confirmation), in order to covertly gain power over childrens' education. To radicalise. To poison attitudes, and far more.

As for 'Lefties', well, we saw their Union poison, here in the UK, during the 'Winter of Discontent' (1978-'79). Margaret Thatcher's response, once she gained power, was absolutely NOT one of tolerance of their wrecking activities !! To this day, laws introduced to keep Union power at bay are still on the statute books, because nobody since her has ever dared to revoke them.

So, yes, FJ. A lack of tolerance of one's pernicious enemies is - must be - the answer. Because, the more you tolerate, the more you HAVE to, in the future.

Then again, as a 'Thatcher supporter' yourself, you must approve of this. Yes .. ?

[Drummond]

Tis' far better that even an unsuccessful fight be carried on than that no fight at all even be attempted!
Wouldn't you agree given the enormity and severity of the threat?? Or do you deny that the threat even exists? Inquiring minds would like to know... ;)--Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[fj1200]

You know what, FJ ? You just might have a point !!!

'To no avail', you say ? Well ... now, why would that be ?

I can think of only one possible answer.

Over the timeframe you suggest, what's the one obvious component in dealing with Lefties and 'Muzzies' which has enabled them to thrive ?

Answer: TOLERANCE.

Where the 'Muzzies' (YOUR term) are involved ... it's all too clear. Successive Socialist regimes have fallen over themselves, in my corner of the world, to 'progressively appease'. To be 'understanding' of mindsets, cultures, faiths, not our own. Result ... well, we see one tackled in this thread ! Opportunism indulged in, actually taken to criminal lengths (subject to police confirmation), in order to covertly gain power over childrens' education. To radicalise. To poison attitudes, and far more.

As for 'Lefties', well, we saw their Union poison, here in the UK, during the 'Winter of Discontent' (1978-'79). Margaret Thatcher's response, once she gained power, was absolutely NOT one of tolerance of their wrecking activities !! To this day, laws introduced to keep Union power at bay are still on the statute books, because nobody since her has ever dared to revoke them.

So, yes, FJ. A lack of tolerance of one's pernicious enemies is - must be - the answer. Because, the more you tolerate, the more you HAVE to, in the future.

Then again, as a 'Thatcher supporter' yourself, you must approve of this. Yes .. ?

I see you're still having conversations with your imagination. :shrug: To no avail? You're the one who has lost your country, at what point do you look at yourself and determine that your tactics... why did you say you posted? To advance conservatism by force of argument or some such thing??? at what point do you do an internal evaluation and determine that you have failed?

My preference is not to repeat failed arguments and processes and rather learn from any mistakes and move forward. It's possible that tolerance has caused what you decry but have you considered that it's your lack of tolerance that has had an impact?

[Drummond]

A thinking individual would question why the fight is unsuccessful. A thinking individual would determine that failing tactics should be changed. Fighting for the sake of fighting is fruitless.

Rolling over and playing dead is BETTER ?!?

Lady Thatcher, FJ, would NEVER have approved !

[fj1200]

Rolling over and playing dead is BETTER ?!?

Point out where I suggested such.

[Drummond]

I see you're still having conversations with your imagination. :shrug: To no avail? You're the one who has lost your country, at what point do you look at yourself and determine that your tactics... why did you say you posted? To advance conservatism by force of argument or some such thing??? at what point do you do an internal evaluation and determine that you have failed?

My preference is not to repeat failed arguments and processes and rather learn from any mistakes and move forward. It's possible that tolerance has caused what you decry but have you considered that it's your lack of tolerance that has had an impact?

I gather from your final sentence that you think a display of GREATER tolerance would've been better.

The mind boggles, FJ.

I can only repeat: in the case (for example) of the Trade Unions, toleration of all they did, all they sought to do, was light years from Lady T's approach. Rather, she took them head-on ... and never more magnificently so than against Arthur Scargill, in 1984. She slowly but surely - above all, implacably - ground Scargill's militancy into the ground and defeated him. Read up about it, and find out how attuned to implacable confrontation Lady Thatcher was, when she was convinced it was called for.

As for toleration of Muslim machinations ... enlighten us, please. How much of what militant Muslims are getting up to, deserves GREATER tolerance, in your view ???? Care to go into detail, and show us all your 'progressive' bona fides ?

[Drummond]

Point out where I suggested such.

Actually, I just have.


have you considered that it's your lack of tolerance that has had an impact?

So much tolerance has already been shown, FJ, that to show MORE couldn't help but amount to abject surrender. A giving up of any will to oppose at all.

[fj1200]

I gather from your final sentence that you think a display of GREATER tolerance would've been better.

The mind boggles, FJ.

I can only repeat: in the case (for example) of the Trade Unions, toleration of all they did, all they sought to do, was light years from Lady T's approach. Rather, she took them head-on ... and never more magnificently so than against Arthur Scargill, in 1984. She slowly but surely - above all, implacably - ground Scargill's militancy into the ground and defeated him. Read up about it, and find out how attuned to implacable confrontation Lady Thatcher was, when she was convinced it was called for.

As for toleration of Muslim machinations ... enlighten us, please. How much of what militant Muslims are getting up to, deserves GREATER tolerance, in your view ???? Care to go into detail, and show us all your 'progressive' bona fides ?

So... there won't be any introspection from you? I'm not surprised. I'm also not surprised that you go the "militant Muslim" route, much easier to denigrate that way isn't it. When all you see are "militant Muslims" then that is what will drive your response.

But overall it's an interesting question, one that will take some thought. But one shouldn't shy away from the evidence of what hasn't worked. You provide a great education on what hasn't worked. I must say though that I'm shocked at the insolence that you show to "Lady T." :eek: You will not be invited to high tea with the Queen anytime soon. Another question, who messed up Mag's advances against the scourge of progressivism and allowed its ugly head to rear again?

[fj1200]

Actually, I just have.

So much tolerance has already been shown, FJ, that to show MORE couldn't help but amount to abject surrender. A giving up of any will to oppose at all.

Actually you haven't. What I was pointing out was a paradox of your type of intolerance that evidence suggests is failing and that there may be a better way to integrate immigrants into your culture. Or...

[Drummond]

Actually you haven't. What I was pointing out was a paradox of your type of intolerance that evidence suggests is failing and that there may be a better way to integrate immigrants into your culture. Or...

... which misses the point. The point is, FJ, that - as keen as they are to settle here - they DO NOT INTEGRATE. Rather, they build communities in which they graft THEIR values, THEIR belief systems, and work to 'terraform' the country they're in so that it matches THEIR expectations.

Show the slightest intolerance to all that, and the 'You're a racist' card is played.

No, FJ. To Muslims, the best way the population has to live in 'peace' with them is TO KNUCKLE UNDER TO ALL OF THEIR EXPECTATIONS AND DIKTATS. And then wonder why, suddenly, whole areas are deemed 'Sharia Controlled' .....

It's literally the case that to show MORE tolerance can only translate into choosing to surrender control to them.

Or do you not get the point of what the story this thread addresses amounts to ?

[fj1200]

... which misses the point. The point is, FJ, that - as keen as they are to settle here - they DO NOT INTEGRATE. Rather, they build communities in which they graft THEIR values, THEIR belief systems, and work to 'terraform' the country they're in so that it matches THEIR expectations.

Show the slightest intolerance to all that, and the 'You're a racist' card is played.

No, FJ. To Muslims, the best way the population has to live in 'peace' with them is TO KNUCKLE UNDER TO ALL OF THEIR EXPECTATIONS AND DIKTATS. And then wonder why, suddenly, whole areas are deemed 'Sharia Controlled' .....

It's literally the case that to show MORE tolerance can only translate into choosing to surrender control to them.

Or do you not get the point of what the story this thread addresses amounts to ?

So your tactics are a failure and you see no other avenue?

[Drummond]

So... there won't be any introspection from you? I'm not surprised. I'm also not surprised that you go the "militant Muslim" route, much easier to denigrate that way isn't it. When all you see are "militant Muslims" then that is what will drive your response.

But overall it's an interesting question, one that will take some thought. But one shouldn't shy away from the evidence of what hasn't worked. You provide a great education on what hasn't worked. I must say though that I'm shocked at the insolence that you show to "Lady T." :eek: You will not be invited to high tea with the Queen anytime soon. Another question, who messed up Mag's advances against the scourge of progressivism and allowed its ugly head to rear again?

Answering your final question first: we have a fickle electorate with short memories. Granted, they STILL elected John Major to govern after her, so the transition to Blair's Socialism took years to be realised. But, that transition happened .. and the lessons we all SHOULD have indelibly learned from our 'Winter of Discontent' were, to an extent, forgotten.

The 'insolence' you offensively claim that 'I' am showing to Lady T is an outrageous claim. It was YOU who, in another thread, showed us that you preferred not to turn your back on 'Progressivism' as a possible solution to a problem. Whereas .. I provided you with a link showing that Lady Thatcher was utterly opposed to 'Progressive' politics.

As for ME going the 'militant Muslim route' ... let me introduce you to today's front page Daily Mail story ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576961/Birmingham-school-dubbed-Trojan-Horse-Islamist-radicals-holds-assemblies-promoting-notorious-Al-Qaeda-recruitment-agent.html


A Muslim headmistress told last night how she was driven out of her job by extremists bent on taking over state schools.

Her school is one of 12 apparently targeted by Islamic fundamentalists in a plot dating back two decades.

In a letter seen by the Mail, a fanatic brags about enlisting four radical parents to help oust her in 1993.

She said: ‘I was the victim of a pernicious, well-orchestrated smear campaign I have never been able to recover from.

‘People need to know this is a dangerous, well-organised and sinister group who have the capacity to destroy. They are producing fear in society and playing on paranoia. They are extremely powerful.’

The 69-year-old believes she was seen as an enemy because she was too moderate a Muslim. She was confronted with a number of allegations, including one of financial mismanagement.

Despite protesting her innocence her dismissal followed in 1994.

She added: ‘I was involved in a campaign so nasty that, since I lost the headship, I’ve never been able to raise my head above the parapet.

‘I was shocked to read this letter after 20 years and I am genuinely scared by it.’

Details of the extraordinary plot, which have been referred to the police, emerged on Friday after the letter was passed to Birmingham Council and a number of newspapers.

The unnamed author admits making false claims against several teachers in Birmingham in order to oust them.

The document discusses extending the ‘jihad’ operation to Bradford and Manchester – cities with fast growing Muslim populations.

The letter identifies specific schools as targets and names heads it claims to have ousted through dirty tricks campaigns, forged resignation letters and false allegations of cheating and financial irregularities.

Perhaps, from all of this, you can show me how the application of 'greater tolerance' could possibly be appropriate ... ??

[fj1200]

Answering your final question first: we have a fickle electorate with short memories. Granted, they STILL elected John Major to govern after her, so the transition to Blair's Socialism took years to be realised. But, that transition happened .. and the lessons we all SHOULD have indelibly learned from our 'Winter of Discontent' were, to an extent, forgotten.

So your "advancing conservatism by force of argument" was not very long lasting. Was there anything to be done better?


The 'insolence' you offensively claim that 'I' am showing to Lady T is an outrageous claim. It was YOU who, in another thread, showed us that you preferred not to turn your back on 'Progressivism' as a possible solution to a problem. Whereas .. I provided you with a link showing that Lady Thatcher was utterly opposed to 'Progressive' politics.

:eek: Scandalous. :laugh: Yeah, I remember you name dropping Mags into a discussion in which she was not a subject. I also think there was an open question in that thread that you're unable/unwilling? to answer. :dunno:


As for ME going the 'militant Muslim route' ... let me introduce you to today's front page Daily Mail story ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576961/Birmingham-school-dubbed-Trojan-Horse-Islamist-radicals-holds-assemblies-promoting-notorious-Al-Qaeda-recruitment-agent.html

Perhaps, from all of this, you can show me how the application of 'greater tolerance' could possibly be appropriate ... ??

As I said, I'm only questioning the tactics of what has already failed.

[Drummond]

So your tactics are a failure and you see no other avenue?

They're not MY tactics. Rather, we've inherited Labour Party 'PC' tolerances, and are now paying dearly for them.

I am clear as to what 'my other avenue' is all about. A campaign of intolerance to those who insist I bend to their invasive arrogance. I have a right to MY culture, MY beliefs, MY life.

With an entire nation taking on a renewed self-identity awareness, the invasive intentions of Muslims, such as those described in the Birmingham case (amongst others) can be defeated, and the arrogant trash stopped in their tracks.

[fj1200]

They're not MY tactics. Rather, we've inherited Labour Party 'PC' tolerances, and are now paying dearly for them.

I am clear as to what 'my other avenue' is all about. A campaign of intolerance to those who insist I bend to their invasive arrogance. I have a right to MY culture, MY beliefs, MY life.

With an entire nation taking on a renewed self-identity awareness, the invasive intentions of Muslims, such as those described in the Birmingham case (amongst others) can be defeated, and the arrogant trash stopped in their tracks.

No, I'm specifically asking about YOUR tactics in response to the leftie/"muzzy" threat that threatens YOUR culture, YOUR beliefs, and YOUR life. Or are you now advocating that more intrusive government power now be wielded on YOUR behalf? Not that I would be surprised by that.

[Drummond]

So your "advancing conservatism by force of argument" was not very long lasting. Was there anything to be done better?

Yes. More of the same, though with greater stridency of message. Newsreels showing the ruinous conditions Socialism led us to, pre-Thatcher, shown repeatedly and often, might well have proved that it could never be risked again.

But, no. Major was too gentlemanly an opponent, and Blair too slick a salesman for his own side.


:eek: Scandalous. :laugh: Yeah, I remember you name dropping Mags into a discussion in which she was not a subject.

I see it worried you, since you feel moved to complain about it now. FJ, your fondness for considering Progressivism as having ANY redeeming qualities, is YOUR problem. Not mine. That you can't live up to your own pro-Thatcher hype isn't my fault.


I also think there was an open question in that thread that you're unable/unwilling? to answer. :dunno:

... How you reconcile your own image-making with the glaring flaw in it I've just mentioned ?

[fj1200]

Yes. More of the same, though with greater stridency of message. Newsreels showing the ruinous conditions Socialism led us to, pre-Thatcher, shown repeatedly and often, might well have proved that it could never be risked again.

But, no. Major was too gentlemanly an opponent, and Blair too slick a salesman for his own side.

Screaming, "Aack, Leftie..." louder would have worked? Hey, who knows...


I see it worried you, since you feel moved to complain about it now. FJ, your fondness for considering Progressivism as having ANY redeeming qualities, is YOUR problem. Not mine. That you can't live up to your own pro-Thatcher hype isn't my fault.

:laugh: What worried me? The allegation was that the markets failed, and it wasn't my allegation. :slap:


... How you reconcile your own image-making with the glaring flaw in it I've just mentioned ?

:laugh: "Aack, Leftie..." gets old. You've got no chops.

[Drummond]

No, I'm specifically asking about YOUR tactics in response to the leftie/"muzzy" threat that threatens YOUR culture, YOUR beliefs, and YOUR life. Or are you now advocating that more intrusive government power now be wielded on YOUR behalf? Not that I would be surprised by that.

All Governments, everywhere, have a duty to maintain the security of the territory, and the people, within their sphere of influence. That's a fact. You well know that if GW Bush, in the aftermath of '9/11', had just shrugged his shoulders and done nothing, his very evident dereliction of duty would've led to his impeachment.

The UK answer is simple (in general terms, if not the detailed specifics). A reversal of the current 'tolerate anything' culture. Reversal of laws which Muslims exploit to be immune to the proper criticism they earn ! An end to the 'Islam is a religion of peace' appeasement mantra. And the end of identifying recognition of Muslim truths with charges of 'racism' which disguise and stifle those truths.

Sadly, we have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the face of the planet ... so there are freedoms we are institutionally robbed of. All that can be considered is hampered by that reality.

[Drummond]

Screaming, "Aack, Leftie..." louder would have worked? Hey, who knows...

Allied to the proper realisation of exactly how provably pernicious they were, and are ... just possibly.

After all, we all know that the global financial crisis of 2008 was made much worse by our Socialists' spendthrift ways (.. ringing any bells with you, and the US situation ??). We all know that the austerity measures currently being employed are addressing a very real issue caused by their predecessors. Keeping this in the minds of the electorate in the forthcoming 2015 election may well guarantee a future Conservative victory.


:laugh: What worried me? The allegation was that the markets failed, and it wasn't my allegation. :slap:

BUT, who was it who suggested 'Progressivism' might have its place ? Who was it who challenged his debating opponent to defy that ?


:laugh: "Aack, Leftie..." gets old. You've got no chops.

Au contraire. I'll be eating some with tonight's supper !! :laugh::laugh:

[jafar00]

Since when were the more arrogant of your brethren shy about advertising themselves and their intentions ?

Besides .. in this case, I'm sure they didn't INVITE police interest !!

It would be foolish of them to announce it in advance wouldn't it? The only text released I've seen reported so far is written in plain English without any Islamic language. No Bissmillah, no Qur'aan quotes, no Hadiths etc...

It's fake.


Heh heh.

Logroller uses the Guardian to support him. You, Jafar, have just used the BBC. BOTH ARE LEFT-OF-CENTRE NEWS ORGANISATIONS.

Need I say more ?

Wait, so are you against the Muzzies or the Lefties? Thank God there aren't Commies involved too. Or are there? :poke:


Rolling over and playing dead is BETTER ?!?

Lady Thatcher, FJ, would NEVER have approved !

So fighting for your country and your rights is ok for you, but when the Palestinians do it, they are terrorists?

[aboutime]

jafar. Let us know how you can dispute this: http://icansayit.com/images/islamlogic.jpg

[Drummond]

It would be foolish of them to announce it in advance wouldn't it? The only text released I've seen reported so far is written in plain English without any Islamic language. No Bissmillah, no Qur'aan quotes, no Hadiths etc...

It's fake.

You appear to not be keeping up with developments. Read the more recent material I've presented, in particular. You will find that all this has been going on for years .. but only NOW is it receiving investigative treatment.

Quoting AGAIN ...


Her school is one of 12 apparently targeted by Islamic fundamentalists in a plot dating back two decades.

In a letter seen by the Mail, a fanatic brags about enlisting four radical parents to help oust her in 1993.

... and, I'm fascinated by your 'certainty' that this is all fake. The police have yet to officially conclude their investigations, this despite the weight of evidence now available to them, to say nothing of its scope (.. affecting other major cities besides Birmingham). Yet ... YOU already 'know' what they should be concluding, and this in the face of what's been referred to them ?? How come ??

Aren't you being a little too enthusiastic in your whitewashing efforts this time around, Jafar ?


Wait, so are you against the Muzzies or the Lefties? Thank God there aren't Commies involved too. Or are there? :poke:

As a patriotic Conservative, my answer to the question you pose is bound to be 'All of the above' ... surely ?

Why ever not ?

Perhaps, my being a Conservative, you still somehow imagine that I'd SUPPORT Communists .. ??!!??


So fighting for your country and your rights is ok for you, but when the Palestinians do it, they are terrorists?

Well, now .. let's see, shall we ?

Have I helped vote a terrorist organisation into power in the UK ?

Is this 'power' governed by a Charter committing them to Jihad ?

Does my Government fire hundreds of missiles at its neighbours ? Do they strap bombs on to children, then force them to blow innocents - and themselves - up ??

So how's this comparison working for you, Jafar ??

The UK is a recognised Nation State across the world, it has been for many centuries ... but, that's certainly not true of 'Palestine'. What's more, we aren't dreaming of visiting any form of 'holocaust' on ANYONE. How about Hamas's dreams, Jafar ?

[logroller]

All Governments, everywhere, have a duty to maintain the security of the territory, and the people, within their sphere of influence. That's a fact. You well know that if GW Bush, in the aftermath of '9/11', had just shrugged his shoulders and done nothing, his very evident dereliction of duty would've led to his impeachment.

The UK answer is simple (in general terms, if not the detailed specifics). A reversal of the current 'tolerate anything' culture. Reversal of laws which Muslims exploit to be immune to the proper criticism they earn ! An end to the 'Islam is a religion of peace' appeasement mantra. And the end of identifying recognition of Muslim truths with charges of 'racism' which disguise and stifle those truths.

Sadly, we have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the face of the planet ... so there are freedoms we are institutionally robbed of. All that can be considered is hampered by that reality.
fact: Britain has less murders and more Muslims than the USA. So what, exactly is being hampered by the most restrictive gun law on the planet?

Im all for speaking in truths, but your version of truth is purely an availed evil. Which is fortuitous considering that your mantra is others aren't peaceful. I don't think your solution is any better than what you accuse the Muslims of procuring...but then I trust, believe and obey God. Thus, I don't fear Islam. So I suppose if this life on earth is all there is, its best to magnify its bounty by whatever means deliver such unto you.


[ Over 1400 years of lies , deceptions and mass murder that eliminated over 250 million souls says this type of deceit and STRATEGY is right in line with how they operate. Yet you seem to ignore such historic and undeniable evidence. My question is why? Do you think factual history is in fact not true? Or is the desire to defend those that seek total destruction of the Jews AND Christianity some addiction you have? Myself , I don't have to let a damn tiger bite my arm off for me to know its dangerous and should either be caged or stayed the hell well clear of..-Tyr[/QUOTE]
I'm quite sure the pursuit of western empire dwarfs that number. Which would be an interesting debate topic if your willing.

Im a little perturbed with your analogy's shortcomings; does the tiger kill thinking of what he does as justified for incursions into his territory and attempts to cage him? I think not; a tiger simply does as tigers do--theres no righteous platitudes among tigers....but given your outcomes proffered, were he capable of philosophical reasoning, it certainly would behoove him more so than you to avoid contact.
But alas, a tiger cannot reason as such...so yet again, your attempts to demean men to beasts only illuminates the inherent evils of man.

[fj1200]

All Governments, everywhere, have a duty to maintain the security of the territory, and the people, within their sphere of influence. That's a fact. You well know that if GW Bush, in the aftermath of '9/11', had just shrugged his shoulders and done nothing, his very evident dereliction of duty would've led to his impeachment.

Strawman. Who suggested that Bush do nothing? As far as governments having a responsibility of national security, no one is doubting, but your suggestion is that government needs to favor YOUR beliefs, etc. That is why YOU are a big government advocate. Tell me this, are none of the Muslims in GB citizens of GB?


The UK answer is simple (in general terms, if not the detailed specifics). A reversal of the current 'tolerate anything' culture. Reversal of laws which Muslims exploit to be immune to the proper criticism they earn ! An end to the 'Islam is a religion of peace' appeasement mantra. And the end of identifying recognition of Muslim truths with charges of 'racism' which disguise and stifle those truths.

Hey, that sounds like a great answer. What evidence is there to suggest that your, and presumably others, "conservative" tactics that have thus far been unsuccessful will suddenly turn successful?


Sadly, we have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the face of the planet ... so there are freedoms we are institutionally robbed of. All that can be considered is hampered by that reality.

You're suggesting that armed insurrection is a tactic on the table? Will you be engaging in any terrorist type activities in advance thereof?

[fj1200]

Allied to the proper realisation of exactly how provably pernicious they were, and are ... just possibly.

After all, we all know that the global financial crisis of 2008 was made much worse by our Socialists' spendthrift ways (.. ringing any bells with you, and the US situation ??). We all know that the austerity measures currently being employed are addressing a very real issue caused by their predecessors. Keeping this in the minds of the electorate in the forthcoming 2015 election may well guarantee a future Conservative victory.

Which hasn't been working for you which has been my point to which you've offered no other solution than to just say it louder. :shrug:

Nevertheless I don't blame socialism for the financial crisis, I blame the Federal Reserve. We've had more "socialist spendthrift ways" since then and have not had a repeat of the same crisis so how much it was made worse is arguable. How are those austerity measures working for you?

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/uk-econ-growth-1980-2012-1024x703.png

I'll argue that austerity, higher taxes and lower spending, is a bad choice. It's unnecessary, causes unneeded pain to the electorate, and will ultimately prove out to be harmful when winning an election, and altering the course of your country, is the goal.

Can David Cameron win the 2015 general election? (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/debateni/blogs/bill-white/can-david-cameron-win-the-2015-general-election-30003185.html)


Can the Conservatives do it? Recent polls have, on average, put Labour 5-6 % points ahead, with UKIP around 12% and the Liberal Democrats (http://searchtopics.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/topic/Liberal_Democrats)around 10%.

Doing the snapshot – election held tomorrow stuff, means that if these poll results were replicated at a general election then Labour would have around 360 MPs, the Conservatives 240 MPs and the Lib Dems 21, with UKIP on zero.

However, as I said, it’s the trends in polling that count, and opposition poll leads usually decline in the run-up to elections as people shift from protest mode to decision mode.

History therefore suggests that the Conservatives are well placed at the moment being only 5-6 points behind Labour. They should gain 9-12 seats from the Lib-Dems, and they’ll have the incumbency factor working for them in the marginal seats that they won off Labour in 2010.


BUT, who was it who suggested 'Progressivism' might have its place ? Who was it who challenged his debating opponent to defy that ?

Au contraire. I'll be eating some with tonight's supper !! :laugh::laugh:

I guess if that's the only way that you can have "chops" then good on ya. Hopefully it is a proper salve to your inability to discuss conservative views. :dunno:

And what other "ism" is there if one suggests that there is a failure in capitalism? Or do you still not understand an if/then scenario?

[fj1200]

Wait, so are you against the Muzzies or the Lefties? Thank God there aren't Commies involved too. Or are there? :poke:

Just wrap all of that up into the globalists and you'll have it covered. :slap:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Over 1400 years of lies , deceptions and mass murder that eliminated over 250 million souls says this type of deceit and STRATEGY is right in line with how they operate. Yet you seem to ignore such historic and undeniable evidence. My question is why? Do you think factual history is in fact not true? Or is the desire to defend those that seek total destruction of the Jews AND Christianity some addiction you have? Myself , I don't have to let a damn tiger bite my arm off for me to know its dangerous and should either be caged or stayed the hell well clear of..-Tyr
I'm quite sure the pursuit of western empire dwarfs that number. Which would be an interesting debate topic if your willing.

Im a little perturbed with your analogy's shortcomings; does the tiger kill thinking of what he does as justified for incursions into his territory and attempts to cage him? I think not; a tiger simply does as tigers do--theres no righteous platitudes among tigers....but given your outcomes proffered, were he capable of philosophical reasoning, it certainly would behoove him more so than you to avoid contact.
But alas, a tiger cannot reason as such...so yet again, your attempts to demean men to beasts only illuminates the inherent evils of man.[/QUOTE] I am amazed that you tried to put human motives and thinking into my comparison intended to merely point out recognizing deadly threats (a wild tiger) I made no attempt to bemean or to bemoan men as being beasts. .. My analogy was not a philosophical essay on man's inherent evil nor was it intended to be a treatise on political corruption. Rather was a simple attempt to point out how some do not see a threat until after its too damn late. And some even refuse to admit it even then!
By the way , whether the Western empire dwarfs that number or not is irrelevant amigo(care to give specific numbers instead of just a broad accusation). The Western empire was not a single religious group nor was it united under a single cause and its not still attempting to conquer the entire world by murdering all that refuse to submit to some barbaric religious doctrine. .. Your attempted stab hit a brick wall with that one IMHO. I hope you can do better next time amigo. ;)-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just wrap all of that up into the globalists and you'll have it covered. :slap: Damn sure a better thought out path than that of absolute denial based upon an abject fear of truth or else a strong desire to appease. :poke: -Tyr

[Drummond]

fact: Britain has less murders and more Muslims than the USA. So what, exactly is being hampered by the most restrictive gun law on the planet?

