Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 17:01:28 GMT
Stuart, sorry to hear if you are having problems getting stuff you need, but this goes back to the debate needed about NHS reform. The NHS now receive more money than they ever have, with the extra 20 billion announced a while back. We all know that the NHS is a bottom-less pit regarding finances. What is needed is reform, but as long as the NHS is treated like a religion it will never happen. Bloomberg ranks the UK healthcare at No. 35 Bloomberg I know this article is just one, but it ranks the NHS as the 19th in the world. Best healthcare in the world Nice try, but please stop. The issues are not just NHS but also education, local government and Social security to name the main ones. We have needed to approach several charities for extra funding and we are the lucky ones as we have good jobs and the werewithal to fight. Several of our peers continue to live in inappropriate housing or lack basic items. The difference between pre 2010 which was hard enough and now is huge. I am being restrained in my wording by the way. It seems to me, a generalisation I admit, that Leavers do not want to admit that austerity was a driver in peoples anger, an anger that was then aimed at the EU rather than the Tories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 17:10:21 GMT
Nice try, but please stop. The issues are not just NHS but also education, local government and Social security to name the main ones. We have needed to approach several charities for extra funding and we are the lucky ones as we have good jobs and the werewithal to fight. Several of our peers continue to live in inappropriate housing or lack basic items. The difference between pre 2010 which was hard enough and now is huge. I am being restrained in my wording by the way. It seems to me, a generalisation I admit, that Leavers do not want to admit that austerity was a driver in peoples anger, an anger that was then aimed at the EU rather than the Tories. The Tories did in fact win the last GE, so your theory doesn't add up. Try again.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 17, 2019 17:45:41 GMT
It seems to me, a generalisation I admit, that Leavers do not want to admit that austerity was a driver in peoples anger, an anger that was then aimed at the EU rather than the Tories. The Tories did in fact win the last GE, so your theory doesn't add up. Try again. They lost their majority, though. Their vote share was up at the expense of UKIP which Labour also benefited from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 17:47:35 GMT
The Tories did in fact win the last GE, so your theory doesn't add up. Try again. They lost their majority, though. Their vote share was up at the expense of UKIP which Labour also benefited from. But it doesn't fit Oldies narrative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 17:56:29 GMT
They lost their majority, though. Their vote share was up at the expense of UKIP which Labour also benefited from. But it doesn't fit Oldies narrative. It does. In so far as voting for the people who just hurt you is as nonsensical as blaming the EU for the quite horrific regional variations that exist in the UK. As one of the candidates said last night, they, the Tories, have won as a single party, one election since 1992. Sadly, from 1992 to 1997 they damaged the social structure of the UK, after a pull back from 97 to 07, they have wrecked it to date. Oh, and btw, whilst wrecking it they doubled the national debt. Go figure
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 18:07:52 GMT
But it doesn't fit Oldies narrative. It does. In so far as voting for the people who just hurt you is as nonsensical as blaming the EU for the quite horrific regional variations that exist in the UK. As one of the candidates said last night, they, the Tories, have won as a single party, one election since 1992. Sadly, from 1992 to 1997 they damaged the social structure of the UK, after a pull back from 97 to 07, they have wrecked it to date. Oh, and btw, whilst wrecking it they doubled the national debt. Go figure If people were driven by austerity anger to vote for Brexit, then how did the Tories get back in at the last GE? Are you trying to re-write history? When Tony Blair came to power in 1997, the UK economy was actually pretty healthy. So much so, that Labour stuck to the Tory spending plans for their first two years! You think 97 to 07 was good? Strewth! So, according to you, they've doubled the national debt, but have cut spending to the bone, which you call austerity? Which way is it meant to be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 18:53:04 GMT
It does. In so far as voting for the people who just hurt you is as nonsensical as blaming the EU for the quite horrific regional variations that exist in the UK. As one of the candidates said last night, they, the Tories, have won as a single party, one election since 1992. Sadly, from 1992 to 1997 they damaged the social structure of the UK, after a pull back from 97 to 07, they have wrecked it to date. Oh, and btw, whilst wrecking it they doubled the national debt. Go figure If people were driven by austerity anger to vote for Brexit, then how did the Tories get back in at the last GE? Are you trying to re-write history? When Tony Blair came to power in 1997, the UK economy was actually pretty healthy. So much so, that Labour stuck to the Tory spending plans for their first two years! You think 97 to 07 was good? Strewth! So, according to you, they've doubled the national debt, but have cut spending to the bone, which you call austerity? Which way is it meant to be? We can argue the history, I could point out that the plans put forward by Osborne were predicted not to solve the debt problem. But that was then. In 2019 we are left with a debt to GDP