Zombies Margaret Thatcher

[drat01]

Keef was very much active in the 80s as was Foot, but most were from the 70s if not the 60s as the original question was about Jim who was a prime minister in the 70s after Harold Wilson

Enoch Powell (Tory MP) in 1972 made a significant contribution so some commentators say. - not one of the Tory party's favourite episodes I know

Willy Whitelaw was a key Tory etc

The 1970's had 4 elections I think which is going some so I suspect that political figures of both major parties were key figures of the time

[PauloBarnesi]

Think Powell is not someone I would raise lightly. I seem to remember he was denounced by Heath, supported by the dockers and then became a Unionists, and didn't Eric Clapton support him?. One of the most intellectual MPs ever, but wrong on so many things. He was voted one of the 100 greatest Britains in the BBC programme, which says to me that we still live in a country which has some serious issues.

[Demitri_C]

I think Foot was probably one the worst out of all of them

[PauloBarnesi]

A man of honour, but not really a leader trying to lead a divided party who seem keener on self destruction

[VillaForever1970]

Again though maybe you can explain why your anti Labour bias for example is so strong and why you are very biased ?

I have no affiliation to either really, politician to me are as bad as each other a necessary evil.

Surely a very simple way of looking at it would be Labour spent what they didn't have for too long, even to the existent of leaving a piss taking letter upon leaving?

I'm interested to hear your views on that really, i appreciate that the current lot are hardly setting the world alight. They are however, trying to do one thing i agree with is sorting benefit being more than having a job, far too long its been easy to live off the state and any fool would do it if they got paid more than working.

I assume you'll argue thats the Tory's fault too, they set it up before Labour were in power for Labour then to do nothing about it when they were?

This again may sound over negative to one side and vise versa, its really not it just interests me how people can be so hard on either side, and ignore their preferred parties failings. The Torys will **** up their current term and Labour will be back in, so on and so fourth etc etc..

[peterms]

I think Foot was probably one the worst out of all of them

What a truly odd thing to say. What on earth do you think was bad about him?

[bickster]

What a truly odd thing to say. What on earth do you think was bad about him?

I was going to ask the same. The man was regularly pilloried in the press for

1. Being scruffy - the donkey jacket comments at Remembrance Sunday - wasn't true but shit sticks
   
2. Being hard to understand - he was one of those people that thought faster than he spoke
   
3. Being an idiot - he was far from it
   

He was rarely attacked on policy, even when he was it was because he was principled and didn't change his mind to play to the press, many saw that as a failing but they would have been politicians, it made him a better man than most in political circles from my point of view. He was naive too in thinking his appearance wouldn't matter but he was one of those people who could have been dressed in the finest Saville Row could offer and still look unkempt so what was the point really. In a proper democracy all that bullshit shouldn't have mattered but it did

[peterms]

Surely a very simple way of looking at it would be Labour spent what they didn't have for too long, even to the existent of leaving a piss taking letter upon leaving?

Simple, and wrong.

The level of pubic spending as a % of GDP goes up and down over time. Under the last government, it was pretty similar to other periods, and much less than in wartime. It rose with the bank bailouts, but is pretty low compared to most of the last 300 years. It's not a big deal, and never was.

Second, governments don't collect money in from people in order to spend it. That's not how it works. Taxation is a tool to control demand and the general level of economic activity, not a source of income.

This whole idea that money comes from taxing people and governments should spend less than this figure is simply wrong, for a currency-issuing sovereign state. It's true of a local authority, which is why they will be having very big problems in the next couple of years, and it's true of countries which have given up control of their own currency like the Eurozone states, but not of a sovereign national government.

Liam Byrne's departure letter suggests he doesn't understand this, and is a further reason why he shouldn't have been in the job in the first place.

[choffer]

He was naive too in thinking his appearance wouldn't matter but he was one of those people who could have been dressed in the finest Saville Row could offer and still look unkempt so what was the point really. In a proper democracy all that bullshit shouldn't have mattered but it did

Funny how Boris manages to not only get away with being a scruffy gut, he even scores points for it.

[blandy]

....Taxation is a tool to control demand and the general level of economic activity, not a source of income....

This whole idea that money comes from taxing people and governments should spend less than this figure is simply wrong, for a currency-issuing sovereign state....

Not completely.