... which does, indeed, say a lot. Just not what you think it does !! ....

Britain has less murders ? I haven't checked, but I'm happy to take your word for it. And .. MORE Muslims than the USA ? Really ?

... Which really all says .. WHAT ?

You give no mention to the fact that THE UK HAS ONLY A FRACTION OF THE POPULATION OF THE USA.

... so ... less murders ? Well, even leaving aside the fact that murders can be committed by weapons other than guns ... maybe your statistics would make for greater parity, were those for the UK to be increased to extrapolate for a population around five times larger ???

And, we have MORE Muslims than the USA ? Maybe that's because we've had successive Socialist Governments determined to welcome them with open arms, then proceed to defer to their every whim ?? Or, maybe Muslims know that, after 9/11, in the USA they'd be met by a population more in tune with, more aware of, Islam's violent side ?


Im all for speaking in truths, but your version of truth is purely an availed evil.

'Evil', eh ? Thanks so much ...

Would I be being accurate in assuming that your version of being 'less evil' would involve deferring to them ever more completely, just as the UK's Socialists fall over themselves in their enthusiasm to manage .. on behalf of us all ?

When do we start to say ... 'Heyy, WE HAVE RIGHTS TOO. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO OUR OWN BELIEFS, OUR OWN CULTURE, WITHOUT PUTTING YOURS AHEAD OF OURS ALL THE TIME'.

And consider the facts, as known, which this thread is meant to address. Do your really NOT see such Islamic machinations such as those described, to be EVIL, and DESERVING OF THE UTMOST RESISTANCE ??

Do we recognise the truth and resolve to tackle it .. or, just adopt a 'see no evil, hear no evil' approach ... then react with utter astonishment when, one day, our own culture is swept away by Islamists who've worked for religious domination ALL THAT TIME ?

[Drummond]

Strawman. Who suggested that Bush do nothing?

Then you see my point. Governments have responsibilities to discharge. Bush did his duty. He was right to do so. Thus, the War on Terror was thoroughly justified.


As far as governments having a responsibility of national security, no one is doubting .....

Excellent point. Exactly.


but your suggestion is that government needs to favor YOUR beliefs, etc

Well, since you claim to be a 'Thatcherite', they're YOUR beliefs, too.

... or .. aren't they ??


That is why YOU are a big government advocate.

So you keep falsely claiming, and which I keep accurately refuting. Fact is, there are certain things which the machinery of Government can do well, and SHOULD do well, and be expected to undertake. The Bush example illustrates this well.


Tell me this, are none of the Muslims in GB citizens of GB?

Many are. Though ... what this means to them probably differs radically from what it would mean to an indigenous Brit. I'm sure that there are many Muslims here who consider themselves to be British citizens, yet will always respect and follow Islamic diktats over local law, when presented with those choices.

Indeed ... the BBC examined just such a sub-culture going on in the UK, a handful of months ago ...

I'm sure those same Muslims would be proud to call themselves British, were the UK to be fully Islamised .....


You're suggesting that armed insurrection is a tactic on the table? Will you be engaging in any terrorist type activities in advance thereof?

What on earth are you talking about ?

And, well, your attitude is telling ... isn't it ? Do I understand from this tripe that you think that I may become a terrorist in my OWN country, for trying to stand up for MY beliefs, MY culture, MY country's future ... if I resist, in a more than purely token way, an increasing onslaught of Islamic incursions ???

Remind me, FJ. You say you're NOT a Leftie ???

[jafar00]

jafar. Let us know how you can dispute this: http://icansayit.com/images/islamlogic.jpg

Easy. Men are allowed up to 4 wives by God's decree according to certain reasons and limits. Women are not allowed multiple husbands anywhere in the Qur'aan or Sunnah.



Do we recognise the truth and resolve to tackle it .. or, just adopt a 'see no evil, hear no evil' approach ... then react with utter astonishment when, one day, our own culture is swept away by Islamists who've worked for religious domination ALL THAT TIME ?

I know for a fact that the vast majority of Muslims in the UK, at least the ones I have met and spend time with, some of whom I still have contact with, are peaceful and law abiding citizens. Some of them are more British than you are I think.

The typical Brits I know are warm, friendly and love to moan about the weather. I know a few British Turks who are just like that as they munch on their chip butties. ;)

[fj1200]

Damn sure a better thought out path than that of absolute denial based upon an abject fear of truth or else a strong desire to appease. :poke: -Tyr

Silly me, I'd rather win. Charging at windmills is folly.

[fj1200]

Then you see my point. Governments have responsibilities to discharge. Bush did his duty. He was right to do so. Thus, the War on Terror was thoroughly justified.

Excellent point. Exactly.

Well, since you claim to be a 'Thatcherite', they're YOUR beliefs, too.

... or .. aren't they ??

A. You could point out where I suggested that government doesn't have a role in national defense, and 2. Your big government beliefs are not mine; Government performing it's national defense role is far different than you demand it protect "YOUR culture and YOUR beliefs..."


So you keep falsely claiming, and which I keep accurately refuting. Fact is, there are certain things which the machinery of Government can do well, and SHOULD do well, and be expected to undertake. The Bush example illustrates this well.

I've proven over and over that you love your big government machinations when you get to decide. Don't make it my fault that I can see you coming from a mile away.


Many are. Though ... what this means to them probably differs radically from what it would mean to an indigenous Brit. I'm sure that there are many Muslims here who consider themselves to be British citizens, yet will always respect and follow Islamic diktats over local law, when presented with those choices.

Indeed ... the BBC examined just such a sub-culture going on in the UK, a handful of months ago ...

I'm sure those same Muslims would be proud to call themselves British, were the UK to be fully Islamised .....

So those citizens have the same right to claim that the government protect, "THEIR culture and THEIR beliefs..."? Of course I'm sure you wish that government now protect the "indigenous Brits" over those interlopers.


What on earth are you talking about ?

And, well, your attitude is telling ... isn't it ? Do I understand from this tripe that you think that I may become a terrorist in my OWN country, for trying to stand up for MY beliefs, MY culture, MY country's future ... if I resist, in a more than purely token way, an increasing onslaught of Islamic incursions ???

Remind me, FJ. You say you're NOT a Leftie ???

What am I talking about? Your words of course.


Sadly, we have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the face of the planet ... so there are freedoms we are institutionally robbed of. All that can be considered is hampered by that reality.

I can't imagine what relevance restrictive gun laws have against your "Muzzy scourge" except for... And I don't really put much confidence is someone who has no compunction against using the label "subhuman" and proclaiming how much they have to resist against... what was it??? 2.8% of the population?

Oh, and thanks for admitting that you have already lost. Any time you have to drop in your leftie blather I know you've got nothing in response. Tell me again how you're not a hack.

[Drummond]

I'll argue that austerity, higher taxes and lower spending, is a bad choice. It's unnecessary, causes unneeded pain to the electorate, and will ultimately prove out to be harmful when winning an election, and altering the course of your country, is the goal.

What an amazing argument, from a supposed 'Thatcherite' ...

You know, FJ, for a supposed NON-Leftie, you do a remarkable job of arguing like one !!! I'm not sure I detect ANY difference between your case and the one which the Leftie leader here, Ed Miliband, would choose to present himself.

Our Labour Party have been opposing the Conservatives' austerity measures ever since they were first announced.

Here's the truth of British politics, FJ .. yes, the global financial crisis did much harm here. But HERE, the Labour Party was in Government at the time. Having ALREADY racked up record levels of debt, their answer to the 2008 situation was to spend their way out of it !!

So it was that they bailed out banks and Building Societies most needing help. Here, there were NO bailout votes beforehand .. Labour consulted NOBODY before acting. With classic power-mad arrogance, they just spent public money as they saw fit, not asking about it, but instead TELLING people what they were going to do.

How you imagine that I could approve of 'big Government arrogance' like this is beyond me. And I don't think you really do, FJ. Your claiming this of me is as fictitious as your own 'Thatcherite' pretentions ....

So, to 2010, and the election then of the Coalition Government we now have, consisting primarily of Conservatives, but with LibDem support, following Labour's ousting. BOTH PARTIES SAW THE ABSOLUTE NEED FOR AUSTERITY MEASURES. Why ? Because our National Debt was simply too huge to be sustainable, that's why. Oh, sure, Labour -- OUR SOCIALISTS -- argue as YOU do. But then, having created our mess, they will never properly own up to culpability for it, since to do so would be electoral suicide.

It ultimately comes down, putting it over-simply, to prudent housekeeping (an approach Mrs Thatcher strongly favoured !!). If you have massive debts, don't you try to balance the books, rather than rack up yet MORE debt ??

Observe this semi-Leftie article from the 'Independent' UK newspaper (it started out as a neutral publication, but lurched to the Left during the Iraq war ..). Even THEY say ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/did-margaret-thatcher-really-save-britain-8566596.html


Lady Thatcher's government did a good job of driving down government debt, which was 43.6 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1979, and 26.7 per cent in 1990. In 2009, after the banking crisis, it was back where Lady Thatcher found it as a proportion of national output, and rising. In gross figures, the debt was £88.6bn in 1978-79, and £1,103.6bn in 2011-12.

Public spending actually went up in the early Thatcher years, from 45 per cent of GDP to 48.5 per cent, before she started to bring it down. It was back at the 1979 level in 1987, and carried on falling until 1999, after which Labour let it rise slowly until 2008, when the cost of bailing out the banks made it shoot up from 41 to 48 per cent. It should be back to its 1979 level next year.

Conservatives understand this commonsense approach. But .. Labour, AND YOU, apparently can't. So it is that, today, the UK still has a good credit rating, unlike Greece, who didn't choose austerity measures, but were forced into them in order to qualify for bailouts.

Regardless of your own very evident Socialist thinking, FJ, there is REALITY out there. And world financial institutions, such as the IMF and Standard & Poors, agree with our austerity measures. Spending our way into far MORE debt is the economics of the madhouse.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-12-15/news/35836578_1_negative-outlook-downgrade-moody


However, both S&P and Moody's downgrades of France (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/France) earlier - in November and Jan; S&P even downgraded the US, received rather muted market reaction in all cases.The UK, which other than Germany (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Germany) is the only European country to retain its triple A status from all three agencies has long been held up as a poster boy for fiscal austerity measures, more specifically since the Tory-led coalition has taken charge with its severe fiscal austerity measures.

S&P removed its negative outlook on UK after Chancellor George Osborne (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/George%20Osborne) unveiled tough fiscal deficit (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/fiscal%20deficit) control measures in 2010, when he took over.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8028170/IMF-backs-austerity-plan-UK-on-the-mend.html


The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has thrown its weight behind the Government’s austerity drive, describing the “strong and credible plan ... essential to ensure debt sustainability”.

In an unambiguously supportive statement, the world’s economic regulator said the Treasury’s aggressive programme of cuts would not halt economic growth, calling it “appropriately ambitious”.

The IMF’s unequivocal endorsement of the Coalition’s proposals, which comes the day before Ed Miliband’s first speech as Labour Party leader, will be seized on by ministers as they hit back at opposition claims that the cuts will damage growth.

In an upbeat assessment of the country’s economic prospects, the IMF declared: “The UK economy is on the mend. Recovery is underway but will proceed at a moderate pace as the economy undergoes a difficult but necessary restructuring.”

See that, FJ ? Care to explain how it is that you, 'THE THATCHERITE', are in agreement with OUR SOCIALIST OPPOSITION ???


I guess if that's the only way that you can have "chops" then good on ya. Hopefully it is a proper salve to your inability to discuss conservative views. :dunno:

I suspect that your reference to 'chops' is an Americanism not in use over here. To me, chops are either cutting motions, or tasty portions of meat. Perhaps I should ask you for a translation ?

As for 'my' inability (so-called) to discuss Conservative views ... I find that rich, coming from a self-styled 'Thatcherite' WHO ARGUES JUST AS A LEFTIE WOULD !!!!!

[Drummond]

Easy. Men are allowed up to 4 wives by God's decree according to certain reasons and limits. Women are not allowed multiple husbands anywhere in the Qur'aan or Sunnah.

Not even the pretence, then, of any equality between the sexes, Jafar. Quite. Well ... to us Westerners, I'm 'sorry', but that's thinking which goes back to the Dark Ages. A throwback to a less enlightened, less humanly decent age ... which, but for Islam, would be dead and buried as a way of life.


I know for a fact that the vast majority of Muslims in the UK, at least the ones I have met and spend time with, some of whom I still have contact with, are peaceful and law abiding citizens. Some of them are more British than you are I think.

Is it a British trait to avoid confrontational behaviour ? To 'turn the other cheek' ?

Many would say so.

So, then ... IS THIS HOW YOU EXPLAIN ABU HAMZA'S WEEKLY PREACHINGS OF HATE AT FINSBURY PARK ? AND THE FACT THAT NO 'PEACELOVING' MUSLIM, OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, EVER SAW FIT TO OFFER HIM CLEAR OPPOSITION ???

YOU were in the general locality, were you not, Jafar, for some of that time ? Tell us of the opposition YOU offered him ....


The typical Brits I know are warm, friendly and love to moan about the weather. I know a few British Turks who are just like that as they munch on their chip butties. ;)

Is that just before they seek advice as to how to defy British law, as their local Muslim councils would suggest they do ?

[fj1200]

What an amazing argument, from a supposed 'Thatcherite' ...

You know, FJ, for a supposed NON-Leftie, you do a remarkable job of arguing like one !!! I'm not sure I detect ANY difference between your case and the one which the Leftie leader here, Ed Miliband, would choose to present himself.

Our Labour Party have been opposing the Conservatives' austerity measures ever since they were first announced.

Here's the truth of British politics, FJ .. yes, the global financial crisis did much harm here. But HERE, the Labour Party was in Government at the time. Having ALREADY racked up record levels of debt, their answer to the 2008 situation was to spend their way out of it !!

So it was that they bailed out banks and Building Societies most needing help. Here, there were NO bailout votes beforehand .. Labour consulted NOBODY before acting. With classic power-mad arrogance, they just spent public money as they saw fit, not asking about it, but instead TELLING people what they were going to do.

How you imagine that I could approve of 'big Government arrogance' like this is beyond me. And I don't think you really do, FJ. Your claiming this of me is as fictitious as your own 'Thatcherite' pretentions ....

So, to 2010, and the election then of the Coalition Government we now have, consisting primarily of Conservatives, but with LibDem support, following Labour's ousting. BOTH PARTIES SAW THE ABSOLUTE NEED FOR AUSTERITY MEASURES. Why ? Because our National Debt was simply too huge to be sustainable, that's why. Oh, sure, Labour -- OUR SOCIALISTS -- argue as YOU do. But then, having created our mess, they will never properly own up to culpability for it, since to do so would be electoral suicide.

It ultimately comes down, putting it over-simply, to prudent housekeeping (an approach Mrs Thatcher strongly favoured !!). If you have massive debts, don't you try to balance the books, rather than rack up yet MORE debt ??

Observe this semi-Leftie article from the 'Independent' UK newspaper (it started out as a neutral publication, but lurched to the Left during the Iraq war ..). Even THEY say ....

The evidence doesn't bear out your protestations. Your Socialists suck but the meltdown was monetary in nature. I think it's a great idea to get debt levels under control; hiking taxes and cutting spending is just not the best way to go about it. So tell me, have your Socialists argued for tax cuts and spending control?


Conservatives understand this commonsense approach. But .. Labour, AND YOU, apparently can't. So it is that, today, the UK still has a good credit rating, unlike Greece, who didn't choose austerity measures, but were forced into them in order to qualify for bailouts.

Regardless of your own very evident Socialist thinking, FJ, there is REALITY out there. And world financial institutions, such as the IMF and Standard & Poors, agree with our austerity measures. Spending our way into far MORE debt is the economics of the madhouse.

I asked how austerity was working out for you. The GDP numbers don't portray it in a good light and it's certainly not working in Greece. It would also be helpful if you understood my position before telling me that it's wrong. As I've argued here and elsewhere the best response would have been to cut taxes to spur private sector growth while restraining spending growth, or making effective cuts if necessary and possible.

Also keep in mind, S&P only cares really if investors recoup their investment on their bond purchasers, they don't particularly care about if unemployment is higher than it needs to be. Or does the S&P get to vote in your upcoming elections.


See that, FJ ? Care to explain how it is that you, 'THE THATCHERITE', are in agreement with OUR SOCIALIST OPPOSITION ???

You're apparently not smart enough to know that I'm not in agreement with your socialist opposition. I'm pretty sure that they would be wrong as well. Oh, and if you weren't aware, the IMF is not exactly a small government organization so why you're putting your credibility there surprises me... well, no it doesn't; You big government types stick together.


I suspect that your reference to 'chops' is an Americanism not in use over here. To me, chops are either cutting motions, or tasty portions of meat. Perhaps I should ask you for a translation ?

As for 'my' inability (so-called) to discuss Conservative views ... I find that rich, coming from a self-styled 'Thatcherite' WHO ARGUES JUST AS A LEFTIE WOULD !!!!!

Aah, the leftie crutch shows up again. Apparently anyone who can show the errors of your ways is a "leftie." ;) Oh, and I'm pretty sure you're interwebinator works the same as mine as looking up definitions.

[jafar00]

Not even the pretence, then, of any equality between the sexes, Jafar. Quite. Well ... to us Westerners, I'm 'sorry', but that's thinking which goes back to the Dark Ages. A throwback to a less enlightened, less humanly decent age ... which, but for Islam, would be dead and buried as a way of life.

You would refuse to understand even if I tried to explain it. Anyway, why are you trying to fight for gender equality for a group of people you hate? Also, Muslim women accept this 100% so what is the problem?

[aboutime]

Easy. Men are allowed up to 4 wives by God's decree according to certain reasons and limits. Women are not allowed multiple husbands anywhere in the Qur'aan or Sunnah.



I know for a fact that the vast majority of Muslims in the UK, at least the ones I have met and spend time with, some of whom I still have contact with, are peaceful and law abiding citizens. Some of them are more British than you are I think.

The typical Brits I know are warm, friendly and love to moan about the weather. I know a few British Turks who are just like that as they munch on their chip butties. ;)


​jafar. DEFEND MUCH?

[Drummond]

The evidence doesn't bear out your protestations.

Nonsense. IT DOES.

Here's one link, no doubt of many, I can supply - this drafted in 2008, the year of the global crisis, and two years before the Labour Party was thrown out:-

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2008/10/ryan-robson-we.html


The direction of travel is clear – the economy, the whole economy,every high street and every home is going to experience a dramatic
downturn in fortunes.

No one, and that includes Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, knows bad it will be and how long it will last.

But the Government shows every sign of making it worse for us all.

Having blamed the US banks for their profligate lending and ignored
its own borrowing binge, the Government seems more concerned with
taking over the finances of other organisations than getting a grip of
its own.

It has embarked upon a ‘harm reduction’ policy; doing a little bit
here or there to solve the problem. But this tinkering ignores the
underlying problem – spending addiction fuelled by debt.

We all know the feeling of having bought something on a credit card
which we can’t quite afford but makes us feel good. Well Labour have
taken the Bank of England Gold Card to every store and their trolley is
full of the things which give them a thrill – complicated quangos,
sharp-suited consultants and shiny new offices.

The Government has put the nation in hock to fund policies which
have not mended our broken society and have left us in an enfeebled
position to help struggling consumers and businesses in a global
financial maelstrom.


Your Socialists suck but the meltdown was monetary in nature. I think it's a great idea to get debt levels under control;

THEN YOU SHOULD SUPPORT OUR CONSERVATIVES UNRESERVEDLY.


.. hiking taxes ..

If you knew anything about British politics, you'd know that the Conservatives are usually a LOW taxation party, and that Labour are a HIGH taxation party.


and cutting spending is just not the best way to go about it.

Leading world financial institutions, as I've already illustrated, DISAGREE ... and give us good credit ratings BECAUSE we follow the course we do !!


So tell me, have your Socialists argued for tax cuts and spending control?

On tax cuts, I'm unaware that they have (except possibly to manipulate the tax bands a little). But then, traditionally, they do the exact opposite to that.

On spending controls ... when in power, they spend money - ANY money they have - like carefree drunken sailors. They have, of late, started trying to gain voter support by hinting at spending controls, yet invariably attack Conservatives for the controls THEY apply. The inference must clearly be that, when in power again, they'll relax existing controls .. i.e, start more spending once again.


I asked how austerity was working out for you. The GDP numbers don't portray it in a good light

The most recent reports say that our economy is actually growing faster than was predicted. Austerity measures can't be expected to be popular, but most people understand the great need for them (delusional Leftie diehard wreckers notwithstanding).

Our GDP can't be expected to seem 'healthy', but then again, all this does is to reflect the great depth of problem Labour left us with. Most analysts say we will need two terms of Conservative spending controls, at least, to get Labour's wreckage fixed. But, there ARE indicators of growth .. and we have the continued backing of institutions such as the IMF for our continued austerity measures. If we abandoned them ... then we'd be heading for Greece's fate. Nobody thinking sensibly doubts that.

As for Greece .. she had far worse problems than us, brought about by .. WHAT ? YOU TELL ME !!!

Who can come up with an alternative to stringent austerity controls for Greece that will serve Greece better ??


It would also be helpful if you understood my position before telling me that it's wrong. As I've argued here and elsewhere the best response would have been to cut taxes to spur private sector growth while restraining spending growth, or making effective cuts if necessary and possible.

Trying to reverse course, FJ ?

Cutting taxes is fine, when it can be afforded. Our Conservatives have long since believed exactly that. But you can only do this when conditions permit it, and currently they don't. If you think otherwise, you clearly underestimate the damage our Socialists did to us !


Also keep in mind, S&P only cares really if investors recoup their investment on their bond purchasers, they don't particularly care about if unemployment is higher than it needs to be. Or does the S&P get to vote in your upcoming elections.

More to the point, S&P has its own reasons for favouring a strong UK economy ... why would they want the opposite ??!? So it is that they FAVOUR our austerity measures !!


You're apparently not smart enough to know that I'm not in agreement with your socialist opposition. I'm pretty sure that they would be wrong as well. Oh, and if you weren't aware, the IMF is not exactly a small government organization so why you're putting your credibility there surprises me... well, no it doesn't; You big government types stick together.

Oh dear ... a 'Conservative' not thinking well of the IMF. Doesn't scan well, I'm afraid ...

Tell you what. When you are in full agreement with Conservative realism, I'll believe you. For as long as you indicate otherwise, I will not.

Hint: it'll help if you now utterly reject any future notion you have of any merits attributable to 'Progressivism'. Mrs Thatcher hated it .. and as a 'Thatcherite' yourself, SO SHOULD YOU.


Aah, the leftie crutch shows up again.

Well, it's YOUR crutch !!!! Stop proving its applicability, and I need not refer to it again.


Apparently anyone who can show the errors of your ways is a "leftie." ;)

Since you haven't, is this your way of saying you're not one ??

One out of ten: must do better !! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Drummond]

You would refuse to understand even if I tried to explain it. Anyway, why are you trying to fight for gender equality for a group of people you hate? Also, Muslim women accept this 100% so what is the problem?

Your last point first .. are you seriously telling me that Islamic women - those not institutionally conditioned to accept the status quo - could possibly have ANY freedom to DISagree, if they ever wanted to ????

I think gender equality is the only civilised route imaginable, Jafar. One reason to oppose Islam is because it cannot be kind enough to humanity to even grant women THAT basic a human right !!

Islam is a throwback to less enlightened, more brutal, more primitive times. This current subject is one clear example of proof of that.

The world ... at least, the CIVILISED world ... has moved on, Jafar. Were Islamists to somehow institute Sharia Law in Western democracies, as many dream of one day witnessing, the result would be a new, barbarous Dark Age filled with needless misery and suffering.

[fj1200]

Nonsense. IT DOES.

Here's one link, no doubt of many, I can supply - this drafted in 2008, the year of the global crisis, and two years before the Labour Party was thrown out:-

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2008/10/ryan-robson-we.html

THEN YOU SHOULD SUPPORT OUR CONSERVATIVES UNRESERVEDLY.

Nothing in your link proves out that Socialism is the reason for the meltdown. That you found a link that has a conservative blaming socialists is not something that is exactly hard to find. Of course I have no problem blaming them for profligate spending but that's not what we're talking about; we're talking about is the cause of the meltdown, which is monetary of course, ;) so do try and stay on topic will you?

Oh, and I don't support conservatives when "conservatives" are wrong.


If you knew anything about British politics, you'd know that the Conservatives are usually a LOW taxation party, and that Labour are a HIGH taxation party.

:laugh: I don't need to know anything about British politics to know that.


Leading world financial institutions, as I've already illustrated, DISAGREE ... and give us good credit ratings BECAUSE we follow the course we do !!

As I've already told you, they give good ratings because they determine that investors will recoup their investments. That doesn't mean though that it's the best course for the country.


On tax cuts, I'm unaware that they have (except possibly to manipulate the tax bands a little). But then, traditionally, they do the exact opposite to that.

On spending controls ... when in power, they spend money - ANY money they have - like carefree drunken sailors. They have, of late, started trying to gain voter support by hinting at spending controls, yet invariably attack Conservatives for the controls THEY apply. The inference must clearly be that, when in power again, they'll relax existing controls .. i.e, start more spending once again.

It's about time. You finally admit that I have nothing in common with your Socialists. Geez, there's hope for you yet. Whether your new found admittance will stick is a whole 'nother story. ;)


The most recent reports say that our economy is actually growing faster than was predicted. Austerity measures can't be expected to be popular, but most people understand the great need for them (delusional Leftie diehard wreckers notwithstanding).

Our GDP can't be expected to seem 'healthy', but then again, all this does is to reflect the great depth of problem Labour left us with. Most analysts say we will need two terms of Conservative spending controls, at least, to get Labour's wreckage fixed. But, there ARE indicators of growth .. and we have the continued backing of institutions such as the IMF for our continued austerity measures. If we abandoned them ... then we'd be heading for Greece's fate. Nobody thinking sensibly doubts that.

As for Greece .. she had far worse problems than us, brought about by .. WHAT ? YOU TELL ME !!!

Who can come up with an alternative to stringent austerity controls for Greece that will serve Greece better ??

I'm sorry, but this \/ is what you're excited about?


The UK economy grew by 1.9% in 2013, its strongest rate since 2007, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).But growth in gross domestic product (GDP) for the fourth quarter slipped to 0.7%, down from 0.8% in the previous quarter, it said (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/gva/gross-domestic-product--preliminary-estimate/q4-2013/stb-gdp-preliminary-estimate--q4-2013.html).
And economic output is still 1.3% below its 2008 first quarter level.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72572000/gif/_72572592_economic_recovery_624gr.gif


Austerity sucks.


Trying to reverse course, FJ ?

Cutting taxes is fine, when it can be afforded. Our Conservatives have long since believed exactly that. But you can only do this when conditions permit it, and currently they don't. If you think otherwise, you clearly underestimate the damage our Socialists did to us !

How am I reversing course? I'm consistent, you flap in the wind. Do you really need a conservative education in how tax cuts spur economic growth and the resulting tax revenues? I'll be happy to provide it but if you truly have no idea of Supply Side fundamentals then perchance you should do a little bit of research because you are woefully behind the (Laffer) curve. ;)


More to the point, S&P has its own reasons for favouring a strong UK economy ... why would they want the opposite ??!? So it is that they FAVOUR our austerity measures !!