ratio of around 80%, it was 46% in 2007, after a massive injection into public services in the previous 5 years, with all the benefits that accrued. Debt to gdp was 44% in 97 after years of underfunding. I repeat, it was the Tories that have wrecked it, it was the Tories that brought us Brexit. They have won one election outright in 25 years, 2015 when faced with the numb nut Corbyn. I think our situation is dire, and if we leave with no deal and our economy suffers badly, I do wonder who is going to finance the refinancing of Gilts when they become due. In short, there is no money to make good the devastation of the last nine years. Hammond's "headroom" is a myth, it just means more borrowing from a weaker economic base, with public services requiring more resourcing than we can NOW afford. Of course the Nationalists will wave the flag and say it will be alright on the night.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 19:10:18 GMT
If people were driven by austerity anger to vote for Brexit, then how did the Tories get back in at the last GE? Are you trying to re-write history? When Tony Blair came to power in 1997, the UK economy was actually pretty healthy. So much so, that Labour stuck to the Tory spending plans for their first two years! You think 97 to 07 was good? Strewth! So, according to you, they've doubled the national debt, but have cut spending to the bone, which you call austerity? Which way is it meant to be? We can argue the history, I could point out that the plans put forward by Osborne were predicted not to solve the debt problem. But that was then. In 2019 we are left with a debt to GDP ratio of around 80%, it was 46% in 2007, after a massive injection into public services in the previous 5 years, with all the benefits that accrued. Debt to gdp was 44% in 97 after years of underfunding. I repeat, it was the Tories that have wrecked it, it was the Tories that brought us Brexit. They have won one election outright in 25 years, 2015 when faced with the numb nut Corbyn. I think our situation is dire, and if we leave with no deal and our economy suffers badly, I do wonder who is going to finance the refinancing of Gilts when they become due. In short, there is no money to make good the devastation of the last nine years. Hammond's "headroom" is a myth, it just means more borrowing from a weaker economic base, with public services requiring more resourcing than we can NOW afford. Of course the Nationalists will wave the flag and say it will be alright on the night. I am not going to 'argue the history' because it is a matter of fact that when Labour took over in 97 the economy was in very good health. There is nothing to argue about. It wasn't just the Tories that brought Brexit. The UK should have had a referendum on the EU Constitution, but were denied by labour. This helped fuel the anti-EU feelings. When they then trampled over the public by signing the 'Lisbon Treaty' (the EU Constitution re-named) that added further fuel to the flames. It was the rise of UKIP that tipped the balance, by taking votes away from both Labour and the Tories. Once again, just who are these 'flag waving Nationalists'?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 19:50:16 GMT
We can argue the history, I could point out that the plans put forward by Osborne were predicted not to solve the debt problem. But that was then. In 2019 we are left with a debt to GDP ratio of around 80%, it was 46% in 2007, after a massive injection into public services in the previous 5 years, with all the benefits that accrued. Debt to gdp was 44% in 97 after years of underfunding. I repeat, it was the Tories that have wrecked it, it was the Tories that brought us Brexit. They have won one election outright in 25 years, 2015 when faced with the numb nut Corbyn. I think our situation is dire, and if we leave with no deal and our economy suffers badly, I do wonder who is going to finance the refinancing of Gilts when they become due. In short, there is no money to make good the devastation of the last nine years. Hammond's "headroom" is a myth, it just means more borrowing from a weaker economic base, with public services requiring more resourcing than we can NOW afford. Of course the Nationalists will wave the flag and say it will be alright on the night. I am not going to 'argue the history' because it is a matter of fact that when Labour took over in 97 the economy was in very good health. There is nothing to argue about. It wasn't just the Tories that brought Brexit. The UK should have had a referendum on the EU Constitution, but were denied by labour. This helped fuel the anti-EU feelings. When they then trampled over the public by signing the 'Lisbon Treaty' (the EU Constitution re-named) that added further fuel to the flames. It was the rise of UKIP that tipped the balance, by taking votes away from both Labour and the Tories. Once again, just who are these 'flag waving Nationalists'? The "no money to make good" quote is quite amusing when it was his beloved Gordon Brown's team that left a note thinking it was hilarious that they had spent every penny and nothing was left for their successors. Hard to sympathise with the bleating and insult hurling when they thought it was funny a decade ago!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 5:28:54 GMT