I mean if what we need to get us out of recession is more economic activity and more demand (which as I understand it is what you and most of us have been saying), then why aren't you calling for a tax cut for the people with the most money or for everyone? or a tax cut for the banks and for businesses? (sorry if you have and I've missed it, Peter)

And secondly, on the "currency issuing" - we cannot under the rules of the world n' that, just issue more pounds and magic away all the problems. If we could, then a) there would be no need to borrow money, ever, in the first place. We could simply just make some more magic pounds, and decide to buy, like, I dunno, Germany and everrything in it, say. And when we got bored with our new teutonic toy, we could buy China and then buy a Blessing of diamond encrusted Unicorns to entertain ourselves. And there would never be any debt. Lala land, not England. We could do that, couldn't we.

Except it's bollocks, isn't it. The EU rules (in our case) don't simply allow us (or anyone else in the EU) to create money out of nowhere to pay off debt. And even if they did, the issuing of this magic money would decrease the value of each pound and fuel inflation and create it's own spiral of problems.

So if we can't pay off debt by issuing money and going "here's your money back, Abroadia" then we have to at least at some point (though probably not right now) reduce spending on "things" in order to pay back and service debt, or (again not now) we have to increase taxes on activity. Or we have to encourage and create more activity and then get the taxes from that extra activity, to pay back...etc.

So I deduce you want a tax cut for the rich, and for banks, and you want magic money to appear and make everything better. Are you Gideon, really?

this post is not entirely serious

[Dr_Pangloss]

There is a line of thought which would tell you that when an economy is running below capacity (below 'potential GDP') that printing money is not going to be inflationary at all whatsoever.

[peterms]

Are you Gideon, really?

Damn, rumbled. I shall have my butler throw a bread roll at you and call you a horrid oik.

[tonyh29]

I was going to ask the same. The man was regularly pilloried in the press for

1. Being scruffy - the donkey jacket comments at Remembrance Sunday - wasn't true but shit sticks
   
2. Being hard to understand - he was one of those people that thought faster than he spoke
   
3. Being an idiot - he was far from it
   

He was rarely attacked on policy, even when he was it was because he was principled and didn't change his mind to play to the press, many saw that as a failing but they would have been politicians, it made him a better man than most in political circles from my point of view. He was naive too in thinking his appearance wouldn't matter but he was one of those people who could have been dressed in the finest Saville Row could offer and still look unkempt so what was the point really. In a proper democracy all that bullshit shouldn't have mattered but it did

For a man with no political slant you aren't half a leftie lover :winkold:

Foot left £1.7 on his estate when he died , he may have been a lot of things but clearly a socialist wasn't one of them ....

[bickster]

For a man with no political slant you aren't half a leftie lover :winkold:

Foot left £1.7 on his estate when he died , he may have been a lot of things but clearly a socialist wasn't one of them ....

I liked Foot because he was himself, no side to him. I didn't agree with everything he said but at least he actually believed what he was saying.

What the hell has the size of his estate got to do with his politics?

How much was a house in Hampstead worth in 2010? I'd imagine a huge chunk of that estate.

His estate after liabilities was £1.3mil if you actually read the Daily Heil story you took the headline from

He probably amassed that much money by not spending more than investing but that has little to do with him being a socialist or not

[peterms]

I mean if what we need to get us out of recession is more economic activity and more demand (which as I understand it is what you and most of us have been saying), then why aren't you calling for a tax cut for the people with the most money or for everyone? or a tax cut for the banks and for businesses? (sorry if you have and I've missed it, Peter)

At the level of the economy, income equals expenditure. Cutting tax would help to stimulate growth (this was the logic of the VAT cut). A tax cut for small businesses would also be a good idea, and may prevent some of them closing down.

By the same logic, taking (is it) £4bn away from welfare claimants is utterly mad. That money would pretty much all have been spent into the economy. Osborne has decided to reduce national spending, and therefore national income, by that amount. And all those small businesses, large businesses, businesses run by the imbecilic "industry leaders" who urged Osborne to go down this road, will be that much worse off. As will we all.

And secondly, on the "currency issuing" - we cannot under the rules of the world n' that, just issue more pounds and magic away all the problems. If we could, then a) there would be no need to borrow money, ever, in the first place. We could simply just make some more magic pounds...

Except it's bollocks, isn't it. The EU rules (in our case) don't simply allow us (or anyone else in the EU) to create money out of nowhere to pay off debt. And even if they did, the issuing of this magic money would decrease the value of each pound and fuel inflation and create it's own spiral of problems.