How many times do you need to be told what their purpose is?


Oh dear ... a 'Conservative' not thinking well of the IMF. Doesn't scan well, I'm afraid ...

Tell you what. When you are in full agreement with Conservative realism, I'll believe you. For as long as you indicate otherwise, I will not.

Hint: it'll help if you now utterly reject any future notion you have of any merits attributable to 'Progressivism'. Mrs Thatcher hated it .. and as a 'Thatcherite' yourself, SO SHOULD YOU.

:laugh: The IMF is not a conservative organization. Austerity is a zero-sum argument; I reject it and so should you. But then again you don't really know what conservatism is. :(

Another challenge for you to fail at; point out my posts in favor of progressivism.


Well, it's YOUR crutch !!!! Stop proving its applicability, and I need not refer to it again.

Since you haven't, is this your way of saying you're not one ??

One out of ten: must do better !! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Man you dumb.

[Drummond]

Nothing in your link proves out that Socialism is the reason for the meltdown. That you found a link that has a conservative blaming socialists is not something that is exactly hard to find. Of course I have no problem blaming them for profligate spending but that's not what we're talking about; we're talking about is the cause of the meltdown, which is monetary of course, ;) so do try and stay on topic will you?

Talking about 'staying on topic', here we are, discussing the British economy .. when this thread is REALLY supposed to be about Islamists covertly trying to take over schools !!! I don't see, therefore, that you've any latitude to lecture me !!

As for the meltdown ... it was in part thanks to the 2008 global financial crisis, but ALSO the product of a Socialist Government compounding the effect because of their irresponsible mishandling of the UK's finances. BOTH had their effect.


Oh, and I don't support conservatives when "conservatives" are wrong.

Translation: you've no loyalty to Conservative thinking, nor faith in it as the best possible approach. Well ... quite !


:laugh: I don't need to know anything about British politics to know that.

Congratulations.


As I've already told you, they give good ratings because they determine that investors will recoup their investments. That doesn't mean though that it's the best course for the country.

Even though the institutions you criticise think otherwise ??

How would investors recoup their investments, FJ, from a fundamentally unsound economy ? Fact is that austerity measures contribute to its future soundness. The IMF, S&P, know that ... even if you refuse to.


It's about time. You finally admit that I have nothing in common with your Socialists.

???????????

You're every bit as much in denial about what's needed to fix an ailing economy, as THEY are. More, you want to deny Socialist culpability for helping to create the mess ! From where I'm standing, you have A LOT in common with them.


I'm sorry, but this \/ is what you're excited about?

Evidence of growth, this from an economy that was previously flatlining ??? Nobody thought that a recovery would be easy, or happen overnight. But .. progress is being made .. this from, according to you, the WRONG approach !!

And, FJ ... if you disapprove of austerity measures, what alternative - & one defying the experts !!! - do you require in its place ? Part of 'austerity' is to rein in expenditures .. do you advocate a Socialist 'spend, spend, then spend some more' approach ?

Tax cuts need to be affordable, by the way. Until they are, they stand to do more harm than good.


Austerity sucks.

Nobody likes it ! But, IS IT NECESSARY ?


How am I reversing course? I'm consistent, you flap in the wind.

Indeed ? Mrs Thatcher was loyal to her cause. You show shifting loyalties according to your preference at any one time.


Do you really need a conservative education in how tax cuts spur economic growth and the resulting tax revenues?

Nope.

Nor do I need to be told that this takes much time to kick in and have an effect, with the shorter term effect being one of impoverishment. It's a bit like shooting yourself in the head, and feeling smug about it because you choose to do so in a hospital.


How many times do you need to be told what their purpose is?

How many times do YOU need to be told that they have a certain fiscal expertise, so are highly likely to know what they're talking about !! That you are critical of their Capitalistic agenda is neither here nor there.


:laugh: The IMF is not a conservative organization. Austerity is a zero-sum argument; I reject it and so should you. But then again you don't really know what conservatism is. :(

The IMF is a CAPITALISTIC organisation. This goes hand in hand with Conservatism. This helps explain how the two can agree on common ground, and remedial action, when it truly matters.


Another challenge for you to fail at; point out my posts in favor of progressivism.

'Fail', eh ? OK ... try ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44942-Ethics-question-for-anybody-to-chime-in-an-answer&p=683827#post683827

YOUR EXACT WORDS ...


If you want to "improve" capitalism then progressivism is your ticket.This was quickly picked up .. in ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44942-Ethics-question-for-anybody-to-chime-in-an-answer&p=683843#post683843


Sir Drummond. I wondered how long it would be before fj finally admitted to be a full-fledged Liberal/Socialist/Progressive who admires people like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.Congratulations go out to fj for...COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET.

My post #17 ...


I shall refrain from screaming 'leftie', FJ, because I've no need to do so. You see, the truth of a person's thinking, sooner or later, HAS to surface, even if it's just an occasional leakage of it. So, every now and again, a phrase or sentiment will reveal what it is.

And your seeing any advantage, any at all, to progressivism is revealing, regardless of subsequent deflection attempts.

Me, now, I see none at all. Neither did Margaret Thatcher. You might make that the start of your future thoughts.

'Whoops', FJ ...


Man you dumb.

Dumb enough to deny something already proven ??

Besides, I manage to string sentences together on a permanent basis ... !

Oh, by the way: here's a 'present' for you. A display of our Socialists' utter shamelessness in ADMITTING how much of a mess they'd left for us Conservatives to clear up after them .....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2347524/On-eve-cuts-David-Laws-finally-reveals-Liam-Byrnes-flippant-note-joked-sorry-money.html


The Coalition turned the screw on Labour over spending last night, releasing the infamous letter admitting there was ‘no money’ left at the 2010 election.

Cabinet Office minister David Laws made public the glib note, left by outgoing Treasury chief secretary Liam Byrne for his successor.

It states: ‘Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards – and good luck! Liam.
The letter has haunted Labour, allowing Tory and Liberal Democrat ministers to prove the nation’s coffers were empty.


On the eve of the latest round of spending cuts, the letter from former Treasury minister Liam Byrne has been pictured for the first time.

Consisting of just 18 words it offers no apology or justification for the state of the nation’s finances, only a glib ‘good luck’ to whoever was left to clear up the economic mess.

The letter, written in blue ink on government note paper, was opened by Lib Dem David Laws who became Chief Secretary to the Treasury when the coalition was formed.

Mr Laws mentioned its existence within days of taking office, claiming he assumed the envelope would offer advice on how to conduct himself in government.

But he refused to bow to calls from former Tory spin doctor Andy Coulson to release the actual letter publicly.

As he made the letter public for the first time, Mr Laws claimed he had not deliberately intended for it to be made public three years ago.

Lib Dem Mr Laws said: ‘I didn’t set out to embarrass Liam, but he left a note which frankly does sum up precisely the state of the Treasury when he left it.

‘I think it is refreshing that a Labour politician has been prepared to admit that.’

See the letter for yourself, FJ ... and ask yourself how you're going to continue to try and absolve UK Socialists from THEIR CULPABILITY for our fiscal mess !

5937

[jafar00]

Your last point first .. are you seriously telling me that Islamic women - those not institutionally conditioned to accept the status quo - could possibly have ANY freedom to DISagree, if they ever wanted to ????

A Muslim woman by definition would not even think to disagree with the Qur'aan. She has the right to refuse her husband's request to marry a second though. The Qur'aan allows a man to marry up to 4 wives but there are a lot of conditions attached to this and great punishments in the afterlife for not sticking to those limits. A man just wanting a second sexual partner is not a valid reason. However, as a hypothetical lets say a woman finds out she is sterile, but her husband really wants children. She could agree to him marrying a second in that instance and he has the right as long as he treats both wives equally.

Sure there are some who abuse this right, but they are weak in faith and face punishment in hell for it.


I think gender equality is the only civilised route imaginable, Jafar. One reason to oppose Islam is because it cannot be kind enough to humanity to even grant women THAT basic a human right !!

Islam gave women many rights over 1000 years before Europeans ever did. If we were really so oppressive towards women, there wouldn't be so many women converting every day would there?


Islam is a throwback to less enlightened, more brutal, more primitive times. This current subject is one clear example of proof of that.

The world ... at least, the CIVILISED world ... has moved on, Jafar. Were Islamists to somehow institute Sharia Law in Western democracies, as many dream of one day witnessing, the result would be a new, barbarous Dark Age filled with needless misery and suffering.

In some situations, even in today's society, the customs of Islam fit very well and can solve many problems. Remember, it was Muslims who lifted Europe out of the dark ages.

[aboutime]

A Muslim woman by definition would not even think to disagree with the Qur'aan. She has the right to refuse her husband's request to marry a second though. The Qur'aan allows a man to marry up to 4 wives but there are a lot of conditions attached to this and great punishments in the afterlife for not sticking to those limits. A man just wanting a second sexual partner is not a valid reason. However, as a hypothetical lets say a woman finds out she is sterile, but her husband really wants children. She could agree to him marrying a second in that instance and he has the right as long as he treats both wives equally.

Sure there are some who abuse this right, but they are weak in faith and face punishment in hell for it.



Islam gave women many rights over 1000 years before Europeans ever did. If we were really so oppressive towards women, there wouldn't be so many women converting every day would there?



In some situations, even in today's society, the customs of Islam fit very well and can solve many problems. Remember, it was Muslims who lifted Europe out of the dark ages.


Right you are jafar. Which explains why Europe, and the Middle Eastern nations prefer a return to the Dark Ages.

You leave little doubt about how accurate that is. Your endless defensive posts...I mean..Propaganda... proves it.

[jimnyc]

Easy. Men are allowed up to 4 wives by God's decree according to certain reasons and limits. Women are not allowed multiple husbands anywhere in the Qur'aan or Sunnah.

I'm not being disrespectful to your religion, just asking a question aside of that. I understand the need to 'follow' and/or 'abide' by your religion. But wouldn't common sense and courtesy see the genders as equal when it comes to loving one another, and being devoted to one another? With the religion aside, why isn't it disrespectful to a wife when the husband is bedding other women? We all know what love is and how it makes us feel. Wouldn't giving a portion of that to another woman still be a form of cheating? I'm not trying to insult what I haven't grown up with, but to me it just seems like something that is like an "international language" of love, that we only give our hearts to that one special person.

[jafar00]

I'm not being disrespectful to your religion, just asking a question aside of that. I understand the need to 'follow' and/or 'abide' by your religion. But wouldn't common sense and courtesy see the genders as equal when it comes to loving one another, and being devoted to one another? With the religion aside, why isn't it disrespectful to a wife when the husband is bedding other women? We all know what love is and how it makes us feel. Wouldn't giving a portion of that to another woman still be a form of cheating? I'm not trying to insult what I haven't grown up with, but to me it just seems like something that is like an "international language" of love, that we only give our hearts to that one special person.

I understand how the concept is foreign to western thinking, but it is accepted in the Islamic world whether for the right reasons or the wrong.

Take the example of the barren wife. Her husband wants kids/heirs so he asks to take a second wife in order to procreate. If his 1st wife agrees and the second agrees, they can have a second marriage and have children. The 1st wife doesn't have to divorce and still enjoys a loving marriage, and support of her husband, he gets to have kids, and the wives become like sisters. The western style alternative would be that she gets divorced and has to fend for herself which is a problem in Arab society especially where employment is scarce and there are little to no social services established.

While it is by no means a thing where a women MUST accept polygamy, the permission exists for a man to love and care for *up to* 4 wives where there is necessity and some good can become of it. Some people are able to overcome jealousy for the greater good and the option is there to deal with it.

In the 3rd verse of Surat An Nisa it says "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one". This is the first of many restrictions and limits to whether or not a man can marry more than once.

While such marriages exist, I have never met anyone who has this kind of arrangement nor wants it. It is a spiritual and emotional minefield that I wouldn't wish on my enemies. ;)

[Drummond]

A Muslim woman by definition would not even think to disagree with the Qur'aan.

Even despite the fact that Islam grants a greater scope of 'rights' to men than to women ?


She has the right to refuse her husband's request to marry a second though.

Sounds like a 'concession' rather than a right. In Western societies, this would be bigamy, and illegal.


The Qur'aan allows a man to marry up to 4 wives but there are a lot of conditions attached to this and great punishments in the afterlife for not sticking to those limits. A man just wanting a second sexual partner is not a valid reason. However, as a hypothetical lets say a woman finds out she is sterile, but her husband really wants children. She could agree to him marrying a second in that instance and he has the right as long as he treats both wives equally.

Noted in its entirety, Jafar. Nonetheless, you cannot escape the fact that Islam makes allowances for extra marriages, so long as it's MEN doing the multiple marrying, that other religions, and Western societies, would (at 'best') balk at. Besides, you say that a man just wanting a second sexual partner 'is not a valid reason' .. but are you seriously telling me that this is anything like a foolproof stipulation, rarely or never breached ?? How do you judge these things with any degree of accuracy ?


Sure there are some who abuse this right ....

Exactly.


Islam gave women many rights over 1000 years before Europeans ever did. If we were really so oppressive towards women, there wouldn't be so many women converting every day would there?

How many DO convert, and under what circumstances ? Perhaps some do it to survive in a society intolerant of any other religion ?

Here's something which strongly suggests a form of barbarism which you'll no doubt want to rush to either 'sanitise', or just otherwise deny ....

http://www.fahrenheit211.net/2013/09/04/bbc-forced-to-tell-the-truth-about-islamic-grooming-gangs/


Those of us who have been getting increasingly angry about the BBC’s pandering to Islam, by trying to hide the scale of Islamic Grooming Gangs, have been pleasantly surprised. The BBC has put out a programme showing the problems faced by Britain’s Sikh community whose daughters are being targeted by Islamic Grooming Gangs. You can view the film via YouTube from the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hXTM7ehvtk

It is indicative of the scale of the problem that even the BBC, that bastion of unrepresentative middle-class leftism, has been forced by sheer weight of evidence to admit that there is a problem and it was refreshing to hear the BBC use the ‘M’ word in connection with the problem of grooming.

The BBC has too often used the word ‘Asian’ to describe Islamic Grooming Gangs, which is total slur on Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Jains etc, who just happen to come from Asia and look, well, Asian. However the situation regarding Islamic groomers has now got so bad, that even the BBC cannot sustain this lie any more.

It is a positive move to see the BBC telling the story of how what is looking like a worrying number of Sikh girls targeted for abuse with cases in Britain going back decades. The Sikh girls are groomed by Muslim men sometimes pretending to be Sikh in order to gain the trust of the Sikh girls who they subsequently abused.

Unfortunately, the BBC have made a feature in the programme of the problems that Sikh girls have in admitting that they have been abused by Muslim men, because of the issue of family honour. The problem is not Sikh morality, but the immorality of those who follow Islam. This shocking film shows how the Muslim groomers target Sikh girls because they believe that the girls and their families will not report the crimes to the police because of fear of shame.

Apart from the horrific tales of abuse detailed in this programme, one thing that turned my stomach was the Taqqiya spouting Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra of the British Muslim Council who blatantly lied when he denied there was any connection between Islam and the grooming gangs. This is in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

I look forward to your reaction, Jafar ...


In some situations, even in today's society, the customs of Islam fit very well and can solve many problems. Remember, it was Muslims who lifted Europe out of the dark ages.

-- And judging by the link and quote I've just provided, Jafar, Islam isn't exactly short of adherents who want to drag Europe right back there again !!!!!!!

Will we see Islam 'solving' the problem I've just highlighted, Jafar, any time soon ??!

[jafar00]

Even despite the fact that Islam grants a greater scope of 'rights' to men than to women ?

Men and Women both have rights over each other and it all works out fair. This is why Muslims want Sharia. Not to be confused with Taliban style oppression which is something completely different!


Noted in its entirety, Jafar. Nonetheless, you cannot escape the fact that Islam makes allowances for extra marriages, so long as it's MEN doing the multiple marrying, that other religions, and Western societies, would (at 'best') balk at. Besides, you say that a man just wanting a second sexual partner 'is not a valid reason' .. but are you seriously telling me that this is anything like a foolproof stipulation, rarely or never breached ?? How do you judge these things with any degree of accuracy ?

Those who exceed the limits set by God will be punished as I said. Since this is Islamic culture which is roundly accepted by Muslims and has no effect on your life, why are you so upset about it?



How many DO convert, and under what circumstances ? Perhaps some do it to survive in a society intolerant of any other religion ?

There are a lot of converts. 3 last weekend in my Mosque. 2 men, 1 woman. Is Australia intolerant? I was a convert in the UK. Is the UK intolerant?


Here's something which strongly suggests a form of barbarism which you'll no doubt want to rush to either 'sanitise', or just otherwise deny ....

http://www.fahrenheit211.net/2013/09/04/bbc-forced-to-tell-the-truth-about-islamic-grooming-gangs/

I look forward to your reaction, Jafar ...

You don't exactly have the most best of sources there do you? What a bunch of racist, bigoted tripe! Do you seriously fill your mind with this nonsense?


Taqqiya spouting Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra of the British Muslim Council who blatantly lied when he denied there was any connection between Islam and the grooming gangs. This is in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What's the ample evidence? Is it like the ample "evidence" of those young lads doing so called "Muslim Patrols"?

The Sheikh is right. There is no connection to this and Islam and I challenge you to provide it. Were those responsible arrested and jailed like any other rapist?


-- And judging by the link and quote I've just provided, Jafar, Islam isn't exactly short of adherents who want to drag Europe right back there again !!!!!!!

Will we see Islam 'solving' the problem I've just highlighted, Jafar, any time soon ??!

It looks like a problem for the local constabulary to me or are you ok with unregulated vigilante groups walking around dishing out justice in the streets?

[Drummond]

Men and Women both have rights over each other and it all works out fair. This is why Muslims want Sharia. Not to be confused with Taliban style oppression which is something completely different!

No, Jafar. Men have more rights than women under Islam. Simple fact. Any Muslim thinking it's fair is either taking that line because Islam favours HIM, or, has no choice but to accept the status quo.

Quote me examples of women being allowed four husbands ... if you can ...

Muslims 'want' Sharia because their faith expects obedience to it. They 'want' what they're led to believe they 'must have'.


Those who exceed the limits set by God will be punished as I said.

A nice belief. And ... your proof ... ??


Since this is Islamic culture which is roundly accepted by Muslims and has no effect on your life, why are you so upset about it?

Islam is about world conquest. Muslims go to foreign lands, do NOT integrate, but demand endless concessions. Taken far enough, they hope to terraform their environment so that it is fully compliant with them.

For further information (.. if you need it ..) .. contact Anjem Choudary.


There are a lot of converts. 3 last weekend in my Mosque. 2 men, 1 woman. Is Australia intolerant? I was a convert in the UK. Is the UK intolerant?

The UK is far TOO tolerant, resulting in the appearance of a religion capable of thriving. This is perhaps its own persuader.

But what I referred to before was societies where, already, non-Muslims receive persecution for not being Muslim.


You don't exactly have the most best of sources there do you? What a bunch of racist, bigoted tripe! Do you seriously fill your mind with this nonsense?

Perhaps you 'missed' it. The piece was entitled, 'BBC forced to tell the truth about Islamic grooming gangs'.

Should I understand your criticism to apply to the BBC's output, Jafar ?

Then again, if the BBC isn't good enough for you, try ...

http://kafircrusaders.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/map-of-the-muslim-grooming-and-paedo-epidemic-in-britain/

... or ...

http://european-freedom-initiative.org/index.php/european-news/eu-news-england/156-muslim-grooming-gang-force-young-girls-to-do-qjiggy-jiggyq

... or ...

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/12/22/help-britain-first-fight-the-growing-scourge-of-muslim-paedophile-grooming-gangs-that-force-young-non-muslim-girls-into-sexual-slavery/

... or ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2564678/Teenage-girl-victim-grooming-gang-raped-30-men-just-six-hours-including-father-schoolboy-son.html

... or ...

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3846/britain-child-grooming

Quoting from this one ..


A court in London has sentenced seven members of a Muslim child grooming gang based in Oxford to at least 95 years in prison for raping, torturing and trafficking British girls as young as 11.
The high-profile trial was the latest in a rapidly growing list of grooming cases that are forcing politically correct Britons to confront the previously taboo subject of endemic sexual abuse of children by predatory Muslim paedophile gangs.

The 18-week trial drew unwelcome attention to the sordid reality that police, social workers, teachers, neighbors, politicians and the media have for decades downplayed the severity of the crimes perpetrated against British children because they were afraid of being accused of "Islamophobia" or racism.


The Sheikh is right. There is no connection to this and Islam and I challenge you to provide it.

I JUST HAVE.


Were those responsible arrested and jailed like any other rapist?

You admit their existence ?

See the above example for an answer to you.

[aboutime]

Sounds like jafar is the only one here with a tolerance, fairness, and humanity problem.

If jafer thinks ANY Man, or Woman has more power over ANY OTHER Human...male, or female.

That is the Worldwide problem people like jafar MUST ALWAYS DENY.

Jafar. If you are married. And your wife accepts you as having power over her. Both of you are Idiots.

[fj1200]

Talking about 'staying on topic', here we are, discussing the British economy .. when this thread is REALLY supposed to be about Islamists covertly trying to take over schools !!! I don't see, therefore, that you've any latitude to lecture me !!

As for the meltdown ... it was in part thanks to the 2008 global financial crisis, but ALSO the product of a Socialist Government compounding the effect because of their irresponsible mishandling of the UK's finances. BOTH had their effect.

Then you shouldn't have brought up the whole meltdown bit then should you? Socialist spending in the UK had almost nothing to do with the meltdown, probable considering that the meltdown affected the whole world. The crisis certainly had an effect on government revenues but that was a result and not a cause.


Translation: you've no loyalty to Conservative thinking, nor faith in it as the best possible approach. Well ... quite !

Of course I have loyalty to conservative thinking. It's just a shame that you haven't provided any.


Congratulations.

:shrug:


Even though the institutions you criticise think otherwise ??

How would investors recoup their investments, FJ, from a fundamentally unsound economy ? Fact is that austerity measures contribute to its future soundness. The IMF, S&P, know that ... even if you refuse to.

I criticize them because I am right to criticize them, they are not conservative and they are not based in the free market. Just because some "conservative" in your country sold you a bill of goods doesn't mean you need to suck it down without critically thinking it through. The IMF is nothing but a tool that ensures that major banks get their funds back and they have little regard in how it's done.

Why the IMF Should Not Intervene (http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/why-imf-should-not-intervene)


Free-market economists have long been critical of the IMF. Mexico-style crises may have brought much attention to the Fund in recent years, but the lending agency’s record over the past 50 years has been dismal, as numerous books and studies have documented. The IMF does not appear to have helped countries either achieve self-sustaining growth or to promote market reforms. Despite its poor performance, the IMF has proven to be a remarkably resilient institution. When the system of fixed exchange rates ended in the early 1970s, so did the agency’s original mission of maintaining exchange-rate stability by lending to countries experiencing balance-of-payments problems. Instead of closing down, however, the Fund has created new missions for itself with each new crisis, each time expanding its economic influence or resources or both. Those episodes included the oil crises of the 1970s, the Third World debt crisis, the collapse of communism, and now, Mexico-style crises.
Keep in mind that the IMF in theory makes short-term loans in exchange for policy changes in recipient countries. This has not, however, helped countries move to the free market. Instead the Fund has created loan addicts as review of its lending reveals. Eleven nations have been relying on IMF aid for at least 30 years; 32 countries had been borrowers for between 20 and 29 years; and 41 countries had been using IMF credit for between 10 and 19 years. That is not evidence of either the success of the Fund’s so-called conditionality or the temporary nature of the Fund’s short-term loans.
...
The third reason I oppose IMF bailouts is that they undermine superior, less expensive market solutions. In the absence of an IMF, creditors and debtors would do what creditors and debtors always do in cases of illiquidity or insolvency: they renegotiate debt or enter into bankruptcy procedures. In a world without the IMF, both parties would have an incentive to do so because the alternative, to do nothing, would mean a complete loss. Direct negotiations between private parties and bankruptcy procedures are essential if capitalism is to work. As James Glassman has stated, capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without Hell. IMF bailouts, unfortunately, undermine one of the most important underpinnings of a free economy by overriding the market mechanism. There is simply no reason why international creditors and borrowers should be treated any differently than are lenders and debtors in the domestic market.
...
Conclusion
The U.S. Congress plays a large role in determining the scale of the IMF’s influence on the world economy. An increasing number of prominent economists are now calling for an end to IMF bailouts and even its abolition—something to which U.S. congressmen are paying attention.[10] Because the Fund creates moral hazard, causes more harm than good once a crisis does erupt, and undermines superior market solutions, the United States and other major donors should reject further funding for the IMF and in that way vote for a more stable and free global economy. That would send a signal to the world that the Fund’s resources are not, in fact, unlimited. Beyond that, wealthy nations should further help the world’s poor by dismantling the IMF altogether.

Tell me again how the IMF is market based? :laugh:


???????????

You're every bit as much in denial about what's needed to fix an ailing economy, as THEY are. More, you want to deny Socialist culpability for helping to create the mess ! From where I'm standing, you have A LOT in common with them.

I figured that you would be confused. And accurately predicted that you wouldn't admit to it. ;)

An ailing economy is fixed by encouraging private business, ANY conservative would understand that; The US economy wasn't fixed in the early 80's with austerity, it was fixed with tax cuts and supply side policies; we didn't balance the budget with austerity in the 90's, we balanced the budget with spending restraint and capital gains tax cuts which spurred the economy and drove unemployment lower. Of course all of that proves out that you are unaware of actual conservatism. I've even proved that you're a shill for the IMF, a tool for the globalist agenda if I ever saw one. :laugh: What say the anti-globalists around here???


Evidence of growth, this from an economy that was previously flatlining ??? Nobody thought that a recovery would be easy, or happen overnight. But .. progress is being made .. this from, according to you, the WRONG approach !!

And, FJ ... if you disapprove of austerity measures, what alternative - & one defying the experts !!! - do you require in its place ? Part of 'austerity' is to rein in expenditures .. do you advocate a Socialist 'spend, spend, then spend some more' approach ?

Tax cuts need to be affordable, by the way. Until they are, they stand to do more harm than good.

Evidence of growth??? Any moron can point to evidence of growth; even BO can point to evidence of growth. Unless you're saying of course that BO is pursuing the correct policies because last I saw US growth was leading UK growth??? Clearly you must be saying that because that's where your logic lies.

But that last line, well... it makes me chuckle, tax cuts will do more harm than good. Let's take a few minutes and let that sink in...


Nobody likes it ! But, IS IT NECESSARY ?

No, it isn't necessary. Examples provided above.


Indeed ? Mrs Thatcher was loyal to her cause. You show shifting loyalties according to your preference at any one time.

:laugh: When have I shifted loyalties. I'm loyal to small government principles. You love your big government.


Nope.

Nor do I need to be told that this takes much time to kick in and have an effect, with the shorter term effect being one of impoverishment. It's a bit like shooting yourself in the head, and feeling smug about it because you choose to do so in a hospital.

You are clearly lying to yourself. Tax cuts... "more harm than good..." :laugh:


How many times do YOU need to be told that they have a certain fiscal expertise, so are highly likely to know what they're talking about !! That you are critical of their Capitalistic agenda is neither here nor there.

The IMF is a CAPITALISTIC organisation. This goes hand in hand with Conservatism. This helps explain how the two can agree on common ground, and remedial action, when it truly matters.

:laugh:


Because the Fund creates moral hazard, causes more harm than good once a crisis does erupt, and undermines superior market solutions...


