Bolitics The New Condem Government

[peterms]

There's running a deficit, and then there's the situation we have now, whereby the interest payments alone are enough to almost ruin the country. Our debt is over 60% of GDP, surely it doesn't need explaining how bad that is.

Some interesting figures

I believe our record was 237% of gdp, in 1816.

[Ads]

That was easy to counter, considering the 100 Days Campaign was over and we could wind up a number of army divisions, which was where all that public expenditure came from, fighting Napoleon.

[blandy]

Of course the debt should be reduced, at a pace which doesn't cause bigger problems. The current political debate is about the rate of reducing it, and to what level, and specifically about the things which are sacrificed to bring this about.

Exactly right.

I think with the politicians, there's also an element of ideology at play, in some of the things they are doing. And they're using the defecit as cover for things they want to do for other reasons.

[peterms]

I think with the politicians, there's also an element of ideology at play, in some of the things they are doing. And they're using the defecit as cover for things they want to do for other reasons.

Yes. My main concern is that the tories are using the induced panic about the deficit as a cover for some policies which just wouldn't see the light of day in more normal times. We will be a more unequal society in a few years' time, with an economy even more exposed to the whims of international capital and a weaker public sector.

[TrentVilla]

Of course the debt should be reduced, at a pace which doesn't cause bigger problems. The current political debate is about the rate of reducing it, and to what level, and specifically about the things which are sacrificed to bring this about.

Exactly right.

I think with the politicians, there's also an element of ideology at play, in some of the things they are doing. And they're using the defecit as cover for things they want to do for other reasons.

Totally agree with peterms post above.

I don't think I've seen anyone argue that cuts aren't needed or shouldn't be made regardless of the nature of their political views.

I also think Blandy is bang on the money, although cuts are needed it is fairly clear said cuts are being made from an ideological stand point of those making them (obviously not the Liberal's they are just going along with what they are told).

It is hard not to think that the Conservatives would be making some of these changes even if the current economic circumstances weren't in place.

[peterms]

That was easy to counter, considering the 100 Days Campaign was over and we could wind up a number of army divisions, which was where all that public expenditure came from, fighting Napoleon.

I suppose the modern-day equivalent would be not replacing Trident.

[Ads]

Not really, there is no modern day equivalent example. Our public spending went on the Royal Navy and from the late eighteenth century to 1815, an increase in the size of the army, as we’d become involved in continental warfare. Even our empire building was privatised at that point in time.

[snowychap]

To blandy:

It doesn't really matter in what context you wrote what you did, it still appears that you said that you thought it was absolutely necessary not to run a deficit.

To you maybe. I'm not sure that anyone else manages to extrapolate that conclusion from what I wrote.

You said, "it absolutely is necessary to stop spending (in totaL) exceeding total income."

If total spending is higher than total income then we are running a deficit. Substituting, you said, "it absolutely is necessary to stop running a deficit."

Do I? Dunno where you get that from

When you said But if we don't address the deficit by paying back the money we owe... and ...doesn't think that the debt needs to be addressed... in your response to quoting comments about the deficit.

All in all a bit of a mish mash...

I might well have put it across rather badly but I think you've really got the wrong end of the stick.

My criticism is reserved, mainly, for the way in which the debate is being carried on.

It has become almost heretical to suggest that severe austerity measures in the short term might well come with massive downside risks. We are being presented with a consensus (apparently unchallengeable) position that there is no alternative. That this is the necessary action because otherwise the doom scenario that you expounded in an earlier post will happen at the same time as the risks of retrenchment are waved away, disparagingly.

A leader in The Times last year began, It is quite common in politics for a statement to become an orthodoxy without ever having been true. I think that underpins a lot of my opinions on the conduct of the debate about government spending, deficit reduction and the wider economy.

As for not having a position on it - I can't recommend a course of action that sees us back in the position that we were in before just waiting for the next downturn/depression/economic crisis to happen and, ultimately, the decision on the pace of deficit reduction is just a debate about the route taken and not the destination (with the obvious rider about an ideological shift from public to private sector or vice versa).

And, in anticipation of the question (or its variants), "What would you do?":

Not being a genius (apologies for pointing out the obvious again :winkold:), I have no better economic theory to put in place but just because I don't, it doesn't mean that there may not be better at some point or that I can't criticize that which is in place if I think it is wrong (especially if I believe that a suggested policy may well result in something contrary to what is intended or is based upon a distorted presentation of facts).

But what was helpful is you explaining that the UK is not a person. I must confess I hadn't noticed that until just now

I don't think I explained it, did I? I just pointed it out.

[blandy]

To blandy:

It doesn't really matter in what context you wrote what you did, it still appears that you said that you thought it was absolutely necessary not to run a deficit....You said, "it absolutely is necessary to stop spending (in totaL) exceeding total income.... if we don't address the deficit by paying back the money we owe..

I doubt this is of interest to anyone, probably not even me or you, but it is absolutely necessary to stop spending more than we have coiming in in income. At the moment there's around 150 billion a year, gap. That needs (eventually) to be reversed. But that doesn't mean that we need all in one go to make the change from negative to neutral (or positive). The reality is that we will be running at a defecit, even with cuts, for a considerably long time, it's unavoidable, so for me or anyonme else to say we mustn't do it (this year, or next year...), is daft. Like saying we mustn't be affected by gravity. But over time, we need to reduce the level of annual defecit and then turn it round. - as I said a few pages back - Growing the income is one aspect, and cutting spending is the other. Get the balance wrong either way and the overall situation will worsen, but it is a case of doing both. Cut too harshly and it causes income to fall and expenditure to rise, fail to cut enough and interest payments increase - increasing expenditure, making it harder to borrow money for everyone, (as we are seeing already) and business fails, and people lose their jobs and ...etc.

[TrentVilla]

I propose Blandy replace Gideon.

[Jon]

I propose Blandy replace Gideon.

Pete is already Prime Minister, President, Chancellor and Mayor of Blandshire, and all towns and cities therein, including Blandopolis.

However, he is such a multi talented and wise man, that replacing Gid as Chancellor of the UK should be no problem at all for him, despite these other comittments.

[Ads]

Blandy, are you a solicitor by chance?

[TrentVilla]

Well, it seems like the pending election of Chancellor Bland is without opposition and has in fact united the political spectrum. Peace in our time in the Bollitics thread....

[snowychap]

without opposition

I'm sorry to Pete but there's always one. :oops:

[Richard]

without opposition

I'm sorry to Pete but there's always one. :oops:

Where there's one there's a crowd :wave:

[snowychap]

Ah but my opposition to Mr B's coronation ought not to be mistaken (and I couldn't see, in light of previous postings, that it could) for support for Osborne, Richard. :winkold:

Edited the product of fat finger syndrome.

[Richard]

Just because we both dont want the same thing for perhaps different reasons does not mean we cannot agree on the eventual outcome. In fact I think that makes a sound basis for a coalition !

[blandy]

I'd like to replace Osborne....with someone who knows what he's doing. Someone who won't cut winter fuel payments for freezing pensioners, someone who can come up with a fair scheme for child benefit, that kind of person - someone who isn't a member of the soulless, walking, undead.

[snowychap]

I'd like to replace Osborne....with someone who knows what he's doing.

Now that does get my support.

[Jon]

Let us then elect emperor Bland!!

:notworthy:

This will be our initial Headquarters ....