See Dr P's point below. You've said a couple of times that printing money leads to hyperinflation. It doesn't, unless done to an almost infinite extent; and where hyperinflation has occurred, it has had more to do with the destruction of economic capacity (Zim, Weimar) than monetary operations. Where do you think the money for QE or the bank bailout came from? Was it forbidden? What happened as a consequence?

So if we can't pay off debt by issuing money and going "here's your money back, Abroadia" then we have to at least at some point (though probably not right now) reduce spending on "things" in order to pay back and service debt, or (again not now) we have to increase taxes on activity. Or we have to encourage and create more activity and then get the taxes from that extra activity, to pay back...etc.

So I deduce you want a tax cut for the rich, and for banks, and you want magic money to appear and make everything better.

We do have to encourage and create more activity, but in order to create economic capacity, not in order to create tax revenue to fund that activity. In order to start that activity, the government doesn't go round the country with a knapsack, seeking tithes and levying taxes on windows, it creates credit and commissions work. If you call that system magic money, so be it, but that's how it currently works. It's not a suggestion for some crazy new scheme. Just doing it at a level appropriate to our economic needs.

[tonyh29]

I liked Foot because he was himself, no side to him. I didn't agree with everything he said but at least he actually believed what he was saying.

What the hell has the size of his estate got to do with his politics?

How much was a house in Hampstead worth in 2010? I'd imagine a huge chunk of that estate.

His estate after liabilities was £1.3mil if you actually read the Daily Heil story you took the headline from

He probably amassed that much money by not spending more than investing but that has little to do with him being a socialist or not

We don't all read the same newspaper as you so I only saw £1.7m

I thought the idea of socialism was to each according to his contribution ( short version) , so that was why the £1.7m was interesting IMO

[tonyh29]

By the same logic, taking (is it) £4bn away from welfare claimants is utterly mad. That money would pretty much all have been spent into the economy.

And I'm sure our beer and tobacco industry would have appreciated that £4bn :winkold:

[bickster]

I thought the idea of socialism was to each according to his contribution ( short version) , so that was why the £1.7m was interesting IMO

That could be just as applicable to capitalism though I do think you have Communism and Socialism somewhat confused.

[blandy]

At the level of the economy, income equals expenditure. Cutting tax would help to stimulate growth (this was the logic of the VAT cut). A tax cut for small businesses would also be a good idea, and may prevent some of them closing down.

so do you think that cutting tax for rich folk would be a good thing to help with growth? and if not, why not?

By the same logic, taking (is it) £4bn away from welfare claimants is utterly mad. That money would pretty much all have been spent into the economy. Osborne has decided to reduce national spending, and therefore national income, by that amount. And all those small businesses, large businesses, businesses run by the imbecilic "industry leaders" who urged Osborne to go down this road, will be that much worse off. As will we all.

no argument from me, there.

You've said a couple of times that printing money leads to hyperinflation.

no I have never said that. It could lead to inflation, and to an extent it seems it's part of the Gov't plan (via QE) of inflating away debt.

Where do you think the money for QE or the bank bailout came from? Was it forbidden? What happened as a consequence?

It came from the Gov't (BofE) buying government bonds from private sector companies like banks and insurance companies and pension funds, which increased the demand for the bonds, by definition, thus raising their value and price, after which they become a less attractive investment for those banks and insurance companies, who then sell the bonds and invest the proceeds or lend to customers (or that was the plan). The idea being that with more lending to companies and people, the loan interest rates drop, so they spend more and the economy recovers as a result.

It gets round the EU rules (the Maastricht Treaty forbids governments from using their central bank to finance their deficits.) because the Gov't is not directly creating the money to cancel debt, but creating money for institutions to lend, to stimulate the economy.

We do have to encourage and create more activity, but in order to create economic capacity, not in order to create tax revenue to fund that activity. In order to start that activity, the government doesn't go round the country with a knapsack, seeking tithes and levying taxes on windows, it creates credit and commissions work. If you call that system magic money, so be it, but that's how it currently works. It's not a suggestion for some crazy new scheme. Just doing it at a level appropriate to our economic needs.

It's not really working, what they're doing. They mess everything up. I'm with you on infrastructure and environmental work being done, and boosting manufacturing. I'm not with you on creating money to directly pay off the debt, because it's forbidden and has in itself adverse consequences.

[villa_chemist]

If you give money to poor people they spend it and it is recycled into the economy. If you give money to rich people they stash it away in Switzerland.

Giving "ordinary" people a grand each would stimulate the economy a hell of a lot more than lining the pockets of bankers (quantitative easing).