'Fail', eh ? OK ... try ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44942-Ethics-question-for-anybody-to-chime-in-an-answer&p=683827#post683827

YOUR EXACT WORDS ...

This was quickly picked up .. in ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44942-Ethics-question-for-anybody-to-chime-in-an-answer&p=683843#post683843

My post #17 ...

'Whoops', FJ ...

1. You clearly don't understand an if/then statement, 2. Your buddy suggested a failure, 3. I defended capitalism in that thread, 4. That you're pointing out your sock as some sort of proof is laughable (he hasn't had a coherent independent thought this decade), 5. You ran away scared from any actual debate in that thread; an unwillingness to even answer a question. Quite sad.

Par for the course dude. Your failure is one for the ages.


Dumb enough to deny something already proven ??

Besides, I manage to string sentences together on a permanent basis ... !

Oh, by the way: here's a 'present' for you. A display of our Socialists' utter shamelessness in ADMITTING how much of a mess they'd left for us Conservatives to clear up after them .....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2347524/On-eve-cuts-David-Laws-finally-reveals-Liam-Byrnes-flippant-note-joked-sorry-money.html

See the letter for yourself, FJ ... and ask yourself how you're going to continue to try and absolve UK Socialists from THEIR CULPABILITY for our fiscal mess !

Epically dumb because you haven't proved anything. You're not even smart enough to know that the opposite of socialism is not austerity. I will admit though that you are able to string sentences together... something your sock can't do.

Oh, and why would I care what socialists say or admit. I already know that they're wrong.

[Drummond]

Then you shouldn't have brought up the whole meltdown bit then should you? Socialist spending in the UK had almost nothing to do with the meltdown, probable considering that the meltdown affected the whole world. The crisis certainly had an effect on government revenues but that was a result and not a cause.

You enjoy playing with contexts in order to muddy the waters.

Socialist spending, in the UK, did not cause the global meltdown. It DID, however, force us to be poorly positioned to weather that storm. If our Socialists had acted far more responsibly, then I doubt that today's austerity measures would even exist. There'd be no need for them.

As it is, our debts are so massive that they'll doubtless still be needed after the 2015 election.So tell me, FJ. If you're not a Socialist yourself, then WHY are you trying so hard to defend them in my part of the world ? You show every bit as much enthusiasm for absolving them of responsibility for their actions as they themselves want to see happen !!!

In the meantime ....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/16/nick-clegg-labour-banking_n_4608403.html

.. let me point out that this is from the Huffington Post's UK office. Being Leftie yourself, you should be most reluctant to defy anything they disseminate .. yes ?



Nick Clegg has accused Labour of being "single-handedly responsible" for the 2008 banking crash, in an attack that has been met with derision by actual experts.

Speaking this morning on his LBC 97.3, the Liberal Democrat leader poured scorn on Labour's attempt on Wednesday to urge the government to stop RBS paying its bankers twice their pay in bonuses.

"I almost admire the chutzpah of these people who created this mess going around to tell people how to clear it up.

"It was verging on the bizarre that the Labour Party thought they had anything to teach anyone about the banks because they are single handedly responsible for the biggest collapse in our banking system in the postwar period."

Samuel Tombs, UK economist at Capital Economics, told the Huffington Post UK that Clegg had offered 'quite an extreme interpretation of the financial crisis, which had various causes".

Being Leftie, Huffington will naturally defend Socialists any way they can, hence the evident bias of the piece. But consider this: Nick Clegg might need to form a Coalition with Labour after the 2015 election to remain in power. It's just not in his interests to lie about them !! So ... this makes Clegg's apportioning of blame an HONEST act on his part.


Of course I have loyalty to conservative thinking.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

THEN STOP TRYING TO DEFEND SOCIALIST IRRESPONSIBILITY !!!!


I criticize them because I am right to criticize them, they are not conservative and they are not based in the free market. Just because some "conservative" in your country sold you a bill of goods doesn't mean you need to suck it down without critically thinking it through. The IMF is nothing but a tool that ensures that major banks get their funds back and they have little regard in how it's done.

Said like a good Socialist.

You defend British Socialists, to the hilt, it seems, and you push the idea of British Conservatives 'selling us a bill of goods' (.. another Americanism, but happily I know that one). You clearly have little regard for the IMF, which plays an important role in the Capitalist world. I've even shown that you aren't averse to defending Progressivism as being of value in world affairs (.. or do I need to post your quote, and its origin, AGAIN ?).

Would Mrs Thatcher approve of any of your attacks against British Conservatives ?


I figured that you would be confused. And accurately predicted that you wouldn't admit to it. ;)

Where reputable argumentation fails, the jibes begin ? Any good text crossings-out on the horizon ?


An ailing economy is fixed by encouraging private business, ANY conservative would understand that;

TO THE EXTENT IT CAN, YES. But if you somehow imagine that they have the funds to comfortably do it, then you are playing down the extent of the mess the Conservatives inherited from Labour.

Tax cuts HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE. If they're not, then their introduction is harmful.


The US economy wasn't fixed in the early 80's with austerity, it was fixed with tax cuts and supply side policies; we didn't balance the budget with austerity in the 90's, we balanced the budget with spending restraint and capital gains tax cuts which spurred the economy and drove unemployment lower. Of course all of that proves out that you are unaware of actual conservatism. I've even proved that you're a shill for the IMF, a tool for the globalist agenda if I ever saw one. :laugh: What say the anti-globalists around here???

Two points. One, since the US economy is so big, since so much is tied into it .. its resilience will be far greater than is true for the UK. So any argument based on a 'level playing field' is a false one. Two .... even YOU admit that spending restraint played an important part in your problems THEN (which, I suggest, weren't quite as major as those of 2008).

Well ... what do you imagine is a cornerstone of austerity measures here, IF NOT SPENDING RESTRAINT ??

So, why are you against it in the UK, but not critical of it when practised in the US, decades ago ??


Evidence of growth??? Any moron can point to evidence of growth; even BO can point to evidence of growth. Unless you're saying of course that BO is pursuing the correct policies because last I saw US growth was leading UK growth??? Clearly you must be saying that because that's where your logic lies.

As I've said, the American economy has far greater resilience. Though ... you've STILL had your Government shutdowns, eh ? How prevalent were those when your Conservatives were in charge ?

In the early days of our austerity measures, our economy flatlined. Now, it's growing. But being a Socialist scorn-maker, you have to ridicule signs of progress .... don't you ?


But that last line, well... it makes me chuckle, tax cuts will do more harm than good. Let's take a few minutes and let that sink in...

Tax cuts mean less revenue collected and available. Which means .. what ? More borrowing, to plug the shortfall in revenues ?

It was massive Socialist borrowing which exacerbated the mess we're currently still coping with !!

Sure. In the LONG term, the principle you advocate would have its good effect. But, NOT in the short term, and not in those days of increased fiscal fragility, where every hiccup could have a major effect of its own. Would you like to see Socialist-style borrowing choke real growth, and reduce our global creditworthiness ?

Tax cuts to stimulate industry - fine, WHEN AFFORDABLE. NOT BEFORE.

[fj1200]

You enjoy playing with contexts in order to muddy the waters.

Socialist spending, in the UK, did not cause the global meltdown. It DID, however, force us to be poorly positioned to weather that storm. If our Socialists had acted far more responsibly, then I doubt that today's austerity measures would even exist. There'd be no need for them.

As it is, our debts are so massive that they'll doubtless still be needed after the 2015 election.So tell me, FJ. If you're not a Socialist yourself, then WHY are you trying so hard to defend them in my part of the world ? You show every bit as much enthusiasm for absolving them of responsibility for their actions as they themselves want to see happen !!!

Muddy the waters? You made a statement that was provably false and it was fun doing the proving.


After all, we all know that the global financial crisis of 2008 was mademuch worse by our Socialists' spendthrift ways...

I fully agree, and have said so, that a recession is going to hurt government revenues but again you're confused about what I actually post. I haven't defended Socialists in your part of the world, I merely state that austerity is a bad idea and I base that on provable scenarios that have already been provided. It would help if you'd read what I post rather than what your imagination sees.


In the meantime ....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/16/nick-clegg-labour-banking_n_4608403.html

.. let me point out that this is from the Huffington Post's UK office. Being Leftie yourself, you should be most reluctant to defy anything they disseminate .. yes ?

Being Leftie, Huffington will naturally defend Socialists any way they can, hence the evident bias of the piece. But consider this: Nick Clegg might need to form a Coalition with Labour after the 2015 election to remain in power. It's just not in his interests to lie about them !! So ... this makes Clegg's apportioning of blame an HONEST act on his part.

I see you're still intent on proving your utter stupidity by leaning on your leftie crutch, nevertheless tell me again why I care about huffpo? Other than your imagination and obfuscation of your failure of course. :dunno:


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

THEN STOP TRYING TO DEFEND SOCIALIST IRRESPONSIBILITY !!!!

Dumb as dirt comes to mind. Saying that austerity is not the opposite of socialism is not defending Socialist irresponsibility. The Socialists have spread enough irresponsibility around that I'm not going to take up their cause.


Said like a good Socialist.

You defend British Socialists, to the hilt, it seems, and you push the idea of British Conservatives 'selling us a bill of goods' (.. another Americanism, but happily I know that one). You clearly have little regard for the IMF, which plays an important role in the Capitalist world. I've even shown that you aren't averse to defending Progressivism as being of value in world affairs (.. or do I need to post your quote, and its origin, AGAIN ?).

Would Mrs Thatcher approve of any of your attacks against British Conservatives ?

:facepalm99: Please point out my defense of British Socialists. I've already demonstrated that the IMF is not Capitalist, is this what a Capitalist organization would say?

IMF Says Tax Cuts Impair Economic Growth (http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/imf-says-tax-cuts-impair-economic-growth/)
The effects of economic inequality, like those mentioned in the IMF reports, were broadly exposed last year by the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz in his book The price of inequality. The volume clearly explains that the inequality problem in the US, and other world economies, is the result of three decades of neoliberal economic policies imposed by greedy and powerful elites who “have learned how to suck out money from the rest in ways that the rest are hardly aware of.”

According to Prof. Stiglitz, these measures unleashed a wave of deregulation, privatization, attacks against the Unions and tax cuts for the rich that have in turn slashed incomes and increased inequality. The latter, says Stiglitz, has a retarding effect of productivity and can impair economic growth.
In line with Stiglitz’s conlusions, the IMF paper said that over the last three decades inequality has widened in most countries. The report noted, for instance, that in the United States the share of national income flowing to the richest 1 per cent of the population has grown from 8 per cent in 1980 to 19 per cent in 2012.

The increase in equality is also judged by the reports as the main cause for the wave of revolutionary events that have taken place in Egypt, Turkey, Venezuela and some Asian countries over the last two years, and for the rise of movements such as Occupy Wall Street.

Tell me again how the IMF is free market and capitalist? :laugh:

Oh, and you can post your ignorance, but it doesn't change that it's ignorant. :shrug: And I do have little regard for the IMF. There are a few anti-globalists here that might take issue with your position; they must be lefties too. :laugh:


Where reputable argumentation fails, the jibes begin ? Any good text crossings-out on the horizon ?

Sucks for you that my prediction was accurate. ;)


TO THE EXTENT IT CAN, YES. But if you somehow imagine that they have the funds to comfortably do it, then you are playing down the extent of the mess the Conservatives inherited from Labour.

Tax cuts HAVE TO BE AFFORDABLE. If they're not, then their introduction is harmful.

It's nice to see that you're denying the benefits of supply side economics, it makes my argument easier that you are not a conservative and don't really understand the basis of conservatism. I've been saying that about you for quite some time, it only takes time for you to bolster my case for me. I would think the hole you're in could only get so deep, and then it gets deeper. ;)


Two points. One, since the US economy is so big, since so much is tied into it .. its resilience will be far greater than is true for the UK. So any argument based on a 'level playing field' is a false one. Two .... even YOU admit that spending restraint played an important part in your problems THEN (which, I suggest, weren't quite as major as those of 2008).

Well ... what do you imagine is a cornerstone of austerity measures here, IF NOT SPENDING RESTRAINT ??

So, why are you against it in the UK, but not critical of it when practised in the US, decades ago ??

Man you're dense. How many times have I explained that austerity is tax increases and outright spending cuts, restraining spending growth and cutting taxes are not austerity. Can you understand that yet? Greece is following the wrong path, the UK is following the wrong path, other countries implementing austerity are following the wrong path, the IMF frequently prescribes austerity which is the wrong path. The US did not follow that path under Reagan or under the Republican Congress in the 90's and strong economies ensued.


As I've said, the American economy has far greater resilience. Though ... you've STILL had your Government shutdowns, eh ? How prevalent were those when your Conservatives were in charge ?

In the early days of our austerity measures, our economy flatlined. Now, it's growing. But being a Socialist scorn-maker, you have to ridicule signs of progress .... don't you ?

I see that you support BO and the measures he has taken, we're growing, your logic states that his approach is successful. :confused: The government shutdowns have zero effect and yes I will ridicule under-performing "progress" when things should be better; that's why BO gets my ridicule.


Tax cuts mean less revenue collected and available. Which means .. what ? More borrowing, to plug the shortfall in revenues ?

It was massive Socialist borrowing which exacerbated the mess we're currently still coping with !!

Sure. In the LONG term, the principle you advocate would have its good effect. But, NOT in the short term, and not in those days of increased fiscal fragility, where every hiccup could have a major effect of its own. Would you like to see Socialist-style borrowing choke real growth, and reduce our global creditworthiness ?

Tax cuts to stimulate industry - fine, WHEN AFFORDABLE. NOT BEFORE.

As true conservatives like Reagan understand I'm not going to be too concerned about borrowing short term if I can implement changes that will pay off in the long term. Especially at rates under 5 and 4%.

http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2011/09/UK-10-year-government-bond-yield-per-cent-09-11.jpg


You exhibit short-term thinking. Debt, or deficit levels, are only a number in the grand scheme of things, it's the long-term trend that I worry about; right now our deficit levels are falling (good) but the long term forecast has them increasing (bad) due to the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, SS, ACA, etc. (very bad). If the latter was not pressing then the former wouldn't be so bad. If central government revenues in the UK are anything like Federal government revenues in the US then tax rates have almost zero correlation to Federal revenues. They have more correlation to the unemployment rate in the US than anything else. Austerity, unfortunately, does nothing to encourage hiring. There are multiple ways to reduce those on the dole, kick them off or do what's necessary to create a strong economy that will give them something to do rather than remain on welfare. It seems the UK is choosing the former and I fear for your upcoming electoral chances, the US chose the latter in the 90s, even at the risk of giving Clinton some credit, and were rewarded with Al Gore NOT being elected. Oh, and when the capital gains tax rate was cut... CG revenues more than doubled in four years. I'm glad that someone knew we could afford that. ;)

[Drummond]

Muddy the waters? You made a statement that was provably false and it was fun doing the proving.

If you were in the UK right now, and you argued exactly as you have, I can assure you, it would be our SOCIALISTS who'd be applauding you the loudest, and with the greatest enthusiasm. I also assure you that they'd appreciate your efforts to shift the blame away from THEM for our current crisis .. and would probably ask you to join their Party, thinking you were worthy Comrade material.


I fully agree, and have said so, that a recession is going to hurt government revenues but again you're confused about what I actually post. I haven't defended Socialists in your part of the world,

'No', only shifted their share of the blame away from them !!!


I merely state that austerity is a bad idea

OUR SOCIALISTS WOULD, AND DO, AGREE !

Here's the proof - as if it were needed ....

http://labourassemblyagainstausterity.org.uk/


Labour’s response to next Wednesday’s Budget will be the starting pistol for the next election. That is why Labour activists are gathering at the Labour Assembly Against Austerity meeting on Monday night, with Katy Clark MP, Steve Turner, Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee, to discuss what positive alternative to cuts Labour should offer. The Tories general thrust was set out by Cameron speaking from his golden throne at the Mansion House in November last year: an ideological charge for a permanent reduction in public spending. The signs are that George Osborne’s fourth austerity budget will make good on that pledge and extend his projection of public spending cuts by another year, to 2020.


and I base that on provable scenarios that have already been provided.

.. and I have pointed out that our Chancellor's austerity measures receive widespread SUPPORT from the international financial institutions who are in a position to properly judge their worth !


It would help if you'd read what I post rather than what your imagination sees.

It would help if you recognised the worth of prudent housekeeping !!


I see you're still intent on proving your utter stupidity by leaning on your leftie crutch, nevertheless tell me again why I care about huffpo?

Because they are on your side of the fence !!! You should balk at questioning anything they say, because of it.

And as I've said before, for as long as you argue as a Leftie (.. or in this case, to defend them from blame for the mess they did so much to create) .. I'll categorise you as you deserve to be categorised.


Saying that austerity is not the opposite of socialism is not defending Socialist irresponsibility.

Nonsense .. IT IS EXACTLY THAT .. SEE ABOVE !! We had a stark choice at the time of the last election. Vote Conservative, and so veer away from Labour's reckless spending programme, or, vote Labour back into power, and have them vaguely promise to stop their outrageous spending 'some time beyond the first year of their term in Government ... maybe'


The Socialists have spread enough irresponsibility around that I'm not going to take up their cause.

Very funny. So, now, you're changing course .. ????

FJ, when you sort out what it is you ARE supporting/advocating, let me know, and we can debate some more. The fact is, however, that thus far you've rubbished our Conservatives' approach, defended Labour from the proper culpability for the mess they've created here, AND pushed for an argument which has it that unaffordable tax cuts be instituted !!!

Introduce a tax cut, and you have to plug the shortfall in expected revenue somehow. Saying / arguing that stimulated industry will lead to growth and prosperity is all very well, but this would take time to feed through. In the interim .. what would you have our Chancellor do ???

I see only two choices.

1. Abandon any continuation of the tax cut, pronto, or ..

2. BORROW in order to make up for the shortfall.

... except that borrowing would be the VERY WORST OPTION. It'd be throwing petrol on a fire you're trying to extinguish.

Option #2 is what our Lefties did to create our current mess. So you see, however you dress this up, FJ, the fact is that you're advocating SOCIALIST methodology for the UK. I don't care how much you try to disguise the fact -- this is what you're doing. You want conditions to come about which strongly resemble pre-2010 policy decisions.

Our Conservatives are working to save us from its effects !!!

[fj1200]

I'm pretty sure you are the most willfully ignorant poster I've run across in quite some time.


If you were in the UK right now, and you argued exactly as you have, I can assure you, it would be our SOCIALISTS who'd be applauding you the loudest, and with the greatest enthusiasm. I also assure you that they'd appreciate your efforts to shift the blame away from THEM for our current crisis .. and would probably ask you to join their Party, thinking you were worthy Comrade material.

Probably because it's so easy to see through the utter ridiculousness of your claim.


'No', only shifted their share of the blame away from them !!!

That UK Socialists had no blame on the global financial crisis is just a fact. Sucks for you.


OUR SOCIALISTS WOULD, AND DO, AGREE !

Here's the proof - as if it were needed ....

http://labourassemblyagainstausterity.org.uk/

Are you still clinging to your stupid position that the opposite of Socialism is austerity? And proof that the Socialists are opposed to austerity? Of course they are, they like their big spending. They also like their high taxes which you are more than happy to give them. ;) You're position is closer to the Socialists than mine; mine, of course, being nowhere near them but you share a kinship with big government now don't you?


.. and I have pointed out that our Chancellor's austerity measures receive widespread SUPPORT from the international financial institutions who are in a position to properly judge their worth !

Do you mean that great globalist organization? The IMF? :laugh:

http://www.globalistagenda.org/images/Header.gif (http://www.globalistagenda.org/finance.htm)

International Financial Institutions
The widely know and acclaimed International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank are reported by the media as lending much needed funds to third world countries so they can further develop. This is a lie. In fact, the IMF and World Bank have through indebtedness enabled the complete destruction, control of the economies, and raping of the resources of developing nations. As demonstrated by John Perkins (http://www.economichitman.com/) in his book Economic Hitman (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15830.htm) this was a planned and coordinated effort for control, domination and impoverishment of the developing world.

You're a shill for the globalists. :laugh:


It would help if you recognised the worth of prudent housekeeping !!

:confused: Pwning you is imprudent housekeeping?


Because they are on your side of the fence !!! You should balk at questioning anything they say, because of it.

And as I've said before, for as long as you argue as a Leftie (.. or in this case, to defend them from blame for the mess they did so much to create) .. I'll categorise you as you deserve to be categorised.

In for the proof. :slap: It should be easy for you to find me defending huffpo right? :laugh:


Nonsense .. IT IS EXACTLY THAT .. SEE ABOVE !! We had a stark choice at the time of the last election. Vote Conservative, and so veer away from Labour's reckless spending programme, or, vote Labour back into power, and have them vaguely promise to stop their outrageous spending 'some time beyond the first year of their term in Government ... maybe'

:facepalm99: That you can find Labour opposing the Tories is not really evidence of anything. I'm glad that you guys voted in the conservatives but it doesn't automatically mean that they chose the best course. Your unemployment rate has barely budged in 5 years, Germany's fell below the UK's rate for the first time in 25 years and they didn't take the foolish course of austerity. Even the US' lack of austerity has shown better performance than the austerity of the UK, and we all know how much BO's policies suck. Oh, and it's just sad for you to claim that the laws of economics are different in the UK than elsewhere.

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/12/21/369618-126143284088615-Individual-Global-Investor_origin.png


Very funny. So, now, you're changing course .. ????

FJ, when you sort out what it is you ARE supporting/advocating, let me know, and we can debate some more. The fact is, however, that thus far you've rubbished our Conservatives' approach, defended Labour from the proper culpability for the mess they've created here, AND pushed for an argument which has it that unaffordable tax cuts be instituted !!!

Introduce a tax cut, and you have to plug the shortfall in expected revenue somehow. Saying / arguing that stimulated industry will lead to growth and prosperity is all very well, but this would take time to feed through. In the interim .. what would you have our Chancellor do ???

I see only two choices.

1. Abandon any continuation of the tax cut, pronto, or ..

2. BORROW in order to make up for the shortfall.

... except that borrowing would be the VERY WORST OPTION. It'd be throwing petrol on a fire you're trying to extinguish.

Option #2 is what our Lefties did to create our current mess. So you see, however you dress this up, FJ, the fact is that you're advocating SOCIALIST methodology for the UK. I don't care how much you try to disguise the fact -- this is what you're doing. You want conditions to come about which strongly resemble pre-2010 policy decisions.

Our Conservatives are working to save us from its effects !!!

Apart from your willful ignorance about what I've clearly posted your choices are wrong in that they don't tell the whole story. Borrowing is not the worst option if you're creating a strong and vibrant economy which is the heart of conservatism (I need to keep reminding you unfortunately). The Socialist option is to borrow while at the same time hamstringing the economy with higher taxes and regulations. The two are not the same.

But I know you will go back to your standard argument rooted in your imagination and preconceived notions. This is made all to clear by you not addressing the parts of my previous posts that show the utter vacuousness of your position and logical thought. I mean, do you just stop reading when logic and facts confuse you? It must be true because you didn't address the whole second half of my post.

[Drummond]

I'm pretty sure you are the most willfully ignorant poster I've run across in quite some time.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Oh dear. I'm obviously getting to you ...


Probably because it's so easy to see through the utter ridiculousness of your claim.

.. h'm. Am I seeing a LACK OF SUBSTANCE in your remark ?

What's ridiculous ? Everything I state is the truth. That Socialists would be happy to see someone siding with them, calling for an end to austerity measures ... hey, the more people who think like that, the easier it'll be for them to reposition themselves as people offering an attractive alternative !

Labour want the end to the Conservatives' austerity measures, partly because they want to make a point of principle out of unrestrained spending, also because they want the Conservative tactic discredited before it has a chance to succeed !!!

In what way are you failing to play the Socialist game, by arguing as you are ??


That UK Socialists had no blame on the global financial crisis is just a fact. Sucks for you.

You're willfully missing the point. The point is that reckless Leftie spending left us pitifully unable to withstand pressures on our economy. Labour had to pump money - billions of pounds - into three major banks, also at least one Building Society, just to keep them fiscally viable !! And of course, being the outrageous Lefties they are, they just DID IT, without consulting anyone ... in a vote, for example.

And they did all that, AFTER a programme of previous State spending, not before !


Are you still clinging to your stupid position that the opposite of Socialism is austerity?

Under certain circumstances, that's what it amounts to, certainly. The Conservatives inherited an almighty fiscal mess, one so bad that the only viable solution was indeed a programme of austerity measures. It would be more correct, FJ, to put it this way: the opposite of Socialism is RESPONSIBILITY AND REALISM, and the application of remedies designed to cure us of Socialist vandalism.

Just as doctors have different cures for different ailments, so the antidote to this particular piece of vandalism has been the application of austerity measures.

That said ... it is indeed a Conservative trait to be prudent with finances. Let me remind you ... you claim to be a Thatcherite .. YES ? Well, in that case, you should be loyal to what she herself believed in ... YES ??

OK, then. FJ, get a load of this .. a quote from a speech Mrs Thatcher gave to a Conservative Conference, in the 1980's ....

.... the link, by the way, is provided by the Thatcher Foundation, whose very existence I had to tell you about, 'Thatcherite' that you 'claim to be' !!!! ...

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/105454


Prosperity will not come by inventing more and more lavish public expenditure programmes. You do not grow richer by ordering another cheque-book from the Bank. No nation ever grew more prosperous by taxing its citizens beyond their capacity to pay. We have a duty to make sure that every penny piece we raise in taxation is spent wisely and well. For it is our party which is dedicated to good housekeeping—indeed, I would not mind betting that if Mr. Gladstone were alive today he would apply to join the Conservative Party.

Protecting the taxpayer's purse, protecting the public services—these are our two great tasks, and their demands have to be reconciled. How very pleasant it would be, how very popular it would be, to say "spend more on this, expand more on that." We all have our favourite causes — I know I do. But someone has to add up the figures. Every business has to do it, every housewife has to do it, every Government should do it, and this one will.

But throughout history clever men, some of them economists, not all of them rascals, a few of them vicious men, have tried to show that the principles of prudent finance do not really apply to this Government, this budget, that institution. Not so. They always do, and every sensible person knows it, no one better than you, Mr. President, who had to deal with countries which flouted those principles and are now up to their eyes in debt. Who do they turn to? Those who follow prudent principles like us.

When there is only so much money to spend, you have to make choices, and the same is true of Governments. It is sometimes suggested that Governments can opt out of these choices. They cannot.

You see, FJ, I am totally confident that Mrs Thatcher would've thoroughly approved of today's austerity measures. She was extremely conscious of the great need to live within your means, and the one big problem the Conservatives inherited from your pals is that they'd totally REFUSED to.


And proof that the Socialists are opposed to austerity? Of course they are, they like their big spending.

Very true.


They also like their high taxes

Also very true


.. which you are more than happy to give them.
Utter crap.

I have NEVER had even ONE DAY when I was happy to give Socialists 'high taxes', or to agree with them, or to pay them !!

Our Conservatives, traditionally, are the Party of LOW taxation. It's a principle I broadly agree with. HOWEVER ... Conservatives worth a damn are also realists, and as such, we'll only tackle real situations in terms of the reality involved.

AND WHAT WAS OUR REALITY ? AN ECONOMY IN SUCH A DIRE STATE THAT NO REDUCTION IN TAXATION COULD POSSIBLY BE AFFORDED.


