Politics, politics, politics

[r-u-s-x01]

Yeah, but win what?

You shouldn't have to Google everything when you express an opinion but sometimes when you want it to be respected it helps to check the details.

 

[glorygloryeze]

It kicked in around 99-2000 and continued until the crash.

Of course the nation had debts before that, the idea is that you don't increase them during these booms.

A few questions:

1) How much was the debt increased by in terms of % of GDP (or whatever is the correct measure) during this period?

2) How does this increase compare with previous times when there were Economic booms, e.g. the early 80s?

3) When was the last Government who paid off some of the national debt during a boom time, and how much did they reduce the national debt in terms of % of GDP (or again, whatever is the correct measure) during this time?

 

[scaramanga]

Like I said. Labour borrowing during the '90's and early 00's was no higher than Tory borrowing during the 80's and early 90's.

The 80s and 90s weren't a boom, that was the slow recovery from the 70s. Sort of like this period is now - not really one for spending or paying down debts if you can help it

 

[scaramanga]

Borrowing during the boom was not high by historical standards. It has been the policy of successive governments to borrow, in the knowledge that inflation reduces the size of the debt over time. What we have seen since the crash is a sustained period of unprecedented zero inflation.

Borrowing increased from 2000 as a % of GDP, despite the fact that GDP was soaring.

That's a huge sign that spending is out of control in my eyes.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

We were in an enormous boom, there shouldn't have been any borrowing at all.

The opposition were also proposing matching spending, can't imagine that they would increase taxes, would they be paying down debts? Or did the global crash come out of no where and hind sight is a motherfudge

 

[scaramanga]

A few questions:

1) How much was the debt increased by in terms of % of GDP (or whatever is the correct measure) during this period?

It went from somewhere in the mid 30s to the low 40s before obviously jumping after the crash.

2) How does this increase compare with previous times when there were Economic booms, e.g. the early 80s?

From 81 to 92 it dropped from the high 40s/low 50s to the low 30s.

3) When was the last Government who paid off some of the national debt during a boom time, and how much did they reduce the national debt in terms of % of GDP (or again, whatever is the correct measure) during this time?

The last one was Thatcher's government, as mentioned above.

Debt to GDP is the important calculation as that's the one markets use to rate our ability to pay it off - if they lose confidence, our rate goes up and the debt rises faster than we can cope with.

It's worth pointing out that for a brief period, the one eyed debt monster did reduce debt to GDP before going full depart and massively ramping up the debt again.

 

[scaramanga]

The opposition were also proposing matching spending, can't imagine that they would increase taxes, would they be paying down debts? Or did the global crash come out of no where and hind sight is a motherfudge

Of course they were promising to match spending, have you never heard of the socialist ratchet?

 

[r-u-s-x01]

Of course they were promising to match spending, have you never heard of the socialist ratchet?

Regardless of the social ratchet the 2008 crash would have had the same impact.

Labour should have looked at more rigourous regulation but couldn't due to prevalent opinion as tory couldn't have paid down debt.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

To reiterate labours dna is to regulate the financial industry

Tory is cut debt

Both could not and still be electable
The prevailing opinion at the time meant both were impossible.

I would argue one absence was more vital than the other

 

[AuroRaman]

I can't concentrate on any other posts in this thread now. I would like to motion an online table reading of Boom and Bust at everyone's earliest convenience...

** I actually wrote what I thought was a brilliant stage play called Boom and Bust, but had no takers on it. I guess theatreland likes musicals or harold pinter plays, no place for a truth teller such as me, mind you the wife said it could have been all the spelling mistakes and the fact that I wanted a drum banging constantly in the background. One day when I write my memoirs I might revisit the idea of doing a third draft on the play.

 

[Seedy Ron]

Surely Boom & Bust was a bawdy comedy set aboard a yacht, slated to star Robin Askwith?

Have I aged myself terribly?

 

[inkpenspur]

Surely Boom & Bust was a bawdy comedy set aboard a yacht, slated to star Robin Askwith?

Have I aged myself terribly?

Published by Mills and Boom?

 

[milo]

Interesting. I have seen a few comments like this from soft Brexiteers recently

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-happens-next-second-referendum-a7109391.html

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I can't concentrate on any other posts in this thread now. I would like to motion an online table reading of Boom and Bust at everyone's earliest convenience...

I can dust off the print out I have of it, I do not think I have a hard copy as I changed laptops and did not keep anything from the old one(I print holiday photos).

I felt it was a masterpiece, the wife who read a few pages said it was utter rubbish, but then I have always felt she was unsophisticated in the ways of the theatre, she likes plays that break down the 4th wall, which to me is not theatre but end of the pier entertainment.

 

[scaramanga]

Interesting. I have seen a few comments like this from soft Brexiteers recently

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-happens-next-second-referendum-a7109391.html

Pretty much describes my position perfectly.

Whilst I voted remain because I didn't fancy any short term market instability, the model of keeping free trade/movement with the benefit of being able to trade freely with the rest of the world suits me just fine.

I also think it's a far better position for the UK as a whole than tying itself to a dying socialist experiment.

 

[parklane1]

Interesting. I have seen a few comments like this from soft Brexiteers recently

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-happens-next-second-referendum-a7109391.html

Wow how deep/desperate are you trawling for these bits, that one is over 3 months old according to the date.

 

[scaramanga]

Shall we run a sweepstake on what Tony Blair plans to do on his return to politics?

Any chance he might be setting up a New Labour Party for those that aren't swivel-eyed loons?

The thing I find scariest about that is that with May going full depart at one end of the spectrum, and Corbyn thinking that there's actually a place in grown up, real world politics for halfwits like Abbott at the other, I might end up having to vote for him.

 

[scaramanga]

To reiterate labours dna is to regulate the financial industry

Tory is cut debt

Both could not and still be electable
The prevailing opinion at the time meant both were impossible.

I would argue one absence was more vital than the other

What's DNA got to do with it? Labour didn't regulate the financial sector, and Osborne spent the last two years acting like he'd found Gordon Brown's money tree.

They didn't need to regulate the financial sector anyway, they just needed to let a couple of smaller banks go bust.

 

[milo]

Wow how deep/desperate are you trawling for these bits, that one is over 3 months old according to the date.

I hadn't seen the date. I stumbled across someone else linking to it today. But I think that the sentiments are valid considering the current rhetoric.

I thought that you just wanted to leave the EU and were not particularly bothered about what that meant. Has that changed over the last few months?

 

[milo]

What's DNA got to do with it? Labour didn't regulate the financial sector, and Osborne spent the last two years acting like he'd found Gordon Brown's money tree.

They didn't need to regulate the financial sector anyway, they just needed to let a couple of smaller banks go bust.

Madness. Small banks going bust, spreads to larger banks. A couple of small banks going bust would have further undermined confidence in the banks and would have seen a rush on the banks. It does not take that many people withdrawing their money for the whole thing to go tits up. People's savings, mortgages and pensions rest on these organisations being stable.