We can argue the history, I could point out that the plans put forward by Osborne were predicted not to solve the debt problem. But that was then. In 2019 we are left with a debt to GDP ratio of around 80%, it was 46% in 2007, after a massive injection into public services in the previous 5 years, with all the benefits that accrued. Debt to gdp was 44% in 97 after years of underfunding. I repeat, it was the Tories that have wrecked it, it was the Tories that brought us Brexit. They have won one election outright in 25 years, 2015 when faced with the numb nut Corbyn. I think our situation is dire, and if we leave with no deal and our economy suffers badly, I do wonder who is going to finance the refinancing of Gilts when they become due. In short, there is no money to make good the devastation of the last nine years. Hammond's "headroom" is a myth, it just means more borrowing from a weaker economic base, with public services requiring more resourcing than we can NOW afford. Of course the Nationalists will wave the flag and say it will be alright on the night. I am not going to 'argue the history' because it is a matter of fact that when Labour took over in 97 the economy was in very good health. There is nothing to argue about. It wasn't just the Tories that brought Brexit. The UK should have had a referendum on the EU Constitution, but were denied by labour. This helped fuel the anti-EU feelings. When they then trampled over the public by signing the 'Lisbon Treaty' (the EU Constitution re-named) that added further fuel to the flames. It was the rise of UKIP that tipped the balance, by taking votes away from both Labour and the Tories. Once again, just who are these 'flag waving Nationalists'? Sure it was, 4 or was it 5 years after the ERM fiasco which cost the country billions. Another Tory bright idea. And the cuts in public spending as a result left the NHS (as but one example) on its knees. And here we are again. So moving forward, we leave in October. Our national balance sheet shows debt at around 80% of our national income, business investment has fallen off a cliff in the last year and growth slowing to a trickle. If we leave with no deal and the predictions of disruption become true, if tariffs impact our exports and therefore our GDP, what then? If tax revenues slow or decline, what then? If unemployment costs rise what then? If our national debt servicing costs start rising, sucking cash out of the economy, what then? Of course, if we dont leave, then most of that "what if" scenario wont happen. Which brings us back to the question, why would we risk it? Given that nobody (on here) can answer that, other than some (almost nefarious) warped sense of "self determination", laughable in the face of democratic reality in the UK, it's just ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 5:59:02 GMT
Business investment is fine. Where do youget this idea that it has 'fallen off a cliff'. Growth is higher than any other EU country, including Germany. ERM - joining was supported by the CBI, IMF, Treasury, BoE etc etc. All the usual groups. They do keep getting the big decisions wrong eh? If, if, if......?
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 18, 2019 7:39:51 GMT
Business investment is fine. Where do youget this idea that it has 'fallen off a cliff'. Growth is higher than any other EU country, including Germany. ERM - joining was supported by the CBI, IMF, Treasury, BoE etc etc. All the usual groups. They do keep getting the big decisions wrong eh? If, if, if......? Business investment is not fine, in historical terms and against peers it is low, albeit growing a bit. However there remains little investment as companies wait and much of the small growth is due to replacing plant and machinery. The economy grew a bit due to stockpiling, confirmed by the trade deficit in manufactured goods doubling prior to the first deadline in March. In terms of the ERM, that was supported by people like Normam Lamont and Nigel Lawson, two ardent Brexiteers. In fact much of the ERM issue stemed from shadowing the DM. I'll say it again, there is no economic benefit to Brexit and the democratic arguement is a myth. Here's a challenge for Nobby and Eric, prove me wrong. 😶
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 7:51:21 GMT
Business investment is fine. Where do youget this idea that it has 'fallen off a cliff'. Growth is higher than any other EU country, including Germany. ERM - joining was supported by the CBI, IMF, Treasury, BoE etc etc. All the usual groups. They do keep getting the big decisions wrong eh? If, if, if......? Business investment is not fine, in historical terms and against peers it is low, albeit growing a bit. However there remains little investment as companies wait and much of the small growth is due to replacing plant and machinery. The economy grew a bit due to stockpiling, confirmed by the trade deficit in manufactured goods doubling prior to the first deadline in March. In terms of the ERM, that was supported by people like Normam Lamont and Nigel Lawson, two ardent Brexiteers. In fact much of the ERM issue stemed from shadowing the DM. I'll say it again, there is no economic benefit to Brexit and the democratic arguement is a myth. Here's a challenge for Nobby and Eric, prove me wrong. 😶 Christ Stuart, you are getting direct!! Of course I agree with you, let's see if Nobby and Eric can prove you wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 7:54:34 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 8:43:03 GMT
In terms of FDI (Foreigh Direct Investment) the UK is currently third in the world with only China and the USA ahead. FDI is higher in the UK than Germany and France combined. It's just looking at figures that suit your argument! It can work both ways
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 8:52:45 GMT