;) You're position is closer to the Socialists than mine; mine, of course, being nowhere near them but you share a kinship with big government now don't you?

You feel a need to resurrect that fiction ? Oh dear ....:rolleyes:


Do you mean that great globalist organization? The IMF? :laugh:

http://www.globalistagenda.org/images/Header.gif (http://www.globalistagenda.org/finance.htm)


You're a shill for the globalists. :laugh:

Funny, that ... I thought that 'The Globalist Agenda' was a Socialist goal ? H'm. Do tell me. Are the IMF a bunch of Lefties ??

Perhaps I should defer to your knowledgeable insights in that area ? Any comrades out there keeping you up to speed, FJ ?


In for the proof. :slap: It should be easy for you to find me defending huffpo right? :laugh:

Have you been known to defend every single ally you've ever had in your life, here on this forum ?

Perhaps you HAVE found a way, in some post or other, to praise or otherwise reference the Huffington Post. Even if you haven't, what does LACK of proof show ?


That you can find Labour opposing the Tories is not really evidence of anything.

In itself, true enough. But when you apply the proper contexts ... all comes into focus. The fact is that Labour went in for a prolonged spell of reckless spending, and were caught out when the 2008 financial crisis hit us. They had to pump billions of pounds which they could ill-afford to keep financial institutions viable, which made things worse. AND, NOW, THE CONSERVATIVES ARE CLEARING UP THEIR MESS IN THE ONLY SENSIBLE WAY THERE IS TO DO IT.


I'm glad that you guys voted in the conservatives but it doesn't automatically mean that they chose the best course.

Actually, it DOES. Have some faith in Thatcherite thinking !! Conservatives are, ultimately, realists at heart. I'm sure they dislike not being able to reduce taxation ... BUT ... they can only reasonably do what they can AFFORD to do.


Your unemployment rate has barely budged in 5 years, Germany's fell below the UK's rate for the first time in 25 years and they didn't take the foolish course of austerity.

You're comparing Germany's economy with our own ? Germany's economy is a 'powerhouse' economy of the EU !!! And they did not have our Labour Party indulging in reckless spending of their money !!

As for our unemployment rate ... austerity isn't meant to be a 'quick fix'. It is meant to lay the foundation for a PROPER fix !!


Even the US' lack of austerity has shown better performance than the austerity of the UK, and we all know how much BO's policies suck.

There you go again ... treating the UK economy as though it was equal to that of the US. Everybody knows otherwise !


Oh, and it's just sad for you to claim that the laws of economics are different in the UK than elsewhere.

Not the laws of economics. Just the detail as pertinent to any one economy.



http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/12/21/369618-126143284088615-Individual-Global-Investor_origin.png


Yes, and look how low the UK's graph line dips at its lowest point !!

Comparing the UK's performance with that of the US, consider two issues: one, the far greater basic overall strength of the US economy compared with ours ... and that, even DESPITE that, the UK's so-called 'wrong' austerity measures are seeing us measurably recover !!

FJ, if austerity is 'wrong', THERE WOULD BE NO RECOVERY.


Apart from your willful ignorance about what I've clearly posted your choices are wrong in that they don't tell the whole story. Borrowing is not the worst option if you're creating a strong and vibrant economy which is the heart of conservatism (I need to keep reminding you unfortunately).

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

What you're advocating is Socialist recklessness. Fine, IF you have as a starting-point, an economy SO strong that it can take a knock or two, and can absorb some debt. But ... economies which are weaker, and suffering crippling debts already, CANNOT INDULGE IN SUCH A LUXURY. As the example of Greece shows us all too clearly.


The Socialist option is to borrow while at the same time hamstringing the economy with higher taxes and regulations. The two are not the same.

Yes, they're wreckers. Quite. And a cornerstone of that wrecking IS reckless borrowing.

Actually .. FJ, why am I debating this ? Mrs Thatcher's reverence for fiscal prudence is well documented, and is at odds with your own argument ... this, despite your supposed (and self-invented) 'Thatcherite' 'credentials' !!!! You do NOT subscribe to her brand of political thinking, and that's really all there is to it. Yours is a SOCIALIST approach to State expenditure.


But I know you will go back to your standard argument rooted in your imagination and preconceived notions. This is made all to clear by you not addressing the parts of my previous posts that show the utter vacuousness of your position and logical thought. I mean, do you just stop reading when logic and facts confuse you? It must be true because you didn't address the whole second half of my post.

I've no need to answer. Your 'Thatcherite' pretentions don't stand up to examination, FJ, though your affinity towards a SOCIALIST approach, DOES, IN THOSE TERMS.

I hope you found my link from the previously 'unknown' (i.e, unknown to YOU, until I told you about it ..) Thatcher Foundation source useful. It seems you have much to learn about the Iron Lady's Conservatism.

[jafar00]

I like socialism. I went to the doctor the other day and didn't pay a cent of the normal $90 consultation fee. :poke:

[Drummond]

I like socialism. I went to the doctor the other day and didn't pay a cent of the normal $90 consultation fee. :poke:

.. and Socialism likes you, too, Jafar. It bends over backwards to accommodate (and even to argue, much as you yourself do) all you tell us you stand for.

Even so ... I'm sure the same principle applies in your part of the world as it does in mine. Even though no money may have been paid 'upfront' for your doctor's visit, taxation would've paid for the health system you are a part of. And ... I trust that you pay your taxes ?

[jafar00]

.. and Socialism likes you, too, Jafar. It bends over backwards to accommodate (and even to argue, much as you yourself do) all you tell us you stand for.

Even so ... I'm sure the same principle applies in your part of the world as it does in mine. Even though no money may have been paid 'upfront' for your doctor's visit, taxation would've paid for the health system you are a part of. And ... I trust that you pay your taxes ?

A 1.5% medicare levy doesn't kill me to pay and it gives me a good feeling that I am helping to pay for free medical care for those less fortunate than me.

[fj1200]

Oh dear. I'm obviously getting to you ...

Blah, blah, blah...

What's getting to me is willful ignorance which you have in spades. Nevertheless, this what you ignored before.


You exhibit short-term thinking. Debt, or deficit levels, are only a number in the grand scheme of things, it's the long-term trend that I worry about; right now our deficit levels are falling (good) but the long term forecast has them increasing (bad) due to the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, SS, ACA, etc. (very bad). If the latter was not pressing then the former wouldn't be so bad. If central government revenues in the UK are anything like Federal government revenues in the US then tax rates have almost zero correlation to Federal revenues. They have more correlation to the unemployment rate in the US than anything else. Austerity, unfortunately, does nothing to encourage hiring. There are multiple ways to reduce those on the dole, kick them off or do what's necessary to create a strong economy that will give them something to do rather than remain on welfare. It seems the UK is choosing the former and I fear for your upcoming electoral chances, the US chose the latter in the 90s, even at the risk of giving Clinton some credit, and were rewarded with Al Gore NOT being elected. Oh, and when the capital gains tax rate was cut... CG revenues more than doubled in four years. I'm glad that someone knew we could afford that. ;)

What you are to stupid to admit is my argument is the same as Reagan in the 80s and the Republicans in the 90s and you are trying to palm it off as some sort of Socialist plan. It's mind boggling that I'm arguing the conservative point and being rebuffed by someone who thinks he is conservative.

[fj1200]

A 1.5% medicare levy doesn't kill me to pay and it gives me a good feeling that I am helping to pay for free medical care for those less fortunate than me.

Well, at least you recognize that it isn't free. Progress. :poke:

EDIT:

I just used "progress" in a post. Progressivism can't be far behind!!! :eek: :haironfire:

[aboutime]

I like socialism. I went to the doctor the other day and didn't pay a cent of the normal $90 consultation fee. :poke:

Probably true jafar. BET...it didn't bother you a bit that the fellow with six kids around the corner had to pay for your visit....and he doesn't get the same perks for himself, huh?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A 1.5% medicare levy doesn't kill me to pay and it gives me a good feeling that I am helping to pay for free medical care for those less fortunate than me. Muslims here got exemptions based on religious grounds. You are Muslim why isn't it going against Islam in your case??--Tyr

[fj1200]

^Um, what?

[jafar00]

Well, at least you recognize that it isn't free. Progress. :poke:

EDIT:

I just used "progress" in a post. Progressivism can't be far behind!!! :eek: :haironfire:

Well, it may as well be free. When I went for an appendectomy, I didn't pay anything for what would have been anywhere between $4000-$12,000 if done privately.

[Drummond]

Well, it may as well be free. When I went for an appendectomy, I didn't pay anything for what would have been anywhere between $4000-$12,000 if done privately.

Doesn't Aboutime have a good point ?

If you want to tell us that you, yourself, didn't pay for your treatment, WHO DID ? Health treatments don't grow on trees - they all have to be afforded. And when done through indiscriminate taxation, then it may well be that people who could ill afford to part with that money, HAD to, anyway.

[jafar00]

Doesn't Aboutime have a good point ?

If you want to tell us that you, yourself, didn't pay for your treatment, WHO DID ? Health treatments don't grow on trees - they all have to be afforded. And when done through indiscriminate taxation, then it may well be that people who could ill afford to part with that money, HAD to, anyway.

Those that earn enough to pay the 1.5% levy paid collectively of course. Low income earners don't pay it.

[Drummond]

I see, FJ, that the reply you last posted was / is a lot shorter this time. Is that because I'm making my case rather too well for you ?

No matter. Shorter replies are more merciful ...


What you are to stupid to admit is my argument is the same as Reagan in the 80s and the Republicans in the 90s and you are trying to palm it off as some sort of Socialist plan. It's mind boggling that I'm arguing the conservative point and being rebuffed by someone who thinks he is conservative.

I know my corner of the world a lot better than I know yours. I am telling you - and I effectively keep telling you - that, were you to argue as you are here, during a visit to the UK, us Brits would have little trouble in identifying your arguments as Leftie ones. Your lack of concern for prudent financial management would seem, to us, to be very un-Conservative in nature.

Perhaps you require yet more proof that what you advocate was both dreamed up by our Lefties, AND THAT THEY WERE THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND IT ?

Check out this following link .. one where our Governor of the Bank of England was warning Gordon Brown (.. Leftie Prime Minister, formerly our Chancellor of the Exchequer!!) that more tax cuts COULD NOT BE AFFORDED ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/5045973/No-more-tax-cuts-Gordon-Brown-warned.html


Britain cannot afford further tax cuts or public spending rises in next month’s Budget because of the state of government finances, Gordon Brown has been told by the Bank of England.

In a highly unusual intervention, the Bank’s Governor, Mervyn King, said that the Government must be “cautious” as Britain faces “very large fiscal deficits”.

The warning is likely to anger the Prime Minister, who yesterday called on other countries to deliver “the biggest financial stimulus the world has ever seen”.

However, the Treasury is thought to agree privately with Mr King’s assessment that further British intervention is unaffordable.

Mr Brown is understood to be considering another multi-billion-pound fiscal stimulus package of tax cuts and spending rises in the Budget.

Mr King’s warning undermines not only Mr Brown’s plans but also the foundations of the G20 summit that the Prime Minister is hosting in London next week, since the meeting is broadly regarded as a platform for world leaders to agree to spend extra billions on averting a global depression.

Many suspect that Mr Brown will use the summit as an opportunity to present a generous package of tax breaks for savers, particularly pensioners. These plans may be in jeopardy if the Treasury heeds the Governor’s warning.

It is rare for any leading public official — let alone the Governor of the Bank of England — to deliver such a public warning over the country’s finances in the run-up to the Budget. However, appearing before the Treasury select committee yesterday, Mr King gave warning of the dangers of borrowing any more.

“I’m sure the Government will want to be cautious in this respect,” Mr King said. “There is no doubt we are facing very large fiscal deficits over the next two to three years.

“Given how big those deficits are, I think it would be sensible to be cautious about going further in using discretionary measures to expand the size of those deficits.

“The level of the fiscal position in the UK is not one that would say: 'Well, why don’t we just engage in another significant round of fiscal expansion?’?”

Immediately after the hearing at the House of Commons, Mr King was invited to Buckingham Palace for a private audience with the Queen. The meeting, at Her Majesty’s request, represented the first time she has met the incumbent Bank Governor.

Following Mr King’s comments, No?10 aides insisted that a further fiscal stimulus package was still on the agenda and had not been ruled out. An official said the Government would do “whatever it takes to create the growth and jobs we need”.

Yesterday, in a speech to the European Parliament just hours after Mr King’s appearance before MPs, the Prime Minister called on countries attending the G20 summit to borrow and spend unprecedented amounts.

He said: “We can together deliver the biggest financial stimulus the world has ever seen, the biggest cut in interest rates, the biggest reform of the international financial system, the first international principles governing banking remuneration, the first comprehensive action against tax havens and for the first time in a world crisis, new help for the poor.”

There are growing fears that the Government may be over-extending the public finances in response to the recession.

Some fear the combined cost of banking bail-outs alongside economic measures could cause Britain to lose its top-level credit rating, raising the prospect of having to call on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help.

Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, announced a £20 billion fiscal stimulus package last year. However, this included a cut in VAT which many retailers have indicated is not boosting the economy.

Stephen Byers, the former cabinet minister, called on Mr Brown yesterday to ditch the VAT cut, questioning “whether it has run its course”.

The Conservatives are already being forced to scale back their tax-cutting plans. They have also urged Mr Brown to show restraint.

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, said: “This is hugely significant, as it completely vindicates the big decision taken by David Cameron and myself on the economy, and it leaves Gordon Brown’s political plans for the G20 and the Budget in tatters.”

The IMF has warned that Britain is facing the biggest government deficit in the Western world even before it has pledged any extra cash to be spent on the recession. It said the shortfall in its books will hit a record 11 per cent of gross domestic product — some £150?billion — next year, far greater than any other Western nation.

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: “The Government has lost all credibility when it comes to fiscal stimuli since it wasted £12.5?billion on an ineffective temporary VAT cut.”

So you see, FJ, our leading Leftie of that age, Gordon Brown, was VERY much in favour of tax cutting, to help stimulate the economy ... and he was being warned by a leading financial expert, no less a person than the head man of the Bank of England, NOT to proceed with any more of them, BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T BE AFFORDED !! And in this, he was supported by the Conservative then-shadow Chancellor, Mr Osborne (.. now our current Chancellor and architect of our austerity measures).

So what you now need to do, FJ, is to simply recognise what's staring you in the face. Your imprudent approach is NOT Thatcherite ... not AT ALL ... BUT IS, INSTEAD, FAR MORE AKIN TO THE WAY OUR LEFT WINGERS OPERATED BEFORE BEING OUSTED IN OUR 2010 ELECTION !!

[fj1200]

I see, FJ, that the reply you last posted was / is a lot shorter this time. Is that because I'm making my case rather too well for you ?

No, because your ignorance is better ignored.


Check out this following link .. one where our Governor of the Bank of England was warning Gordon Brown (.. Leftie Prime Minister, formerly our Chancellor of the Exchequer!!) that more tax cuts COULD NOT BE AFFORDED ...

Big government hacks always say that tax cuts can't be afforded. That's how I can accurately peg you as a big government hack. Here again is what you ignore.


You exhibit short-term thinking. Debt, or deficit levels, are only a number in the grand scheme of things, it's the long-term trend that I worry about; right now our deficit levels are falling (good) but the long term forecast has them increasing (bad) due to the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, SS, ACA, etc. (very bad). If the latter was not pressing then the former wouldn't be so bad. If central government revenues in the UK are anything like Federal government revenues in the US then tax rates have almost zero correlation to Federal revenues. They have more correlation to the unemployment rate in the US than anything else. Austerity, unfortunately, does nothing to encourage hiring. There are multiple ways to reduce those on the dole, kick them off or do what's necessary to create a strong economy that will give them something to do rather than remain on welfare. It seems the UK is choosing the former and I fear for your upcoming electoral chances, the US chose the latter in the 90s, even at the risk of giving Clinton some credit, and were rewarded with Al Gore NOT being elected. Oh, and when the capital gains tax rate was cut... CG revenues more than doubled in four years. I'm glad that someone knew we could afford that. ;)

Those great lefties of Reagan and the 90's Republicans. :laugh:

Oh, and your link was woefully short on specifics of the type of tax cuts that those lefties :eek: proposed. Not all tax cuts are created equal and it's likely those leftie :eek: tax cuts have zero in common with what lefties :eek: like Reagan :laugh: and the Republicans :laugh: proffered.

[Drummond]

Big government hacks always say that tax cuts can't be afforded. That's how I can accurately peg you as a big government hack. Here again is what you ignore.

Do you really understand so little ?

The Governor of the Bank of England is no 'big government hack'. That's just total nonsense. His position is designed to be politically neutral, and it's not, nor ever SHOULD be, within his purview to take a partisan line. He's there to do a job. Purely and simply that.

Whether his job existed during a Government committed to the fullest State controls, or, during a Government committed to deregulation and a more 'small Government' approach, IT WOULD STILL EXIST, AND BE SEEN TO BE NECESSARY AND VALUABLE.

No, FJ. Typically, since you see that there's convincing evidence ranged against you, you're setting out to 'rubbish' it. Except that, in this case, you are trying to claim that the Governor of the Bank of England is something THAT HE COULD NEVER BE.

You're in denial, FJ. The fact is that if anyone is likely, in the UK and from a position of knowledgeable authority, to understand what will or will not lead us into stability, then prosperity, it'll be that very person. So when he effectively assures a Leftie like Gordon Brown that his approach is totally and utterly barking mad, he deserves to have his statements taken seriously !!

If you think otherwise, kindly explain why the Queen wanted to interview him !!!


Oh, and your link was woefully short on specifics of the type of tax cuts that those lefties :eek: proposed. Not all tax cuts are created equal and it's likely those leftie :eek: tax cuts have zero in common with what lefties :eek: like Reagan :laugh: and the Republicans :laugh: proffered.

Frankly, I wouldn't know. As I've said, I know far more about my corner of the world than yours. And this I do know: Gordon Brown, leader of the Labour Party (.. and its former Chancellor of the Exchequer) was way more in favour of tax cutting as a way of injecting fiscal stimulus into the UK economy than the Conservatives (.. who, I'm sure, would've included Margaret Thatcher ..) could dream of being, considering the fragile state of our economy.

Here's the thing. While the principle of such a stimulus has merit in itself, you just can't get away from the fact that tax cutting HAS TO BE AFFORDABLE. Tax cuts, by their very nature, reduce the revenue the State collects and can work with. So ... how to make up for that shortfall ?

A tax-cutting stimulus tactic has value over time ... much time. But such a beneficial effect takes years to properly feed through. So what happens in the meantime ? How is that shortfall tolerated in practical terms ?

We know what Gordon Brown's solution was. He knew he had to plug the fiscal hole that tax-cutting would've created. His answer was to BORROW MORE MONEY.

This was, and always would be, utter madness when dealing with an economy crippled already by enormous debts, AND one further impoverished by bailouts made necessary by a major global financial crisis !!! The Governor of the Bank of England knew it. Our Conservatives understood this too.

Greece is an example of a country whose economy has been wrecked by reliance on massive borrowing and mismanagement. Bailouts have turned it into a basket-case. You argue for us to travel down ANY of that path ourselves ???

NO CONSERVATIVE, HERE, WOULD ARGUE FOR SUCH A THING.

... BUT ... LEFTIES WOULD .. !!

I daresay that politicians such as Ronald Reagan argued as they did because they had the luxury of a more stable, and far more prosperous, economy from which they could apply their idealism. Which is perfectly fine for you ! BUT, Reagan had no equivalent of a 2008 global crisis to cope with, though if he HAD, he would've been in a far stronger position from which to weather that storm.

Thanks to the recklessness of Labour, however, we were - still are, to an extent - in a FAR weaker position.

Your own Leftie-like thinking cannot be afforded here. No Conservative would currently indulge it.

No.

Only LEFTIES would.

FJ, doesn't it bother you that the fiscal, prudent housekeeping model that Mrs Thatcher believed in, is so distant from your own thinking ? You, a supposed 'Thatcherite', and all ... ???

Perhaps this'll interest you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/3506527/Pre-Budget-report-Gordon-Brown-defends-tax-cuts.html


Chancellor Alistair Darling will deliver the Government's crucial financial statement in the Commons tomorrow and is set to deliver a "fiscal stimulus" package in an effort to kick-start the economy, with a cut in VAT likely to form the centrepiece of his plans.

Responding to a pre-emptive attack launched by the Conservatives, Mr Brown denied the measures are a gamble, saying they would need to be "substantial" to have an impact on the downturn affecting the UK.

He told BBC1's The Politics Show world leaders agreed the need for an injection of cash into the economy.

"Everybody generally agrees that the fiscal stimulus - and what we mean by fiscal stimulus is real help for businesses and families now - has got to be substantial to have an impact."

The Government is expected to pump between £15 and £20 billion into the economy in a bid to spend Britain out of the downturn.

As well as the VAT change from 17.5% to 15%, which would cost £12.5 billion, moves are thought to include further tax cuts targeted at the least well off.
Other options include postponing the introduction of increased vehicle excise duty for older vehicles and taxpayer-funded guarantees on loans to small businesses.

There are also suggestions of a new three month grace period for mortgage holders struggling to keep up with their repayments before repossession proceedings kick in.

Further efficiency savings in the public sector will be announced, allowing some expenditure to be used more constructively to fight the recession. But debt is predicted to soar to more than £120 billion, fuelling concerns about the tax rises and spending cuts that may be necessary later.

Mr Brown said: "I don't see this as a gamble. I see this as necessary, responsible action that any sensible government would want to take."

"If you say at the moment that there is nothing that government can do by spending more or investing more at the moment then that is a gospel of despair in the future," he said.

"What I am prepared to do is take the action that is necessary, show people how over the longer-term we've got a plan for fiscal security and fiscal sustainability.

David Cameron had earlier warned that the public faces a "tax bombshell when as a result of the plans set out in the Pre-Budget report.

Mr Cameron told BBC1's Andrew Marr show: "I think people are going to be shocked tomorrow when they see the extent of Government borrowing.

"Maybe £80 billion this year, before the recession's even properly started, and possibly over £100 billion next year.

"And next year that is over £4,000 extra for every family in the country.

"So I do have a real concern about a Government going on a borrowing binge that even they are now admitting is going to lead to much higher taxes later."

Are you proud of thinking like the ex-leader of the most LEFT wing mainstream political party in the UK, FJ ?

[Drummond]

Those that earn enough to pay the 1.5% levy paid collectively of course. Low income earners don't pay it.

Interesting.

So, in its way, it's a sort of 'squeeze the rich' approach .. ?

Perhaps you could provide some specifics. At what point would an earner 'qualify' to pay the levy you're talking about ? How much would need to be minimally earned and qualify for liability to that tax ?

Maybe this also sets a cautionary precedent ? Wouldn't it follow, generally speaking anyway, that immigrants into your country are more likely (.. initially, at any rate) to be lower income earners than higher income earners ? Wouldn't such a system fuel an incidence of wholesale sponging, which the more 'native' inhabitants would be expected to finance ?

[fj1200]

Do you really understand so little ?

The Governor of the Bank of England is no 'big government hack'. That's just total nonsense. His position is designed to be politically neutral, and it's not, nor ever SHOULD be, within his purview to take a partisan line. He's there to do a job. Purely and simply that.

Many are big government hacks, you're arguing yourself into that position as we speak. :shrug: And there are also many positions that are designed to be politically neutral; any central bank worth its salt should be politically neutral but that doesn't mean the position holder IS politically neutral, to think that they all are is ignorant. Many heads of the Fed for example, weigh in with their opinions concerning tax cuts and many of them are big government hacks. I prefer my monetary chiefs worry about monetary policy, specifically currency stability.


Frankly, I wouldn't know. As I've said, I know far more about my corner of the world than yours.
...
Greece is an example of a country whose economy has been wrecked by reliance on massive borrowing and mismanagement. Bailouts have turned it into a basket-case. You argue for us to travel down ANY of that path ourselves ???

NO CONSERVATIVE, HERE, WOULD ARGUE FOR SUCH A THING.
...
Are you proud of thinking like the ex-leader of the most LEFT wing mainstream political party in the UK, FJ ?

OK, on the one hand you say that you don't know yet on the other hand you're trying to tell me who I think like. Is it possible to lose any more credibility than you already have? Based on what you just posted as Labours desires for tax cuts are worthless as far as fiscal stimulus is concerned, any temporary tax cut is straight to deficit financing IMO and should be avoided like the plague. They are in general similar to what BO proposed here and what went through which I vehemently opposed. Of course you wouldn't know that because your imagination gets in the way.

You could also point out where I've argued that you should follow the example of Greece. I predict another failure on your part.

Also, I'm still waiting on your defense of you calling Reagan and the 90's Republicans as lefties. :)

[Drummond]

Many are big government hacks, you're arguing yourself into that position as we speak. :shrug: And there are also many positions that are designed to be politically neutral; any central bank worth its salt should be politically neutral but that doesn't mean the position holder IS politically neutral, to think that they all are is ignorant. Many heads of the Fed for example, weigh in with their opinions concerning tax cuts and many of them are big government hacks. I prefer my monetary chiefs worry about monetary policy, specifically currency stability.

The Governor of the Bank of England may not, as a person in his own right, be politically neutral. But, so what ? The JOB he holds, and his conduct in doing that job, HAS to be politically neutral. That position, here in the UK, is defined as being a Civil Service job, meaning that political neutrality is required of him in doing that job.

I can't speak for the American system. But a Civil Servant, in doing his job HERE, could be sacked from that job if it was proved that he departed from that neutrality.

So partisan conduct is not a charge you can make stick in this case, regardless of how much you'd like to think otherwise. Face this fact: in giving his advice to Gordon Brown, he, then, was supplying commonsense advice which his expertise told him was the correct advice to supply.


OK, on the one hand you say that you don't know yet on the other hand you're trying to tell me who I think like.

In fact, I've no need to say one way or the other. The evidence is all too clear. Anyone seeing what Gordon Brown was advocating, and steering us towards, couldn't help but see the similarities between your approach and his.


Is it possible to lose any more credibility than you already have?

Theoretically, yes .. certainly it is. I could start thinking like a Leftie !!!!

Happily, however, we continue to disagree just as much as we ever did ... :rolleyes:


Based on what you just posted as Labours desires for tax cuts are worthless as far as fiscal stimulus is concerned, any temporary tax cut is straight to deficit financing IMO and should be avoided like the plague.

WELL DONE !! I see some progress here !

But .... short of embarking upon an austerity programme, what else could Brown do ?

He had a choice. Reckless insanity, or, prudence ... as currently striven for by our Conservatives, of course, and which you oppose. Being a Leftie .. we see what Brown opted for. And the UK has been paying for it ever since.


They are in general similar to what BO proposed here and what went through which I vehemently opposed. Of course you wouldn't know that because your imagination gets in the way.

Actually, it's logic that's involved. The logic I'm beginning to grow tired of spelling out AGAIN and AGAIN.

Once more, then ... tax cuts have great potential to galvanise an economy. BUT THEY MUST BE AFFORDABLE, BECAUSE ANY TAX CUT CREATES A REVENUE SHORTFALL. When they are NOT affordable, then the effect is one of damage, either through straightforward and direct impoverishment (cause & effect), or a more indirect and eventual impoverishment by borrowing in the short term, and having to pay it all back later on, with interest.

See the previous example I quoted of David Cameron's prediction on the cost to every family in the UK from such irresponsible recklessness.


You could also point out where I've argued that you should follow the example of Greece. I predict another failure on your part.

Your whole argument shares the logic of the Greece example ... of lack of fiscal prudence within an economy already so weak that it cannot withstand more reckless spending.


Also, I'm still waiting on your defense of you calling Reagan and the 90's Republicans as lefties. :)

None is offered, because I've done no such thing .. this is one of your inventions. Otherwise, show me the wording I used to accuse them of being Lefties !!

And what do you mean by 'as' Lefties, anyway ? Do you know how unfounded your accusation is, so you're trying for a bit of wordplay to cover yourself ?

[jafar00]

Interesting.

So, in its way, it's a sort of 'squeeze the rich' approach .. ?

Perhaps you could provide some specifics. At what point would an earner 'qualify' to pay the levy you're talking about ? How much would need to be minimally earned and qualify for liability to that tax ?

Maybe this also sets a cautionary precedent ? Wouldn't it follow, generally speaking anyway, that immigrants into your country are more likely (.. initially, at any rate) to be lower income earners than higher income earners ? Wouldn't such a system fuel an incidence of wholesale sponging, which the more 'native' inhabitants would be expected to finance ?

The limit for for paying the levy is $20,542. If you earn more, you start paying the Medicare levy. I pay a higher percentage than say someone earning $50,000. I don't mind paying it at all if it means that someone of lesser means has access to free healthcare just the same as I can walk out of a doctor's surgery without opening my wallet. Yes, that includes immigrants who may need some help. I'm not a racist when it comes to helping others.

Sure there are some who rort the system, but it is up to the govt to catch them out isn't it?

[fj1200]

The Governor of the Bank of England may not, as a person in his own right, be politically neutral. But, so what ? The JOB he holds, and his conduct in doing that job, HAS to be politically neutral. That position, here in the UK, is defined as being a Civil Service job, meaning that political neutrality is required of him in doing that job.

I can't speak for the American system. But a Civil Servant, in doing his job HERE, could be sacked from that job if it was proved that he departed from that neutrality.

So partisan conduct is not a charge you can make stick in this case, regardless of how much you'd like to think otherwise. Face this fact: in giving his advice to Gordon Brown, he, then, was supplying commonsense advice which his expertise told him was the correct advice to supply.

It's great that you think so. The first time you ask an opinion you will get bias, to think otherwise is naive. If he was suggesting that Labour's tax cut package was useless then I would agree, if he was suggesting that a pro-growth tax cut package, like I've suggested, is useless then he, and you, are provably wrong.


In fact, I've no need to say one way or the other. The evidence is all too clear. Anyone seeing what Gordon Brown was advocating, and steering us towards, couldn't help but see the similarities between your approach and his.

Then you are relying on your ignorance and imagination unless you're going to point out where I suggested tax cuts that were similar to what Labour has advocated. Hint: You can't.


Theoretically, yes .. certainly it is. I could start thinking like a Leftie !!!!

Happily, however, we continue to disagree just as much as we ever did ... :rolleyes:

I don't agree with pro-Globalists such as yourself. :cough: IMF :cough:


WELL DONE !! I see some progress here !

But .... short of embarking upon an austerity programme, what else could Brown do ?

He had a choice. Reckless insanity, or, prudence ... as currently striven for by our Conservatives, of course, and which you oppose. Being a Leftie .. we see what Brown opted for. And the UK has been paying for it ever since.

Progress? Then you must be starting to ignore your imagination. It's a good start, keep it up. The Tories could embark on a pro-growth tax cut policy as done by Reagan and the 90's Republicans.

Oh, and your dumb F***ery ignored. ;)


Actually, it's logic that's involved. The logic I'm beginning to grow tired of spelling out AGAIN and AGAIN.

Once more, then ... tax cuts have great potential to galvanise an economy. BUT THEY MUST BE AFFORDABLE, BECAUSE ANY TAX CUT CREATES A REVENUE SHORTFALL. When they are NOT affordable, then the effect is one of damage, either through straightforward and direct impoverishment (cause & effect), or a more indirect and eventual impoverishment by borrowing in the short term, and having to pay it all back later on, with interest.

See the previous example I quoted of David Cameron's prediction on the cost to every family in the UK from such irresponsible recklessness.

Thank you for posting more evidence that you are not a conservative and have no clue on small government principles and the workings on a free-market economy. :)


Your whole argument shares the logic of the Greece example ... of lack of fiscal prudence within an economy already so weak that it cannot withstand more reckless spending.

:facepalm99: Failure on your part. Show my support for "more reckless spending."


None is offered, because I've done no such thing .. this is one of your inventions. Otherwise, show me the wording I used to accuse them of being Lefties !!

And what do you mean by 'as' Lefties, anyway ? Do you know how unfounded your accusation is, so you're trying for a bit of wordplay to cover yourself ?

Sure you have. The only thing I have suggested is that austerity is bad, provably so (see Greece), and that pro-growth tax cuts and spending restraint is the way to go such as proposed by Reagan and implemented by the 90's Republicans. You blather your ignorant statement of "Aack, Leftie" when I state the same so by the transitive property your logic says Reagan and the 90's Republicans are lefties. It's your logic; own it. :)

[Drummond]

It's great that you think so. The first time you ask an opinion you will get bias, to think otherwise is naive. If he was suggesting that Labour's tax cut package was useless then I would agree, if he was suggesting that a pro-growth tax cut package, like I've suggested, is useless then he, and you, are provably wrong.

You're stuck in a repeating cycle on this, just finding excuses to deny what's already proven. I wonder how many more times it needs to be said (!!!) ... TAX CUTS MEAN LOSS OF REVENUE, SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE AFFORDED. Saying that tax cuts will stimulate business and generate growth is one thing ... affording it all BEFORE the growth has had a chance to feed into the economy, is something else !!

A sufficiently weak economy can't wait around for a couple of years before seeing those benefits. THIS I'VE EXPLAINED .. THIS HAS BEEN OUR CONSERVATIVES' POSITION .. THIS HAS ALSO BEEN THE BANK OF ENGLAND'S POSITION.

... but never mind. YOU, and our LEFTIES, claim to know better. So, that's all right, then ....:rolleyes:

Your insistence that bias was/is involved is just wrong. The Governor of the Bank of England risks his job the moment he indulges such bias. NO ... much though you'll hate this, our Governor gave COMMONSENSE advice to Gordon Brown. Brown, being a Leftie and so immune to any likelihood that he could be infected with rationality, pretty much ignored him.


Then you are relying on your ignorance and imagination unless you're going to point out where I suggested tax cuts that were similar to what Labour has advocated. Hint: You can't.

... still a repeating cycle, I see. The logic of your case is such that it must mirror that of Gordon Brown. Brown knew of the need to afford tax cuts, even if you yourself won't admit the point. So, he shamelessly borrowed billions to cover the shortfall.

Your argument has to lead to a duplication of those actions, if/when applied. IT CAN'T NOT DO ... TAX CUTS HAVE TO BE AFFORDED.


I don't agree with pro-Globalists such as yourself. :cough: IMF :cough:

I am no pro-Globalist !!! But since you insist on your argument, then you insist on what flows from it. Enter the likes of the IMF on to the scene, to afford what you and Brown need them to afford (since, in your model, it's unavoidable ..).


Progress? Then you must be starting to ignore your imagination. It's a good start, keep it up.

I would always hope that you make progress, FJ. I'm that nice a guy.


The Tories could embark on a pro-growth tax cut policy as done by Reagan and the 90's Republicans.

NOT WITHOUT HAVING TO FUND IT IN THE SHORT TERM !! Maybe Reagan had the benefit of an economic powerhouse robust enough to make his strategy work. Such is not the case for the UK ... if it was, no austerity package would've ever been needed. BUT IT IS.


Oh, and your dumb F***ery ignored. ;)

If by that you mean 'flattery', aren't you an asterisk short ? I'd rather not indulge my imagination by supplying an alternative ....

Tut tut.


Thank you for posting more evidence that you are not a conservative and have no clue on small government principles and the workings on a free-market economy. :)

Dream on. YOU are the one claiming Thatcherite support, yet providing NONE of that in your thinking !!


:facepalm99: Failure on your part. Show my support for "more reckless spending."

I have here. I have in previous posts. So, to say it yet AGAIN ... TAX CUTS HAVE TO BE AFFORDED. And, guess what ? Those lending the funds CHARGE for it !!!


Sure you have. The only thing I have suggested is that austerity is bad, provably so (see Greece), and that pro-growth tax cuts and spending restraint is the way to go such as proposed by Reagan and implemented by the 90's Republicans. You blather your ignorant statement of "Aack, Leftie" when I state the same so by the transitive property your logic says Reagan and the 90's Republicans are lefties. It's your logic; own it. :)

Dealt with already. Maybe Reagan could follow his plan, like a good Conservative, BECAUSE IT COULD BE AFFORDED. Likewise, I'm totally sure that our Conservatives, being natural tax-cutters themselves, would be delighted to follow suit. BUT, REALITY DOESN'T PERMIT IT THIS TIME ... OUR ECONOMY IS TOO WEAK TO ABSORB A SHORT-TERM REVENUE SHORTFALL.

Really, FJ ... how many MORE times must I make this point ???????!!??????

[fj1200]

Dealt with already. Maybe Reagan could follow his plan, like a good Conservative, BECAUSE IT COULD BE AFFORDED. Likewise, I'm totally sure that our Conservatives, being natural tax-cutters themselves, would be delighted to follow suit. BUT, REALITY DOESN'T PERMIT IT THIS TIME ... OUR ECONOMY IS TOO WEAK TO ABSORB A SHORT-TERM REVENUE SHORTFALL.

Really, FJ ... how many MORE times must I make this point ???????!!??????

:facepalm99: Possibly until you get it right; You're destined to become Greece. It's sad that "conservatives" in the UK are just furthering the downfall of their own economy. Here's a link you'll ignore because it shows the reality of your position:

Why European Austerity Fails (http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/05/07/why-european-austerity-fails/)
...
An extreme example is provided by the U.S. experience after World War II (http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii). Total federal spending was slashed 38% in 1946 and another 38% in 1947 or by a combined 29% of GDP. That is equivalent to reducing current federal expenditures by $4.4 trillion in two years. The federal budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget) went from a $54 billion deficit to a $3 billion surplus. Eight million men and women (12 % of the workforce) were released from the armed forces. Real GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product) did decline by 11% in 1946. But, the economy stabilized in 1947, and then grew by 4.4% in 1948.
The reason European austerity has failed is not because of the reductions in government spending, but because those spending cuts have been paired with tax increases. The Europeans are struggling to reduce government spending by less than 5% of GDP. But unlike the U.S., which paired extreme budget cuts with across-the-board reductions in personal income tax rates, the European austerity combines spending cuts with massive tax increases. The result is a toxic brew which shrinks both government and the private sector, producing recession, rising unemployment, and massive budget shortfalls.
...
The final error of the government centric view is that the budget deficit is the key economic variable. Instead, chronic and exceptionally large budget deficits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_deficit) are a symptom of a government sector that has become over-sized relative to the private sector.
...
The solution to Europe’s sovereign debt crisis is the policy mix that worked in the U.S. after World War II: monetary stability, reductions in government spending that shrink the size of government, and reductions in marginal tax rates which permit the private sector to expand. Reducing government-imposed rigidities in labor markets also would increase the opportunities for mutually beneficial exchanges, thereby leading to increased employment.
...
Private sector growth, not austerity or increased government spending, is the answer.

And in case you missed it, that "government centric view" is yours. :)

[aboutime]

You're stuck in a repeating cycle on this, just finding excuses to deny what's already proven. I wonder how many more times it needs to be said (!!!) ... TAX CUTS MEAN LOSS OF REVENUE, SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE AFFORDED. Saying that tax cuts will stimulate business and generate growth is one thing ... affording it all BEFORE the growth has had a chance to feed into the economy, is something else !!

A sufficiently weak economy can't wait around for a couple of years before seeing those benefits. THIS I'VE EXPLAINED .. THIS HAS BEEN OUR CONSERVATIVES' POSITION .. THIS HAS ALSO BEEN THE BANK OF ENGLAND'S POSITION.

... but never mind. YOU, and our LEFTIES, claim to know better. So, that's all right, then ....:rolleyes:

Your insistence that bias was/is involved is just wrong. The Governor of the Bank of England risks his job the moment he indulges such bias. NO ... much though you'll hate this, our Governor gave COMMONSENSE advice to Gordon Brown. Brown, being a Leftie and so immune to any likelihood that he could be infected with rationality, pretty much ignored him.



... still a repeating cycle, I see. The logic of your case is such that it must mirror that of Gordon Brown. Brown knew of the need to afford tax cuts, even if you yourself won't admit the point. So, he shamelessly borrowed billions to cover the shortfall.

Your argument has to lead to a duplication of those actions, if/when applied. IT CAN'T NOT DO ... TAX CUTS HAVE TO BE AFFORDED.



I am no pro-Globalist !!! But since you insist on your argument, then you insist on what flows from it. Enter the likes of the IMF on to the scene, to afford what you and Brown need them to afford (since, in your model, it's unavoidable ..).



I would always hope that you make progress, FJ. I'm that nice a guy.



NOT WITHOUT HAVING TO FUND IT IN THE SHORT TERM !! Maybe Reagan had the benefit of an economic powerhouse robust enough to make his strategy work. Such is not the case for the UK ... if it was, no austerity package would've ever been needed. BUT IT IS.



If by that you mean 'flattery', aren't you an asterisk short ? I'd rather not indulge my imagination by supplying an alternative ....

Tut tut.



Dream on. YOU are the one claiming Thatcherite support, yet providing NONE of that in your thinking !!



I have here. I have in previous posts. So, to say it yet AGAIN ... TAX CUTS HAVE TO BE AFFORDED. And, guess what ? Those lending the funds CHARGE for it !!!



Dealt with already. Maybe Reagan could follow his plan, like a good Conservative, BECAUSE IT COULD BE AFFORDED. Likewise, I'm totally sure that our Conservatives, being natural tax-cutters themselves, would be delighted to follow suit. BUT, REALITY DOESN'T PERMIT IT THIS TIME ... OUR ECONOMY IS TOO WEAK TO ABSORB A SHORT-TERM REVENUE SHORTFALL.

Really, FJ ... how many MORE times must I make this point ???????!!??????


Sir Drummond. No matter how many times, or ways we attempt to explain this tax cut/hike business to those who are convinced the OPPOSITE of everything all the time. It never sinks in. Much like that "Leading a horse to water...".
Someone has convinced the SELF-DECLARED SMARTER ones...only THEY are capable of believing their own forms of fictional facts. Something we call Lies, which offends them because...somebody else does all of their thinking for them...and that just INSULTS the daylights out of them. Never willing to admit they are Incapable of thinking logically...on their own.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. No matter how many times, or ways we attempt to explain this tax cut/hike business to those who are convinced the OPPOSITE of everything all the time. It never sinks in. Much like that "Leading a horse to water...".
Someone has convinced the SELF-DECLARED SMARTER ones...only THEY are capable of believing their own forms of fictional facts. Something we call Lies, which offends them because...somebody else does all of their thinking for them...and that just INSULTS the daylights out of them. Never willing to admit they are Incapable of thinking logically...on their own.

Very true, Aboutime. I can argue my sheer commonsense argument until I'm blue in the face, and make not the slightest headway.

What's more, I'll shortly prove the point once again. A quote FJ has supplied comes from an apparent 'economist' who's made a fundamental flaw in what he assumes is true for the UK. Pointing this out is bound to be a total waste of time. But I'll do it anyway.

[Drummond]

:facepalm99: Possibly until you get it right; You're destined to become Greece.

You know what ? You're the only person I 'know' who thinks that.


It's sad that "conservatives" in the UK are just furthering the downfall of their own economy.

Nope - what's really sad, FJ (and just a little irritating, to be totally honest ..) is that you can't move away from such bizarre thinking. This post will further prove that to be true, regardless of what I post, and we both know it.


Here's a link you'll ignore because it shows the reality of your position:

Why European Austerity Fails (http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/05/07/why-european-austerity-fails/)

And in case you missed it, that "government centric view" is yours. :)

Nope AGAIN, FJ. I haven't ignored it. In fact, I've studied it sufficiently well to spot its fundamental flaw.

One quick point in passing, before I continue: a note of congratulations. You see, I thought you'd probably supplied something from either a Leftie chum, masquerading as an 'objective' commentator, or, that the host page was financed or run by a Leftie-friendly outfit. I've actually found neither to be apparently true.

So ... well done indeed, FJ. Remarkable ....

Anyway, to business ... this, from the article your link leads to ...


The reason European austerity has failed is not because of the reductions in government spending, but because those spending cuts have been paired with tax increases. The Europeans are struggling to reduce government spending by less than 5% of GDP. But unlike the U.S., which paired extreme budget cuts with across-the-board reductions in personal income tax rates, the European austerity combines spending cuts with massive tax increases. The result is a toxic brew which shrinks both government and the private sector, producing recession, rising unemployment, and massive budget shortfalls.

This is all very well. However, what we have here is the basis for the flaw this commentator thinks to be true of the UK (.. and I think you're making the same mistake ..) .. THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE UK CHANCELLOR IS COPYING THE EUROPEAN MODEL, WHEN IN FACT HE IS NOT.

The UK approach is not one - not under the Conservatives, certainly - of walloping people with tax rises. I grant you, he's messed about with tax threshholds ... and he definitely doesn't want to lower them, not under current fiscal circumstances. But if 'mainland' Europe is going in for tax hikes, Osborne is NOT.

[Oh, and one point you might like to consider: we don't just have a Conservative Government, but a Coalition one, with power shared with our LibDems (the LibDems over here being a halfway-house between our Conservatives and the harder-Left Labour Party, formerly headed by Gordon Brown). Osborne has had to contend with LibDem comments regarding his precise policies, but nonetheless, DOES ENJOY LIBDEM BASIC SUPPORT]

Kadlec warms to his theme, compounding his error about the UK, if indeed he thinks we're copying Europe. Maybe his thinking is right about the EU approach. But their approach isn't precisely ours.

I think, FJ, that you may find this link far more usefully instructive - IF you're prepared to take any notice, that is .... 'enjoy' these quotes ...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/austerity-vs-growth-uk-has-settled-argument-2013-09-18


The British bounce-back has confounded the Keynesian consensus, which forecast repeatedly that the austerity program imposed by Prime Minister David Cameron’s coalition government would pitch the country into a deep depression. And it has chalked up a significant victory for those who argue that cutting deficits and controlling debt — so long as it is done in the right way — can promote growth rather than destroy it.

If they are smart, investors are going to pay a lot less attention to those warnings of austerity leading to doom from now on.

Revised gross domestic product figures last month showed the economy grew by 0.7% in the second quarter of the year, and there are predictions growth could reach 1% for the third quarter. Earlier this month the OECD sharply increased its forecast of growth for the U.K. economy this year to 1.5% from an earlier estimate of 0.8%. Retail sales were up 1.1% over the last month, and house prices are starting to fizz again. Both services and manufacturing are purring along, and jobs are being created in the private sector to compensate for those lost in the public. It is not exactly an economic miracle — but it is a lot better than most people expected at the start of the year.

And it is certainly a lot better than any of the leading Keynesian economists thought possible. Go back a year, and there were frantically warning that Cameron’s austerity program was pushing the country into a slump.

But what you can’t honestly do is argue that austerity — such as it — has prevented the U.K. from returning to growth or caused a fresh slump. Nor can you deny that if the U.K. was running a deficit of say 9% of GDP now — as Krugman, Summers and presumably the IMF’s Blanchard would have liked — it would have to work a lot harder over the next few years to get that back down toward an acceptable long-term rate.

In fact, the interesting lesson from the U.K. is not about whether austerity works or not — but how it can work, if it is done in the right way.

The U.K. mixed a gradual reduction in government spending in real terns with near-zero interest rates, huge blast of quantitative easing, and a sharply depreciated currency. All of that helped to sustain demand when it might otherwise have crumbled — and allowed the U.K. to return to growth, while the euro zone has barely recovered at all.

The Keynesian consensus, which often seems to believe that the level of government spending is all that really matters to an economy, and that economies can’t recover while spending is being cut, has surely been blown out of the water. Smart investors won’t listen to it again.

How do you explain Marketwatch being so upbeat, FJ ? And note their differentiation between our way of doing things, and that of much of the rest of Europe. Osborne, and the British Government, have been wiser in their application of austerity measures, not encumbering them with corresponding tax hikes.

Your pal Kadlec couldn't spot the difference, and so made his error, AN ERROR YOU'VE BOUGHT INTO.

You know, FJ, the sooner you depart from your Leftie-sympathetic thinking, and instead TRULY adopt a Thatcherite mindset .. one based on prudent housekeeping ... the better.

But I won't hold my breath waiting for such a miracle ! :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

... we attempt to explain...

:laugh: When have you attempted to explain anything? :laugh: You make such an absurd post... it's sad when I get glimpses into your normally ignored posts.


Very true, Aboutime. I can argue my sheer commonsense argument until I'm blue in the face, and make not the slightest headway.

What's more, I'll shortly prove the point once again. A quote FJ has supplied comes from an apparent 'economist' who's made a fundamental flaw in what he assumes is true for the UK. Pointing this out is bound to be a total waste of time. But I'll do it anyway.

Before you get too far down your rabbit hole. ;)


Counterfactual: Coalition austerity and the UK recession (http://www.voxeu.org/article/when-time-austerity)To provide illustration, we apply our estimates to make an (out-of-sample) counterfactual forecast of the post-2007 path of the UK economy without the fiscal austerity policies imposed by the coalition government after the 2010 election.
Two assumptions may be needed to make this exercise relevant. First, we assume that the UK had fiscal space and was not forced to do austerity; this may be defended in that real GDP is now worse than was expected in 2010, and debt to GDP higher than expected, yet gilt yields remain ultra-low in real terms (and at their lowest nominal level in their 280 years of recorded history). Second, we assume that policymakers care about timing fiscal adjustments so as to mitigate damage to the real GDP path of the economy; this is, at least, an oft-stated goal of most policymakers.
The results are presented in Figure 1, where we show actual and forecast paths for UK real GDP from 2007 (the business cycle peak) through 2013. How much of the poorer outturn can be attributed to the fiscal policy choice of instigating austerity during a bad slump? The answer, using our model as described above, is about 60%. Without austerity, UK real output would now be steadily climbing above its 2007 peak, rather than being stuck 2% below.
Figure 1. UK actual path and counterfactual path without austerity
http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromApr2012/taylor%20fig1%2019%20jul.png

The residual relative to the forecast could be accounted for by various omitted factors, as has been noted (Davies 2012), such as export patterns in the Eurozone and idiosyncratic UK sector shocks. There could also have been over-optimism in the 2010 forecast. However, a major caveat suggests that we likely have a biased underestimate of the effects of current UK austerity. This caveat is the zero lower bound, when fiscal multipliers are known to be much larger in both theory and evidence. Our UK out-of-sample counterfactual does correspond to a 'liquidity trap' environment, but our in-sample data overwhelmingly do not.5 (http://www.voxeu.org/article/when-time-austerity#fn) Thus our estimate of austerity’s effects in the UK is probably conservative.

Just more proof of my initial statement. Austerity sucks.

[Drummond]

'
Before you get too far down your rabbit hole. ;)


Just more proof of my initial statement. Austerity sucks.

Nope.

Two points.

One - the link you've provided is a year out of date.

Two - a premise all this is based upon is completely wrong. Quoted from your piece ...


First, we assume that the UK had fiscal space and was not forced to do austerity

Therein lies the flaw. It's because we had NO such so-called 'fiscal space' that austerity measures were entered into !!! Otherwise ... why bother with them at all ?

In fact, FJ, this is the WHOLE point. Had your Labour buddies not acted recklessly previously - much less promised to continue to !!! - such 'fiscal space' would've doubtless existed. Instead ... thumb back to the evidence of a certain letter left by the outgoing regime, in which it was blatantly stated that THERE IS NO MORE MONEY.

Money recklessly borrowed was provided, as you'd expect, with interest charged. FJ, it's all our Government can do to cope with the swingeing interest repayments ... THAT is how bad the Lefties were in running the economy !! We quite literally had no option but to try out an austerity package.

You say 'austerity sucks'. Yes, it does .. nobody likes it. But it's the only realistic remedy.

[fj1200]

You know what ? You're the only person I 'know' who thinks that.

Nope - what's really sad, FJ (and just a little irritating, to be totally honest ..) is that you can't move away from such bizarre thinking. This post will further prove that to be true, regardless of what I post, and we both know it.

I may be the only one saying so but you need to think long term. And as far as that "bizarre thinking" every link I show you says the same thing. You're to obstinate to read them.


... You see, I thought you'd probably supplied ...

But that's your problem; you don't think, you assume. You assume what I think or will post and you can't get away from your preconceived notions that would let you understand where someone else may come from.


This is all very well. However, what we have here is the basis for the flaw this commentator thinks to be true of the UK (.. and I think you're making the same mistake ..) .. THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE UK CHANCELLOR IS COPYING THE EUROPEAN MODEL, WHEN IN FACT HE IS NOT.

The UK approach is not one - not under the Conservatives, certainly - of walloping people with tax rises. I grant you, he's messed about with tax threshholds ... and he definitely doesn't want to lower them, not under current fiscal circumstances. But if 'mainland' Europe is going in for tax hikes, Osborne is NOT.

Austerity is a matter of scale:


The UK is showing us why austerity is dangerous, but are we paying attention?

But in the summer of 2010, the newly-elected conservative-led coalition government of the U.K. passed and implemented an aggressive austerity budget. This budget was heavily weighted toward spending cuts—nearly 80 percent of the total fiscal consolidation—and included a 25 percent cut to non-health domestic departmental spending by 2014-15. Tax increases accounted for the remaining 20 percent, including increases in the value-added tax (essentially a sales tax). In total, this fiscal consolidation represented 2.2 percent of U.K. GDP by 2014-2015. Combined with the previous government’s planned austerity, the overall fiscal consolidation implemented totaled 6.3 percent of GDP. - See more at: http://www.epi.org/blog/uk-showing-austerity-dangerous-paying-attention/#sthash.pYEEQtWZ.dpuf
Thankfully you've not fully chosen to go down with the PIIGS but tax increases are undeniable... or so I thought. ;) And of course economic conditions are not immune from decisions made by the central government which leads to the following result:

http://s3.epi.org/files/2012//Screen-Shot-2013-02-04-at-2.39.43-PM.png

Austerity sucks.


Oh, and one point you might like to consider: we don't just have a Conservative Government, but a Coalition one, with power shared with our LibDems (the LibDems over here being a halfway-house between our Conservatives and the harder-Left Labour Party, formerly headed by Gordon Brown). Osborne has had to contend with LibDem comments regarding his precise policies, but nonetheless, DOES ENJOY LIBDEM BASIC SUPPORT]

Kadlec warms to his theme, compounding his error about the UK, if indeed he thinks we're copying Europe. Maybe his thinking is right about the EU approach. But their approach isn't precisely ours.