Business investment is fine. Where do youget this idea that it has 'fallen off a cliff'. Growth is higher than any other EU country, including Germany. ERM - joining was supported by the CBI, IMF, Treasury, BoE etc etc. All the usual groups. They do keep getting the big decisions wrong eh? If, if, if......? Business investment is not fine, in historical terms and against peers it is low, albeit growing a bit. However there remains little investment as companies wait and much of the small growth is due to replacing plant and machinery. The economy grew a bit due to stockpiling, confirmed by the trade deficit in manufactured goods doubling prior to the first deadline in March. In terms of the ERM, that was supported by people like Normam Lamont and Nigel Lawson, two ardent Brexiteers. In fact much of the ERM issue stemed from shadowing the DM. I'll say it again, there is no economic benefit to Brexit and the democratic arguement is a myth. Here's a challenge for Nobby and Eric, prove me wrong. 😶 The very first economic benefit of leaving the EU is the 20 billion+ a year it costs the UK. The second benefit is to leave with No Deal and save 39 billion that May was going to give them. I don't agree with the 'stockpiling' theory. Are not EU countries also 'stockpiling'? If not, why not? If they are then they should show better growth figures. Of the EU countries, only Spain is showing a higher growth rate than the UK. France is stagnant and the German performance is woeful. Italy is actually in decline! Just scroll down to the second page..... Trade Economics
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 8:57:07 GMT
In terms of FDI (Foreigh Direct Investment) the UK is currently third in the world with only China and the USA ahead. FDI is higher in the UK than Germany and France combined. It's just looking at figures that suit your argument! It can work both ways Not really Nobby, I follow the reports, not make the content. Like I said, business investment has fallen off a cliff. As far as FDI is concerned you need to be careful how you use the Stats. FDI includes non productive investment like property and financial products, shares in UK companies and M&A which, as we saw with Cadbury, are not always productive.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 18, 2019 9:07:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 18, 2019 9:17:27 GMT
Business investment is not fine, in historical terms and against peers it is low, albeit growing a bit. However there remains little investment as companies wait and much of the small growth is due to replacing plant and machinery. The economy grew a bit due to stockpiling, confirmed by the trade deficit in manufactured goods doubling prior to the first deadline in March. In terms of the ERM, that was supported by people like Normam Lamont and Nigel Lawson, two ardent Brexiteers. In fact much of the ERM issue stemed from shadowing the DM. I'll say it again, there is no economic benefit to Brexit and the democratic arguement is a myth. Here's a challenge for Nobby and Eric, prove me wrong. 😶 The very first economic benefit of leaving the EU is the 20 billion+ a year it costs the UK. The second benefit is to leave with No Deal and save 39 billion that May was going to give them. I don't agree with the 'stockpiling' theory. Are not EU countries also 'stockpiling'? If not, why not? If they are then they should show better growth figures. Of the EU countries, only Spain is showing a higher growth rate than the UK. France is stagnant and the German performance is woeful. Italy is actually in decline! Just scroll down to the second page..... Trade Economics Sorry Nobby, don't agree with stockpiling because it doesn't fit your arguement? We are leaving so UK firms are stockpiling, it is the same with the US figures we debated the other week. Half of the £20bn is reinvested and in government terms it isn't going to solve much. Boris Johnson has already costed it in his tax pledge to higher wage earners. The £39bn is for many things including legally obliged payments, not paying will (a) be first thing on the agenda in the FTA discussions and (b) will lose influence and undermine the "good will" in others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 9:59:43 GMT
The very first economic benefit of leaving the EU is the 20 billion+ a year it costs the UK. The second benefit is to leave with No Deal and save 39 billion that May was going to give them. I don't agree with the 'stockpiling' theory. Are not EU countries also 'stockpiling'? If not, why not? If they are then they should show better growth figures. Of the EU countries, only Spain is showing a higher growth rate than the UK. France is stagnant and the German performance is woeful. Italy is actually in decline! Just scroll down to the second page..... Trade Economics Sorry Nobby, don't agree with stockpiling because it doesn't fit your arguement? We are leaving so UK firms are stockpiling, it is the same with the US figures we debated the other week. Half of the £20bn is reinvested and in government terms it isn't going to solve much. Boris Johnson has already costed it in his tax pledge to higher wage earners. The £39bn is for many things including legally obliged payments, not paying will (a) be first thing on the agenda in the FTA discussions and (b) will lose influence and undermine the "good will" in others. I don't agree with the stockpiling theory as I explained above. Are EU countries also stockpiling? If so, why is this not reflected in their growth figures, which across the EU, are really poor. Companies have had three years to prepare. If they are still not ready then they only have themselves to blame! Look at the recent announcement by Lidl. They are opening loads of stores in the South East of England. They have obviously done their homework on their supply chain and are happy to proceed. Proper Planning & Preparation Prevent water Poor Performance, the seven 'P's. I don't think the 39 billion has ever been detailed. I understand the true figure should be around 6 billion for outstanding commitments. The 39 billion was part of the WA that has never been ratified. Everyone and his dog knows it was a massive negotiating mistake to agree to the 39 billion without tying it to an FTA. It was a figure plucked out of the air after the EU initially demanded a lot more.
|
|