I think, FJ, that you may find this link far more usefully instructive - IF you're prepared to take any notice, that is .... 'enjoy' these quotes ...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/austerity-vs-growth-uk-has-settled-argument-2013-09-18


So what you're saying by your coalition government comment is that in order for the Tories to get what they want they need to move leftward in order to garner their support. Well that would just confirm what I've been saying all along wouldn't it? :laugh:

Nevertheless, what I "enjoyed" was your exercise in cherry picking certain quotes. How about I do the same: ;)


...
The British economy is not exactly booming. But it is at least firing on one cylinder if not two, and there is no question the economy is looking in better shape than it was just a few months ago.
...
The big cheeses of the International Monetary Fund (http://www.marketwatch.com/companies/International_Monetary_Fund?lc=int_mb_1001) took much the same view. In January this year, its chief economist Oliver Blanchard cut the growth forecast for this year to just 1%, and told the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21175407)in an interview that austerity was being overdone. “We think this would be a good time to take stock,” he said of the government’s spending plans, indicating that the government should loosen up its purse strings, and add a bit more to the national debt.
Admittedly, these are the same geniuses who bought us the Greek “rescue” packages (current youth unemployment rate 57% — which makes you wonder what happens without the “rescue”), but even so that is a spectacular misjudgment.
...
And, in fairness, many of the U.K.’s critics listened to the rhetoric of austerity rather than looking at the actual figures. Measured in real terms, British public spending may be under pressure, but in cash terms the government is spending 4% more this year than last. The deficit is still running at 7.1% of GDP, higher than in France, Spain or even Greece, and is only projected to drop to 6.5% next year. By any historical standards, that is pumping a lot of demand into the economy.
...
The U.K. mixed a gradual reduction in government spending in real terns with near-zero interest rates (http://www.marketwatch.com/Subjects/Interest_Rates?lc=int_mb_1001), huge blast of quantitative easing, and a sharply depreciated currency. All of that helped to sustain demand when it might otherwise have crumbled — and allowed the U.K. to return to growth, while the euro zone has barely recovered at all.

The Keynesian consensus, which often seems to believe that the level of government spending is all that really matters to an economy, and that economies can’t recover while spending is being cut, has surely been blown out of the water. Smart investors won’t listen to it again.

I especially liked that part about the IMF as you were touting their expertise previously but failed to quote them... curious that eh? They also look to heap a lot of credit on monetary policy, i.e. interest rates, QE, and currency devaluation, so good luck in parsing out austerity from those factors. And of course seeing as I'm not a Keynesian, I wouldn't listen to them either. And those are some pretty grim looking budget numbers wouldn't you say?


How do you explain Marketwatch being so upbeat, FJ ? And note their differentiation between our way of doing things, and that of much of the rest of Europe. Osborne, and the British Government, have been wiser in their application of austerity measures, not encumbering them with corresponding tax hikes.

Your pal Kadlec couldn't spot the difference, and so made his error, AN ERROR YOU'VE BOUGHT INTO.

You know, FJ, the sooner you depart from your Leftie-sympathetic thinking, and instead TRULY adopt a Thatcherite mindset .. one based on prudent housekeeping ... the better.

But I won't hold my breath waiting for such a miracle !

MW seems to be upbeat that results beat the Keynesians expectations; And I'm always happy when Keynesians are beaten. There was also a lot there, you know the stuff you didn't quote, that shows the reality of what's going on in the UK.

Well, I've already pointed out that tax hikes have occurred at your "Federal" level it also seems that some important lower level tax issues that will have an impact, unless of course London is a small part of the UK's GDP figures (oops, they're ~22% of UK GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_London)):


50% rate will make London the tax capital of the world (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256439/London-highly-taxed-finance-hub-world.html)

London will become the most highly taxed financial centre in the world when the new 50 per cent income tax rate for those earning £150,000 or more comes into force next month.Taxes will be higher than for financial workers living in the other key centres of New York, Paris, Frankfurt, Geneva, Zurich, Dubai and Hong Kong, KPMG calculated.

Oh, and your dumb F***ery ignored because I'm sure of two things, I don't know who Kadlec is and Mags is no longer around to have an opinion on austerity.

[fj1200]

Nope.

Two points.

One - the link you've provided is a year out of date.

Two - a premise all this is based upon is completely wrong. Quoted from your piece ...

Therein lies the flaw. It's because we had NO such so-called 'fiscal space' that austerity measures were entered into !!! Otherwise ... why bother with them at all ?

One - a year out of date? That's what you're going to hang your hat on? :laugh:

Two - debunked before you even replied.


First, we assume that the UK had fiscal space and was not forced to do austerity; this may be defended in that real GDP is now worse than was expected in 2010, and debt to GDP higher than expected, yet gilt yields remain ultra-low in real terms (and at their lowest nominal level in their 280 years of recorded history).


Had your Labour buddies...

You say 'austerity sucks'. Yes, it does .. nobody likes it. But it's the only realistic remedy.

One - prove I have Labour "buddies." This should be good.

Two - at least you agree that austerity sucks.

[aboutime]

I really enjoy it, and get so many laughs from fj's expected, predictable posts.

Too bad fj is the only one who he convinced. Otherwise. A waste of time in attempting to deal with him...for any reason.

But...in order to move the threads down on DP. I tempt fate, and get a good laugh in the process.

[Drummond]

I may be the only one saying so but you need to think long term.

Definitely a joke ! Austerity is ALL ABOUT thinking long term. Our Chancellor is already considering whether austerity needs to be applied beyond 2018 !


And as far as that "bizarre thinking" every link I show you says the same thing. You're to obstinate to read them.:laugh:

So, how inclined were you to be advised by my 'Marketwatch' one ? THAT article, written before 2013 had ended, concluded that doom-prophets such as yourself were wrong. Besides, as I pointed out, your graph, your material generally, was a year out of date.

For your information, FJ, we're beginning to go from strength to strength. Did you monitor the results of last Wednesday's Budget (.. I'll bet you're so out of touch with Britain's fiscal management that you were even unaware that there WAS one, much less what came of it !!!). CHECK IT OUT. You'll see that some relatively minor tax CUTS have resulted.

Why ? Because, as I've explained, our Conservatives are natural tax CUTTERS. If they fail to cut tax, that's because they don't see any realistic latitude for it ...

... which has been my point all along.


But that's your problem; you don't think, you assume. You assume what I think or will post and you can't get away from your preconceived notions that would let you understand where someone else may come from.

Ahem ! You're not strong on context, are you ? Didn't I make the point that I had CHECKED the value/quality of your source material ? That speaks of going beyond mere assumptiveness !!

And your whole argument, as I've said already and exhaustively by now, IS ONE THAT OUR LEFT WING WOULD IDENTIFY WITH. That remains a fact. Considering this, also the fact of your previous Leftie friendly posting (arguing for the same treatment for terrorists that THEY advocate, for example ..), means that the only consistency in your posting is a Leftie-sympathetic set of thought processes.

I don't consider it a coincidence that you, now, 'just happen' to be seeing things as our LEFTIES would. I see it as proof of how you really think.


Austerity is a matter of scale

... and of commitment to it. The more it's watered down, the less effective a remedy it becomes.

Mention is made of so-called tax increases insitituted in 2010. These were corrective, balancing measures, and were as minor as the Conservatives could reasonably make them. After all, expenditure cuts were the real focus. However, since you're talking about scale, how about the scale of the problem inherited from your Leftie chums ???

That's the trouble here. Lefties create messes - our Conservatives clean up after them. It was done in the years following Lady Thatcher's victory over them. It is being done now, post-2010.


Thankfully you've not fully chosen to go down with the PIIGS but tax increases are undeniable... or so I thought. ;)

What IS undeniable - even though you're doing your best to show solidarity with Labour, and do just that !!! - is that OUR ECONOMY IS SHOWING CLEAR SIGNS OF RECOVERY. Your 'we're going to end up like Greece' argument is nonsense.

Observe:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/budget2014/article-2584115/Osborne-promises-tax-cuts-low-earners-parents-bingo-players-populist-Budget-resilient-economy.html


The UK economy is recovering faster than expected and it is time for the British people to be rewarded for holding their nerve, George Osborne said today.

Unveiling a stridently upbeat Budget, the Chancellor promised millions of people an income tax cut, cheaper childcare, a penny off a pint of beer and bigger bingo prizes.

And in a pitch to the powerful grey vote, he announced the biggest overhaul of pensions for 100 years, cutting tax for savers and giving people full access to their nest eggs as soon as they retire leading to a stock market slump in annuities firms.

To cheers in the Commons, Mr Osborne declared: 'With the help of the British people we’re turning our country around.'

The British economy is on course to grow by 2.7 per cent in 2014, up from 1.8 per cent forecast a year ago – the biggest upgrade for at least 30 years.

Setting out his pitch to voters ahead of the 2015 general election, Mr Osborne declared: ‘If you’re a maker, a doer or a saver: this Budget is for you.
‘We set out our plan and together with the British people, we held our nerve. We’re putting Britain right.’

Are you taking notes ?

OK, FJ - reconcile THAT with your predictions of doom !! Fact is that AUSTERITY WORKS, CONSEQUENTLY, TAX CUTS ARE NOW, TO A LIMITED EXTENT, AFFORDABLE !!

If you read on, you'll see that Ed Miliband, the current Labour leader, tried to pour water on all of this. But then ... he, and you, think alike. He, and you, don't want to admit that Conservative fiscal prudence WORKS.

The article begins with this helpful Budget summary:



Chancellor announces 1p cut in duty on each pint of beer and a freeze on cider and spirits in crowd-pleasing move
Bingo tax halved to 10% with promise of bigger prizes for players
Help for savers in the penultimate Budget before the election next year
Cash and stocks ISAs to be merged into single ISA with annual tax-free savings limit of £15,000
Osborne promised families extra help after coming through the recession
Working parents offered £2,000 tax break on cost of childcare
Vowed to cut taxes and boost manufacturing during 55-minute statement
Threshold for paying both basic and higher tax rates is hiked
£1 coin scrapped: New version will be shaped like old threepenny bit
New promises will be funded by crackdown on tax evasion raising billions
Growth forecasts upgraded as economic recovery gains momentum
But more cuts are on the way with the welfare bill capped at £119bn


Conservatives will raise tax when they must, FJ. They much prefer to cut it, however. WITH SUFFICIENT LATITUDE AVAILABLE, THEY'LL DO SO. SO LONG AS SUCH CUTS CAN BE AFFORDED.

Your information, your whole premise, is outdated. Our economy is NOT sinking without trace .. IT IS RECOVERING. IT IS RECOVERING BECAUSE RESPONSIBLE FISCAL MEASURES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED, AND CONTINUE TO BE.


Austerity sucks.

You, and your Leftie chums, are peddling that for all you're worth, eh ? And DESPITE the growing evidence of its great worth as a remedy ! Yes, it isn't pleasant. BUT, IT WORKS.


So what you're saying by your coalition government comment is that in order for the Tories to get what they want they need to move leftward in order to garner their support. Well that would just confirm what I've been saying all along wouldn't it? :laugh:

-- What, that you're proving how Leftie-friendly your thinking truly is ?

Have you ever considered applying to become Ed Miliband's scriptwriter ?

I don't think I need say much more to you on this subject, FJ. The truth is that not only are you wrong, but we're currently celebrating the success of the effects of responsible fiscal management ... the very approach which you argue will doom us to becoming another Greece. Conservatism WORKS - YOUR LEFTIE CLOUD-CUCKOOLAND LACK OF RESPONSIBLE PRUDENCE DOES NOT.


Oh, and your dumb F***ery ignored because I'm sure of two things, I don't know who Kadlec is and Mags is no longer around to have an opinion on austerity.

Counting the asterisks, you can't mean 'flattery' .. what DO you mean ?

You don't know who Kadlec is ??? FJ, have you tried being properly attentive to your OWN material ? He's the author of one of your links !!!!

'Mags', as you disrespectfully call her, may not be around. But, her reverence for proper fiscal prudence is well known, and IT DEFIES YOUR OWN PHILOSOPHISING ... THIS ITSELF PROVING THAT YOU'RE NO 'THATCHERITE'.

OBSERVE ---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism


Fiscal conservatism in the UK was arguably most popular during the premiership of Margaret Thatcher, who, after a number of years of deficit spending under the previous Labour government, advocated spending cuts and selective tax increases to balance the budget. However, despite being elected in 1979, Britain's budget was not balanced until 1988.

In 2010, as a result of the deterioration in the UK's public finances caused by the Late-2000s recession and by the European sovereign debt crisis, the Liberal Democrat-Conservative Coalition embarked on an austerity programme – featuring a combination of spending cuts and tax rises – in an attempt to halve the deficit, and completely eliminate the structural deficit over the five-year parliament.

You say that 'Mags' is no longer around to have an opinion on austerity. True. BUT HER RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. SHE, ALONG WITH OUR CURRENT CONSERVATIVES, WOULD RUN TAXATION STRATEGIES ACCORDING TO THEIR AFFORDABILITY.

Austerity takes a long time to properly work .. but work, it does.

You're just no 'Thatcherite' at all .. are you, FJ ?

[Drummond]

I really enjoy it, and get so many laughs from fj's expected, predictable posts.

Too bad fj is the only one who he convinced. Otherwise. A waste of time in attempting to deal with him...for any reason.

But...in order to move the threads down on DP. I tempt fate, and get a good laugh in the process.

.. Indeed, Aboutime. And this does have its funny side.

I've just posted something that should be convincing to FJ. Of course, though, it won't be. I knew before I drafted it that posting what I intended, despite the fact I was right - and provably so - would be a waste of time, that FJ won't deviate from his delusions.

I'm especially enjoying his delusion that we're heading in Greece's direction, when in fact we've just had a Budget which could relax some tax restrictions BECAUSE WE'RE UNDERGOING A RECOVERY !

Still, I enjoy showing his stuff up for the rubbish it is.

In 'FJ-world' ... he's a 'Thatcherite'. This despite thinking very differently to her in a variety of ways, not least the one I've been discussing ... fiscal prudence, her enthusiasm for advocating that everyone, whilst ideally being wealth-generators, should nonetheless live within their means.

FJ's argument clones Gordon Brown's one, Brown being a LEFTIE. Telling him that is useless, of course, because at heart he sees things the way our LEFTIES do, and won't change course.

Why would he ? He's no Thatcherite, after all.

[fj1200]

Definitely a joke ! Austerity is ALL ABOUT thinking long term. Our Chancellor is already considering whether austerity needs to be applied beyond 2018 !

You might be right about that because austerity is all about reapplication when it doesn't do as promised:


At Budget 2010, the end of the forecast period was 2015-16. However, in 2014 the Treasury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Treasury) extended the proposed austerity period until at least 2018.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme#cite _note-1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme

Quite the vote of confidence that gives you.


So, how inclined were you to be advised by my 'Marketwatch' one ? THAT article, written before 2013 had ended, concluded that doom-prophets such as yourself were wrong. Besides, as I pointed out, your graph, your material generally, was a year out of date.

For your information, FJ, we're beginning to go from strength to strength. Did you monitor the results of last Wednesday's Budget (.. I'll bet you're so out of touch with Britain's fiscal management that you were even unaware that there WAS one, much less what came of it !!!). CHECK IT OUT. You'll see that some relatively minor tax CUTS have resulted.

Why ? Because, as I've explained, our Conservatives are natural tax CUTTERS. If they fail to cut tax, that's because they don't see any realistic latitude for it ...

... which has been my point all along.

A year out of date? :laugh: Yes, hang your hat on that one. What it shows is that due to austerity your economy underperformed. Besides, the MW article was just fine, the sad part was your need to cherry pick to try and bolster your point. Besides, as I'm trying to explain to you, revenues have more to do with economic strength than they do rates:


<iframe src="//charts-datawrapper.s3.amazonaws.com/tU51u/index.html" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" oallowfullscreen="" msallowfullscreen="" width="460" height="500"></iframe>
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963


Ahem ! You're not strong on context, are you ? Didn't I make the point that I had CHECKED the value/quality of your source material ? That speaks of going beyond mere assumptiveness !!

And your whole argument, as I've said already and exhaustively by now, IS ONE THAT OUR LEFT WING WOULD IDENTIFY WITH. That remains a fact. Considering this, also the fact of your previous Leftie friendly posting (arguing for the same treatment for terrorists that THEY advocate, for example ..), means that the only consistency in your posting is a Leftie-sympathetic set of thought processes.

I don't consider it a coincidence that you, now, 'just happen' to be seeing things as our LEFTIES would. I see it as proof of how you really think.

Yes it was quite an accomplishment for me that you were unable to just blather out leftie and ignore fact that gets in your way. Now when you're able to prove out my "leftie" status well, that would be something you've never done before.


... and of commitment to it. The more it's watered down, the less effective a remedy it becomes.

Mention is made of so-called tax increases insitituted in 2010. These were corrective, balancing measures, and were as minor as the Conservatives could reasonably make them. After all, expenditure cuts were the real focus. However, since you're talking about scale, how about the scale of the problem inherited from your Leftie chums ???

That's the trouble here. Lefties create messes - our Conservatives clean up after them. It was done in the years following Lady Thatcher's victory over them. It is being done now, post-2010.

:laugh: Oh brother. So your argument is now that you should have gone the full austerity that the PIIGS went with? I already posted the craphole that they're in and you even lauded my source.


What IS undeniable - even though you're doing your best to show solidarity with Labour, and do just that !!! - is that OUR ECONOMY IS SHOWING CLEAR SIGNS OF RECOVERY. Your 'we're going to end up like Greece' argument is nonsense.

Observe:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/budget2014/article-2584115/Osborne-promises-tax-cuts-low-earners-parents-bingo-players-populist-Budget-resilient-economy.html


I said austerity sucks, not that you'd never see growth. And that you're beating expectations merely means that you have low expectations which I have low expectations with austerity too.


Are you taking notes ?

OK, FJ - reconcile THAT with your predictions of doom !! Fact is that AUSTERITY WORKS, CONSEQUENTLY, TAX CUTS ARE NOW, TO A LIMITED EXTENT, AFFORDABLE !!

If you read on, you'll see that Ed Miliband, the current Labour leader, tried to pour water on all of this. But then ... he, and you, think alike. He, and you, don't want to admit that Conservative fiscal prudence WORKS.

The article begins with this helpful Budget summary:



Chancellor announces 1p cut in duty on each pint of beer and a freeze on cider and spirits in crowd-pleasing move
Bingo tax halved to 10% with promise of bigger prizes for players
Help for savers in the penultimate Budget before the election next year
Cash and stocks ISAs to be merged into single ISA with annual tax-free savings limit of £15,000
Osborne promised families extra help after coming through the recession
Working parents offered £2,000 tax break on cost of childcare
Vowed to cut taxes and boost manufacturing during 55-minute statement
Threshold for paying both basic and higher tax rates is hiked
£1 coin scrapped: New version will be shaped like old threepenny bit
New promises will be funded by crackdown on tax evasion raising billions
Growth forecasts upgraded as economic recovery gains momentum
But more cuts are on the way with the welfare bill capped at £119bn


Conservatives will raise tax when they must, FJ. They much prefer to cut it, however. WITH SUFFICIENT LATITUDE AVAILABLE, THEY'LL DO SO. SO LONG AS SUCH CUTS CAN BE AFFORDED.

Your information, your whole premise, is outdated. Our economy is NOT sinking without trace .. IT IS RECOVERING. IT IS RECOVERING BECAUSE RESPONSIBLE FISCAL MEASURES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED, AND CONTINUE TO BE.

So your vaunted tax cuts are relegated to beer and bingo? :laugh: If I bothered I'm pretty sure I could compare that list to Labour and the bad plans that BO has burdened us with and see some commonalities. There is almost nothing in there that is pro-growth that spurs the private sector to job growth andvlowered unemployment.


You, and your Leftie chums, are peddling that for all you're worth, eh ? And DESPITE the growing evidence of its great worth as a remedy ! Yes, it isn't pleasant. BUT, IT WORKS.

It doesn't work. It may not lead to the poor house... yet... but that doesn't mean it works. Every economic analysis I've shown you has proven out underperformance is economic growth and has led to extending austerity beyond its original intent.


-- What, that you're proving how Leftie-friendly your thinking truly is ?

Have you ever considered applying to become Ed Miliband's scriptwriter ?

I don't think I need say much more to you on this subject, FJ. The truth is that not only are you wrong, but we're currently celebrating the success of the effects of responsible fiscal management ... the very approach which you argue will doom us to becoming another Greece. Conservatism WORKS - YOUR LEFTIE CLOUD-CUCKOOLAND LACK OF RESPONSIBLE PRUDENCE DOES NOT.

Your dumb F***ery is epic. Please show me where I am in favor of Labour's solutions. :tapsfoot:


Counting the asterisks, you can't mean 'flattery' .. what DO you mean ?

You don't know who Kadlec is ??? FJ, have you tried being properly attentive to your OWN material ? He's the author of one of your links !!!!

'Mags', as you disrespectfully call her, may not be around. But, her reverence for proper fiscal prudence is well known, and IT DEFIES YOUR OWN PHILOSOPHISING ... THIS ITSELF PROVING THAT YOU'RE NO 'THATCHERITE'.

OBSERVE ---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism

I guess I should use Tyr's spelling of your status as head of dumb ffkkery. ;)

Of course her austerity does explain your sky high unemployment rates during the 80's while the US was enjoying falling rates.

http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/unemployment-percent-79-present.png

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-07-02-rawrate.png

Why do you hate your unemployed citizens so?


You say that 'Mags' is no longer around to have an opinion on austerity. True. BUT HER RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. SHE, ALONG WITH OUR CURRENT CONSERVATIVES, WOULD RUN TAXATION STRATEGIES ACCORDING TO THEIR AFFORDABILITY.

Austerity takes a long time to properly work .. but work, it does.

You're just no 'Thatcherite' at all .. are you, FJ ?

No, it really doesn't. The facts don't lie, Reagan had it right.

[Drummond]

Your last post, FJ, is as tiresome as it gets. The Chancellor's recent Budget was upbeat, because he knew our economy was recovering. And NOT going the way of Greece, which is what YOU claimed !!


A year out of date? :laugh: Yes, hang your hat on that one.

... and happily so ! The most dramatic evidence of our recovery post-dates the graph and your quote.


What it shows is that due to austerity your economy underperformed. Besides, the MW article was just fine, the sad part was your need to cherry pick to try and bolster your point. Besides, as I'm trying to explain to you, revenues have more to do with economic strength than they do rates:

<iframe src="//charts-datawrapper.s3.amazonaws.com/tU51u/index.html" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" oallowfullscreen="" msallowfullscreen="" width="460" height="500"></iframe>

I'm happy with that graph. Do you notice how each line, when you extrapolate, promises the great likelihood of eventual convergence ? The two are heading to parity, and why ? Because SPENDING IS BEING SHARPLY CURBED, AND TAXES REFLECT ITS AFFORDABILITY.

Taxes, if necessary, need to rise in a weak economy. OR, if the economy strengthens AND recovers, then there's scope for tax cuts. What is all important IS WHAT CAN BE AFFORDED.

By the way .. I see you obtained the graph from the Guardian ? When all else fails, go to a Leftie publication for help, eh ??

Rather you than me. Although ... from your link ....

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963

... I see ...


Government spending needs us to be paying tax. So, how is it doing?

Coming from them, that's impressive !


Yes it was quite an accomplishment for me that you were unable to just blather out leftie and ignore fact that gets in your way. Now when you're able to prove out my "leftie" status well, that would be something you've never done before.

Agreed - I don't need to. You do a splendid job of it, all on your own ... especially so in this thread. Your anti-Austerity line is very much a pro-Leftie one .. Ed Miliband, and Gordon Brown before him, were committed to opposing it.


I said austerity sucks, not that you'd never see growth.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Excellent bit of backsliding there. If austerity was so bad, and we were going to turn into Greece, growth would be an unattainable dream.


And that you're beating expectations merely means that you have low expectations which I have low expectations with austerity too.

What it really means is that, from a ruined economy, expectations (especially in the early years) couldn't be anything BUT low. What matters is that Lady Thatcher's belief in prudent housekeeping is respected and translated into the proper action.

But, now, we're recovering. Ah, FJ, how you must hate that !! The OPPOSITE policies to your Brown-clone ones, are winning through !

And don't tell me they're not. I LIVE HERE .. YOU DO NOT.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/10709084/Budget-2014-Osbornes-economy-in-five-charts.html


The Chancellor has delivered his first Budget with strong economic growth figures behind him - here's a look at the data

You're fond of graphs ? Check out the link. Note the bar graph shown ... and the IMMEDIATE reversal in our performance, the moment Leftie methodology was abandoned !


So your vaunted tax cuts are relegated to beer and bingo? :laugh:

They're better than nothing. They're not major changes, though, and I'd be alarmed if they were .. because if they WERE, then commonsense would've flown out the window.


If I bothered I'm pretty sure I could compare that list to Labour and the bad plans that BO has burdened us with and see some commonalities. There is almost nothing in there that is pro-growth that spurs the private sector to job growth andvlowered unemployment.

Considering how reckless you want to be in chasing your growth incentives .. I'm glad. Only AFFORDABLE measures are sensible ones.


It doesn't work. It may not lead to the poor house... yet... but that doesn't mean it works. Every economic analysis I've shown you has proven out underperformance is economic growth and has led to extending austerity beyond its original intent.

For a while, yes, economic performance was disappointing. But, we're turning a corner .. and especially so, in the last year. OK, you hate that .. but, well .. TOUGH. We're not the basket case you wish we were.


Your dumb F***ery is epic. Please show me where I am in favor of Labour's solutions. :tapsfoot:

TRY THIS THREAD !! From the moment it was hijacked from its original subject, you've been busily cloning Brown's and Miliband's opposition to our Conservative methods.


I guess I should use Tyr's spelling of your status as head of dumb ffkkery. ;)

It does have the virtue of clarity. Tell me, are there any other lessons that Tyr can teach you ?? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh2::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Of course her austerity does explain your sky high unemployment rates during the 80's while the US was enjoying falling rates.

http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/unemployment-percent-79-present.png

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-07-02-rawrate.png

Why do you hate your unemployed citizens so?

Look ... I already KNOW you're no Thatcherite !!! Aren't you embarrassed to make it so very obvious ??

And you're being very far from fair.

The Winter of Discontent. In the UK, in late 1978, stretching into 1979, our Leftie militants went berserk ... not merely with strikes, but WAVE after WAVE of them. Companies lost orders and eventually folded. Other strikes, such as transport strikes, did further overall damage. So it's hardly surprising, is it, that in the years ahead, that loss of competitive infrastructure translated into starkly higher unemployment !!!

Lady Thatcher had a great deal to fix, not least (a) taming our Unions, and (b) convincing foreign markets that we were achieving viability once more.

You don't achieve that in the space of just a few months. A timelag of years is only to be expected. And you see the effect in the graph.

Since you see fit to try and compare the UK with the US's performance over that period, tell me .. did the US undergo the very same problems, at the same time, and to any comparable extent ? I RATHER THINK NOT.

So your comparison is deeply flawed.


No, it really doesn't. The facts don't lie, Reagan had it right.

Indeed, the facts DON'T lie. I've just given you some facts which until now you've ignored. The UK had FAR more extreme conditions to overcome in the period we're talking about.

So, FJ. 'Whoops' ... eh ? When you feel like it, you'll ABANDON your pro-Thatcherite pretentions for the sake of making a cheap - AND INVALID - self-serving point. And what's more .. one her adversaries would applaud ...

[aboutime]

Sir Drummond. Another day, and another reason to laugh at fj.

I imagine him sitting at home. Staring at his Monitor, typing away. Arguing with HIMSELF. Trying to convince himself how intelligent he only THINKS he is....then Loses the argument. So, in his anger at not being able to WIN against himself.

He comes here, and we all get to laugh at him.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Another day, and another reason to laugh at fj.

I imagine him sitting at home. Staring at his Monitor, typing away. Arguing with HIMSELF. Trying to convince himself how intelligent he only THINKS he is....then Loses the argument. So, in his anger at not being able to WIN against himself.

He comes here, and we all get to laugh at him.:clap::clap::clap::laugh::laugh:

Not only that, but did you notice that at one point he even went so far as to attack Lady Thatcher's own strategy, in the early years of her Premiership ??

... with ....


''Of course her austerity does explain your sky high unemployment rates during the 80's while the US was enjoying falling rates.'

How's that for the self-proclaimed 'Ultimate Thatcherite' .. ??

'.. Whoops' ... indeedy !!!

[Drummond]

Here's a little something that totally and utterly defies FJ's gloom-saturated prediction that UK is going the way of Greece ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10752204/UK-will-be-fastest-growing-economy-in-the-G7-this-year.html


UK will be fastest growing economy in the G7 this year .. International Monetary Fund upgrades its forecast for UK growth by more than any other advanced economy ....

The United Kingdom will be the fastest growing major economy this year, as stable inflation and lower unemployment keeps Britain on track to post its strongest growth since 2007, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).


The IMF upgraded its forecasts for UK growth on Tuesday by more than any other advanced economy. It said cheaper credit and increased consumer confidence had helped the UK economy to "rebound more strongly than anticipated" over the past year.


The Fund now expects Britain to grow by 2.9pc this year, up from its forecast of 2.4pc in January and 1.9pc last October. By comparison, the IMF expects the US to grow by 2.8pc in 2014 and Canada to grow by 2.3pc, meaning Britain is projected to be the fastest growing economy in the G7.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh2::laugh2::da nce::dance::dance:

FJ ... when you bungle, you don't stint on the effort ... !!!!

[fj1200]

^You do understand the difference between short term and long term don't you? And FWIW I hope that the UK does not go the way of Greece but I can only imagine what would have been without the ridiculous austerity policy.


It is the first time since April 2008 that UK annual growth is predicted to be higher than the US and Germany...

When "natural tax cutters" don't, I'm not filled with confidence.

[Drummond]

^You do understand the difference between short term and long term don't you? And FWIW I hope that the UK does not go the way of Greece but I can only imagine what would have been without the ridiculous austerity policy.



When "natural tax cutters" don't, I'm not filled with confidence.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Our Conservatives, in adopting a policy designed to make us pay our way, to live within our means, ARE planning for the long term. 'Get rich quick' games played by the Left, with OTHER PEOPLES' MONEY', are at best 'fools gold'. And they are the mess which Labour's successors have had to clear up as best they can, and as soberly as they can.

Austerity policies aren't ideal. But it's far less ridiculous than the Leftie alternative of willful bankruptcy !

Fact is, FJ, that your prediction for the UK's future is far removed from the truth .. that of GROWING, INCREASINGLY EVIDENT, PROSPERITY.

I really must hand it to you. FJ, when you bungle, you do it in style !!:laugh::laugh:

[fj1200]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Our Conservatives, in adopting a policy designed to make us pay our way, to live within our means, ARE planning for the long term. 'Get rich quick' games played by the Left, with OTHER PEOPLES' MONEY', are at best 'fools gold'. And they are the mess which Labour's successors have had to clear up as best they can, and as soberly as they can.

Austerity policies aren't ideal. But it's far less ridiculous than the Leftie alternative of willful bankruptcy !

Fact is, FJ, that your prediction for the UK's future is far removed from the truth .. that of GROWING, INCREASINGLY EVIDENT, PROSPERITY.

I really must hand it to you. FJ, when you bungle, you do it in style !!:laugh::laugh:

I still readily see your problem. You think "leftie bankruptcy" is the opposite of austerity, it's not as I've shown you repeatedly but of course you choose to ignore that. Austerity sucks, it produces lower economic output, keeps unemployment higher than it should be, and is a government-centric viewpoint which is the opposite of basic conservative a people-centric viewpoint.

The fact is your own link shows "conservative" austerity resulted in an under-performing economy since 2008; how you claim some sort of awesome success for 5 years of mediocrity is simply confusing to the rational mind. :dunno:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-kingdom-gdp-per-capita.png?s=gbrnygdppcapkd
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/germany-gdp-per-capita.png?s=deunygdppcapkd
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-gdp-per-capita.png?s=usanygdppcapkd
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1688711/thumbs/o-OBR-570.jpg

You have a strange definition of success.

[Drummond]

I still readily see your problem. You think "leftie bankruptcy" is the opposite of austerity, it's not as I've shown you repeatedly but of course you choose to ignore that.

The British experience has been one of a straight choice between the two. One, courtesy of Labour, nearly ruined us. The other, applied by Labour's opposition, is slowly mending our economy.


Austerity sucks, it produces lower economic output, keeps unemployment higher than it should be, and is a government-centric viewpoint which is the opposite of basic conservative a people-centric viewpoint.

AND YET IT'S WORKING. You've been sent a link already to show how the UK is set to outperform all other G7 economies !!


The fact is your own link shows "conservative" austerity resulted in an under-performing economy since 2008; how you claim some sort of awesome success for 5 years of mediocrity is simply confusing to the rational mind. :dunno:

The confusion is YOURS. You seem not to grasp how difficult world economic realities have been since 2008. You seem to imagine that - despite reality !! - the UK should perform as though none of that existed ???

As for your charts ...


[quote]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-kingdom-gdp-per-capita.png?s=gbrnygdppcapkd
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/germany-gdp-per-capita.png?s=deunygdppcapkd
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-gdp-per-capita.png?s=usanygdppcapkd
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1688711/thumbs/o-OBR-570.jpg



... you fail to post a link for them, I see.

I also note that two of them seem not to clearly report beyond 2012 (at least, they don't show 2013 as a stated statistical parameter, do they ?). Could that be because any suggestion of a graphically depicted statistical trend is mere extrapolation ??

It certainly DOES explain your last graph ... claiming 'REAL' average earnings ... which somehow manages to show us a flatlining performance going as far ahead as 2019 !!!

So ... to what extent do these show, ahem, 'REAL' data ..... ??

It's as I've pointed out once before .. a 'strange' absence of clear data covering 2013. Which just HAPPENS to be the very year of far stronger fiscal performance from the UK !!

What a coincidence ... eh ?

Your prediction of a UK meltdown comparable to that of Greece is a load of rot, FJ. Your 'statistics' are neither clear-cut, definitive, nor even properly (or at all ?) sourced .. quite possibly only mere projections which are outdated by more recent events.

Well, here's one link for you to check out --

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/08/01/austerity-in-europe-it-will-work-if-its-ever-tried/


The proponents of Keynesian-style deficit spending argue against austerity by claiming that it has failed in Europe. They point to the U.K., Italy, Greece, and onward, shouting that European government spending cuts have led to slow or negative growth and sky-high unemployment rates. The only problem with these arguments is that all the purported facts are misstated.

In reality, very few countries in Europe have actually reduced government spending. There have been riots in protest of proposed or imagined cuts in spending, but not much actual cutting. For those who have reduced government spending, the results have been better than the conditions experienced in the countries that have continued to expand government spending. If we actually look at the data, rather than simply making unsupported claims, a completely different picture emerges.

The data on relative GDP growth show that only two of the eight countries that practiced austerity performed worse than the average. Those two countries are Iceland and Ireland. Iceland had a complete meltdown of their banking system, so it is clearly a special case. Ireland had a big real estate bubble that popped, which helped cause a bank crisis, and an enormous government deficit. It was definitely one of the countries in big financial trouble.

While two of the eight countries that have tried austerity had GDP growth that was worse than the EU average from 2008 to 2011, that still leaves six of the eight that performed better than average. Further, the two countries with the best relative performance in all of Europe, Poland and Lithuania, are both in the austerity group along with Bulgaria with the fourth best relative GDP growth.

Thus, this data suggests that for most of the European countries that have tried austerity, it has worked.

The lesson from this column is that austerity can indeed work if a country is willing to try it. Trying austerity means actually cutting government spending, not just spending less than the government or liberals want. Also, before people claim a policy has failed they should make sure that the examples of the supposed policy failure actually applied the policy in question.

[fj1200]

The British experience has been one of a straight choice between the two. One, courtesy of Labour, nearly ruined us. The other, applied by Labour's opposition, is slowly mending our economy.

Again, your error. I don't accept either as being the best option.


AND YET IT'S WORKING. You've been sent a link already to show how the UK is set to outperform all other G7 economies !!

It's working? Don't forget out how I defined austerity, cutting spending and raising taxes; it really doesn't work as I've demonstrated previously. And to your new-found success? It didn't take much searching to discover that a correction was necessary and apparently instituted a couple of years ago.

<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">British Budget Adheres to Austerity While It Cuts the Top Tax Rate (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/business/global/britain-sticks-to-austerity-in-new-budget-plan.html?_r=0)</nyt_headline>
LONDON — The British government said Wednesday that it was sticking to its austerity program as it presented a budget of tax and benefit changes intended to spur economic growth. The opposition criticized it as benefiting higher earners.
George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, said that the government’s plan for reducing the budget deficit was on track and that it was the only way for Britain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/unitedkingdom/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) to retain relatively low interest payments on its debt. For now, he said, Britain is expected to avoid falling back into a recession.But a stalled economic recovery, rising unemployment, falling tax revenue and struggling households led Mr. Osborne to offer some concessions in the budget he presented to Parliament.
Mr. Osborne reduced the top income tax bracket to 45 percent from 50 percent, a step that was heavily criticized by the Labour Party. He also raised the income level at which people start paying taxes, cut child benefits for those making more than £60,000, cut corporate taxes and raised the tax rate on homes sold for more than £2 million, or $3.2 million.

It appears to have taken a little while but it seems your conservatives finally took my advise. ;)


The confusion is YOURS. You seem not to grasp how difficult world economic realities have been since 2008. You seem to imagine that - despite reality !! - the UK should perform as though none of that existed ???

Oh I very well grasp how bad things were and it's mind boggling why you think that it's acceptable that your economy should have underperformed for the past 5 years like your link states.


As for your charts ...

... you fail to post a link for them, I see.

I also note that two of them seem not to clearly report beyond 2012 (at least, they don't show 2013 as a stated statistical parameter, do they ?). Could that be because any suggestion of a graphically depicted statistical trend is mere extrapolation ??

It certainly DOES explain your last graph ... claiming 'REAL' average earnings ... which somehow manages to show us a flatlining performance going as far ahead as 2019 !!!

So ... to what extent do these show, ahem, 'REAL' data ..... ??

It's as I've pointed out once before .. a 'strange' absence of clear data covering 2013. Which just HAPPENS to be the very year of far stronger fiscal performance from the UK !!

What a coincidence ... eh ?

Your prediction of a UK meltdown comparable to that of Greece is a load of rot, FJ. Your 'statistics' are neither clear-cut, definitive, nor even properly (or at all ?) sourced .. quite possibly only mere projections which are outdated by more recent events.

Well, here's one link for you to check out --

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/08/01/austerity-in-europe-it-will-work-if-its-ever-tried/

I didn't post a link? :laugh: You don't recognize the World Bank and the Office of Budget Responsibility? The latter is your own government projections. And because they didn't actually say '2013'? Come on dude, you can do better than that can't you? If you dispute the numbers find some real ones.

As to your link... So on the one hand your stating that austerity works and on the other you're showing a link that states that the UK did not actually practice austerity.


Using data from Eurostat (the official statistics agency of the European Union), I calculated the change in government spending from 2008 to 2012. In fact, the data tell us that only eight out of the thirty countries in Europe that are listed have reduced government spending over that period. Of those eight countries, only Iceland and Ireland have been prominent austerity examples in the news. (The others are Bulgaria, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.)

I didn't notice the UK in that list. He also doesn't define austerity the same way that I have here:


Many countries in Europe have supposedly tried austerity programs to aid the recovery from the recent recession. Austerity as promoted by conservatives and the IMF and as decried and derided by Keynesians (led by Paul Krugman) is generally defined as cuts in government spending and/or reductions in government deficits. We constantly read how Greece, for example, is being forced to cut government spending as a condition of international aid.

He apparently didn't account for tax increases. Which is fine it's just a difference in defining austerity.

[Drummond]

Again, your error. I don't accept either as being the best option.

Amazing. It truly is. 'YOUR ERROR' ?? FJ ... my Government has the right to implement the precise austerity package it chooses. It's not obliged to check with you first !!


It's working?

YES, IT IS. Experts far better at judging any of this than you are, say it is ! This thread proves the point.


Don't forget out how I defined austerity, cutting spending and raising taxes

Same comment as before. Our Government has committed our economy to the austerity measures it has chosen. They are not obliged to conform to any definition YOU dream up ... our Government does things its own way.

AND IT'S WORKING. So far from your previous prediction that we'd end up like Greece .. IT'S WORKING.


And to your new-found success? It didn't take much searching to discover that a correction was necessary and apparently instituted a couple of years ago.

In that case, what was your gloom and doom prediction based on, if you have now had to - hurriedly, in view of how well we're now doing - rethink your position ?


It appears to have taken a little while but it seems your conservatives finally took my advise. ;):laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh2::laugh2:

This is priceless !! Our Government isn't answerable to YOU ... I'm sure they've never heard of you !!

Our Conservatives do things their own way. Consequently, a success story is emerging.
Try facing up to your own mistakes.


Oh I very well grasp how bad things were and it's mind boggling why you think that it's acceptable that your economy should have underperformed for the past 5 years like your link states.

This is just irrational. You are aware - you say you are ? -of the state of the world economy. Our Conservatives not only inherited fallout from that, but also the effects of the enormous damage our Lefties did, by recklessly spending rather than instituting their OWN austerity measures.

In the face of that, you expect an ideal level of fiscal performance ???


I didn't post a link? :laugh: You don't recognize the World Bank and the Office of Budget Responsibility?

Nope. You should supply links to your material. Otherwise, it's open to question.


The latter is your own government projections. And because they didn't actually say '2013'? Come on dude, you can do better than that can't you? If you dispute the numbers find some real ones.

So ... the graphs were what ? A mixture of hard data and projected assumption ? And you indicated that, did you, with any measure of clarity ?

Or even .. AT ALL ?

If you can't account for the material (if it qualifies as such) you offer in clear and realistic terms, by what right do you base any 'case' on any of it ??

Am I to understand that the real data ended in 2012, and anything further was mere projection ? If so, it begs the question ... WHY do you avoid giving hard data beyond 2012 ? Is it because THAT IS WHEN OUR RECOVERY REALLY GATHERED PACE ?


As to your link... So on the one hand your stating that austerity works and on the other you're showing a link that states that the UK did not actually practice austerity.

My own Government would not agree with you. They are practicing it to this day, and will continue to. That you cannot recognise the reality of what they're doing is your problem, not theirs.


He also doesn't define austerity the same way that I have here:

How terrible, that he should fail to see things your way. :laugh: Who's the EXPERT in such matters ??

[fj1200]

Amazing. It truly is. 'YOUR ERROR' ?? FJ ... my Government has the right to implement the precise austerity package it chooses. It's not obliged to check with you first !!

What a dumb comment. Of course it's not obliged but it is wise before they go forward with anymore ill-advised austerity.


YES, IT IS. Experts far better at judging any of this than you are, say it is ! This thread proves the point.

Actually it proves the point that they adopted some pro-growth policies mid stream that equates to what I've been saying all along.


Same comment as before. Our Government has committed our economy to the austerity measures it has chosen. They are not obliged to conform to any definition YOU dream up ... our Government does things its own way.

AND IT'S WORKING. So far from your previous prediction that we'd end up like Greece .. IT'S WORKING.

Again, what a dumb comment. They are more than free to take the wrong advise if they so choose. But I've already shown you repeatedly that austerity, as I've defined it here previously, sucks and pro-growth policies that they got around to implementing is a wiser course.


In that case, what was your gloom and doom prediction based on, if you have now had to - hurriedly, in view of how well we're now doing - rethink your position ?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh2::laugh2:

This is priceless !! Our Government isn't answerable to YOU ... I'm sure they've never heard of you !!

Our Conservatives do things their own way. Consequently, a success story is emerging.
Try facing up to your own mistakes.

Newsflash; They adopted what I suggested. I count that as success. ;) As far as my position, it's been consistent, spending restraint and pro-growth policies are superior to austerity. Your position swings in the wind.


This is just irrational. You are aware - you say you are ? -of the state of the world economy. Our Conservatives not only inherited fallout from that, but also the effects of the enormous damage our Lefties did, by recklessly spending rather than instituting their OWN austerity measures.

In the face of that, you expect an ideal level of fiscal performance ???

What are you on about now? Pretty much everyone in the modern world is aware of what you're trying to claim some sort of special knowledge. I don't expect an ideal level of performance until someone makes me benevolent dictator but until that happens it's sad that you find ways of justifying underperformance.


Nope. You should supply links to your material. Otherwise, it's open to question.

:laugh: You don't recognize the World Bank? :laugh: The OBR is a little less obvious but I would expect a Brit like you would recognize it more readily than others especially when you're on about how it's your country and all. :laugh:


So ... the graphs were what ? A mixture of hard data and projected assumption ? And you indicated that, did you, with any measure of clarity ?

Or even .. AT ALL ?

If you can't account for the material (if it qualifies as such) you offer in clear and realistic terms, by what right do you base any 'case' on any of it ??

Am I to understand that the real data ended in 2012, and anything further was mere projection ? If so, it begs the question ... WHY do you avoid giving hard data beyond 2012 ? Is it because THAT IS WHEN OUR RECOVERY REALLY GATHERED PACE ?

When you're had you don't let go do you? It's but a simple matter to find the links that the graphs came from. :hint: right click, "search google..."


My own Government would not agree with you. They are practicing it to this day, and will continue to. That you cannot recognise the reality of what they're doing is your problem, not theirs.

They're practicing what exactly? Your link states that they're not doing what you claim they're doing. Your position is that they're cutting spending correct? It seems that they only did that for one fiscal year before it's climbing again. Of course it seems that they are cutting spending on a % of GDP basis which I suggested was a good idea a few pages ago along with my suggestion that tax cuts was a good idea pages ago. It just seems that now your government is doing what I suggested pages ago.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ukgs_line.php?title=Total%20Spending&year=1994_2014&sname=&units=b&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&spending0=271.54_289.02_304.33_312.04_318.43_332.6 5_340.80_366.09_389.07_420.48_455.07_491.80_523.51 _549.40_582.23_633.81_672.26_693.55_694.28_675.10_ 718.80&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_g

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/g-spending-percent-gpd-96-14.png

I get the impression that you don't really know what's going on in your country. You just suck anything down that has "conservative" behind the name. :dunno:

And BTW, the orange numbers are 'estimated' in the first graph and the 'e' also means estimated in the second graph. Hope that helps.


How terrible, that he should fail to see things your way. :laugh: Who's the EXPERT in such matters ??

Where did I state he had to see things my way? I only said that we had different definitions which makes your pulling his article as pointless on your part.

[Drummond]

What a dumb comment. Of course it's not obliged but it is wise before they go forward with anymore ill-advised austerity.

Good grief. What an ego !


Actually it proves the point that they adopted some pro-growth policies mid stream that equates to what I've been saying all along.

So, we can agree that monetary strategies can be, and ARE, adapted to ongoing situations ?

Trouble is, that was not your original position. Yours was to say that our Government's whole approach was wrong. Well, from 'wrongness', so-called, a success story is emerging. Live with it.


Again, what a dumb comment. They are more than free to take the wrong advise if they so choose. But I've already shown you repeatedly that austerity, as I've defined it here previously, sucks and pro-growth policies that they got around to implementing is a wiser course.

This misses the wider point. The object of the exercise is to CONTINUE with austerity. It is adapted according to evolving circumstances, but, austerity IS the name of the game until the mess being tackled is finally cleared up. And at minimum that's years away.


Newsflash; They adopted what I suggested. I count that as success. ;)

BUT THEY'VE NEVER HEARD OF YOU !

Are you a fantasist ? Why .. next, you'll be telling me you're a Thatcherite ... :laugh2::laugh2:


As far as my position, it's been consistent, spending restraint and pro-growth policies are superior to austerity. Your position swings in the wind.

As is true of Conservative thinking, mine adapts to reality.

As is true of your more Leftie brand of thinking, yours is fossilised, constrained within a propagandist straitjacket ... with fantasy chucked in for good measure .. :laugh:


What are you on about now? Pretty much everyone in the modern world is aware of what you're trying to claim some sort of special knowledge. I don't expect an ideal level of performance until someone makes me benevolent dictator but until that happens it's sad that you find ways of justifying underperformance.

What are YOU talking about ?? If conditions, circumstances, are just too bad, then underperformance will occur. What matters is that medicine, once administered, is given time to achieve its remedial effect.

This is now occurring. With the proper medicine having been given enough of a chance to work.


:laugh: You don't recognize the World Bank? :laugh: The OBR is a little less obvious but I would expect a Brit like you would recognize it more readily than others especially when you're on about how it's your country and all. :laugh:

You're just blustering to excuse your own shortcomings. You failed to offer a supportive link. That's the truth of this. That you'd expect me to somehow compensate for your failing, then to apportion blame when I fail to ... is really YOUR problem.


When you're had you don't let go do you? It's but a simple matter to find the links that the graphs came from. :hint: right click, "search google..."

Why not take your own advice, FJ ?


They're practicing what exactly? Your link states that they're not doing what you claim they're doing. Your position is that they're cutting spending correct? It seems that they only did that for one fiscal year before it's climbing again. Of course it seems that they are cutting spending on a % of GDP basis which I suggested was a good idea a few pages ago along with my suggestion that tax cuts was a good idea pages ago. It just seems that now your government is doing what I suggested pages ago.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ukgs_line.php?title=Total%20Spending&year=1994_2014&sname=&units=b&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&spending0=271.54_289.02_304.33_312.04_318.43_332.6 5_340.80_366.09_389.07_420.48_455.07_491.80_523.51 _549.40_582.23_633.81_672.26_693.55_694.28_675.10_ 718.80&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_g

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/g-spending-percent-gpd-96-14.png



Your first bar chart goes all the way back to 1994 ?? To prove WHAT, about the conditions of 2008 ??

Consider this, though. Factored into all of this is the commitment to not only get spending under control, but to do this with the handicap of paying interest on money borrowed previously. So disgustingly terrible was Labour's recklessness that, regardless of present-day prudence, it's all we can do to cope with the interest payments racked up !!

THIS is the reality our present Government inherited, and is still stuck with !! And on top of that, YOU have wanted them to afford tax incentives ???


And BTW, the orange numbers are 'estimated' in the first graph and the 'e' also means estimated in the second graph. Hope that helps.

Thank you kindly. Better to have explanations, whether obvious or not, than to have the expectation of cloud-cuckooland guesswork.

Mind you ... AGAIN, in the first chart, the hard data AGAIN CUTS OFF AT 2012 !! Why do you refuse to look at 2013, the year of first significant progress ??

There's a clue in that somewhere, FJ ....

At least the second chart is showing an encouraging trend, though. Very ... well, un-Greece-like, it seems ... :rolleyes:


Where did I state he had to see things my way? I only said that we had different definitions which makes your pulling his article as pointless on your part.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Good grief. What an ego !

So, we can agree that monetary strategies can be, and ARE, adapted to ongoing situations ?

Trouble is, that was not your original position. Yours was to say that our Government's whole approach was wrong. Well, from 'wrongness', so-called, a success story is emerging. Live with it.

It's not ego when I'm proven right. ;) It seems I need to correct you again, 'monetary' refers to central bank actions whereas 'fiscal' refers to government policy such as spending and taxation. You're welcome. I suppose that fiscal strategies can be adapted especially when a particularly deep recession needs to be combated. It would be a matter of where to stimulate the economy to put it again on a robust path of growth. The Keynesians would typically suggest deficit spending whereas conservative like myself, as in real ones, would suggest tax cuts to stimulate. Merely saying that you're going to spend less is not a successful strategy as I've shown especially when combining that with tax increases.

And you could also point out where I've changed my position on how austerity sucks; I started by stating that tax cuts are necessary and it turns out that the Tories agree. Sounds like I'm consistent here.


This misses the wider point. The object of the exercise is to CONTINUE with austerity. It is adapted according to evolving circumstances, but, austerity IS the name of the game until the mess being tackled is finally cleared up. And at minimum that's years away.

BUT THEY'VE NEVER HEARD OF YOU !

Are you a fantasist ? Why .. next, you'll be telling me you're a Thatcherite ... :laugh2::laugh2:

Somebody here needs to be a Thatcherite. ;) But their loss though, I'm glad that they finally started to listen to their supply-side advisers that suggested that cutting taxes are necessary to kick start their economy that was going nowhere due to their tax increases. I could have saved them a couple of years. ;)

But the real point here is that once they embraced tax cuts that they also moved away from austerity as I've defined it.


As is true of Conservative thinking, mine adapts to reality.

As is true of your more Leftie brand of thinking, yours is fossilised, constrained within a propagandist straitjacket ... with fantasy chucked in for good measure .. :laugh:

But your "conservatism" ignores what didn't work and you don't recognize the important change that occurred. Your "conservatism" is merely to parrot what the Tories say.

You could also point out how my stated positions of cutting taxes, restraining spending, and reducing regulations is a "leftie branch of thinking"? You can't so you'll ignore as you do all the time when cornered.


What are YOU talking about ?? If conditions, circumstances, are just too bad, then underperformance will occur. What matters is that medicine, once administered, is given time to achieve its remedial effect.

This is now occurring. With the proper medicine having been given enough of a chance to work.

Huh? Why do you ignore the evidence?


You're just blustering to excuse your own shortcomings. You failed to offer a supportive link. That's the truth of this. That you'd expect me to somehow compensate for your failing, then to apportion blame when I fail to ... is really YOUR problem.

You just hate that the evidence shows you to be a mindless hack. :shrug:


Why not take your own advice, FJ ?

:confused: Because I don't need to nitpick unimportant details as do you when cornered???


Your first bar chart goes all the way back to 1994 ?? To prove WHAT, about the conditions of 2008 ??

Consider this, though. Factored into all of this is the commitment to not only get spending under control, but to do this with the handicap of paying interest on money borrowed previously. So disgustingly terrible was Labour's recklessness that, regardless of present-day prudence, it's all we can do to cope with the interest payments racked up !!

THIS is the reality our present Government inherited, and is still stuck with !! And on top of that, YOU have wanted them to afford tax incentives ???

Blah, blah, blah... Do you have anything important to say or do you just need to rant about "lefties" again? Or do you just need to rant about specifics of graphs? Either way you're adding nothing here.


Thank you kindly. Better to have explanations, whether obvious or not, than to have the expectation of cloud-cuckooland guesswork.

Mind you ... AGAIN, in the first chart, the hard data AGAIN CUTS OFF AT 2012 !! Why do you refuse to look at 2013, the year of first significant progress ??

There's a clue in that somewhere, FJ ....

At least the second chart is showing an encouraging trend, though. Very ... well, un-Greece-like, it seems ... :rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Uh, yeah... :rolleyes: Your government wisely chose a very un-Greece-like course when it decided that it needed to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes. I applaud that because it's exactly what I've been suggesting for years that the US do and for the UK to do for a couple of pages now.

And FWIW, your incessant need to focus on unimportant details is quite sad. If you've got a graph that shows something different then I'd love to see it but I'm not going to wade through every graph on the internet that shows the same thing. The only clues point to you avoiding the obvious. And you do know that sometimes graphs don't put in every year all the time don't you? Some of those graphs didn't include any odd years so by your logic those years didn't exist or had unknown data. :dunno: