Turn on thread page Beta

Point out all the good things Cameron has done.. watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He's done **** all but get us into more ****.

    I think I might go for my hair CUT now and whilst I'm on the way I think I might go and kill a few residents.

    In essence that is what Cameron has done.

    He is a balding, middle aged, snobby little toe-rag!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    Thatcher created the culture of over-reliance on a few square miles in London. Labour just continued this mantra.
    There was a massive boom in the reliance of financial services in the early 2000's. Both are at fault, labour more so.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    His wife wears expensive clothes?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hes lead the world against a dictator who's more than happy to kill his own people.

    Hes stood up for democracy.

    Hes made Nick Clegg his tea *****

    Hes made/ making red Ed look like a small child- repeating himself but with no reference to figures etc etc
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J_90)
    .....0.


    .....kill Libyan civilians? If some people think that's good...
    You dumb ****, go get some A*s stupid chav.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by insignificant)
    ..with all the doom and gloom..I just want to hear some positive things!
    1) Increasing personal tax allowance by over £1000 - with a further £2,500+ by 2015, taking it to the first £10,000 being untaxed. Undermines the "VAT = Apocalypse" theory being bandied around by Labour.

    2) Cutting borrowing from around £150 billion to around £20 billion by 2015/2016. This will mean we will avoid a debt crisis on the lines of Ireland and Greece.

    3) Scotland Bill - more powers = great!


    Just bear one thing in mind, please. It is all too easy to look to the short-term situation and go "Hah! I have the keys to the future!", but this is not the case. If we were to look at Gordon Brown, we could have said around December-February of each year of his premiership that he would win the next election. But he didn't. He could bribe anybody, but nobody would buy it.

    Mark my words, 2015 will be a year that will vindicate what is happening right now.

    It is all too easy to be popular in the short-term, but if you take tough decisions and they pay off....it will mean automatic victory at the polls.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simon_666)
    Hes lead the world against a dictator who's more than happy to kill his own people.

    Hes stood up for democracy.

    Hes made Nick Clegg his tea *****

    Hes made/ making red Ed look like a small child- repeating himself but with no reference to figures etc etc
    Led me add this on the record: this is my fourth good thing about David Cameron.

    Remember a few weeks ago how the Labour ****-bench were laughing at him over his proposal for a no-fly zone? Now it is happening. Just wait for the economy too, for that will happen as he said it will.

    Argh, I just hope everything goes as Cameron and Clegg has said it will - for that will see Labour destroyed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Instincts_2012)
    You dumb ****, go get some A*s stupid chav.
    Haha, yes a chav, guess that Mensa test was wrong, FML. I have better sources than you, I can guarantee it, you stick to your BBC news.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -2D-)
    you clearly haven't heard of the chicago school of economics/monetarism started by Milton Friedman, also a Nobel Prize Laureate and espoused by thatcher and reagan which wouldn't back your view and would say that Aggregate Demand has no effect on output hence not all economists would back your point of view. furthermore if labour (and you) have won the battle of economists then why do the major institutes- UN, IMF OECD all predict positive economic growth for the UK? somebody must be wrong

    and besides the IMF did back the coalition and merely said it should be careful
    The IMF is a fund of last resort to the international community of countries. If you think it is some independent body that is particularly concerned about British growth, you don't know anything or don't know enough about it.
    If you'd read the Return of Depression Economics written by Paul Krugman, you'd know the number of incidents in history where the IMF has introduced punitive measures to countries not because they want that country's economy to get back into shape but because they don't want any contagion effect between countries and in the markets. An example being the South East Asian countries in the 90s. Yes, from the point of view of the IMF, Osborne's approach is somewhat more interesting as he promised to reduce the deficit the quickest.

    A level fiscal budget is always reassuring as it reassures the markets that countries will be able to pay back the issued debt (in the case of Britain, UK Gilts).

    As I showed, the IMF does not back a particular party's policy. It is simply interested in seeing measures to reduce the deficit, something all 3 main parties had announced.
    Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a Social Democrat and if you think he has any admiration for George Osborne or for most Conservative economic policy, you're again sorely mistaken.
    http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2010...ficit-cutting/

    However market fundamentals are not what rule an economy: if anything, the British population have blamed a government that relied too much on market fundamentals and free markets, with over-reliance on financial markets and speculation on house prices.

    What is ironic is that with all this anger against banks and free markets, the English voters voted mostly for the party that supported these even when in opposition.


    Please reassure me that you understand that positive economic growth is not always the sign of a healthy economy. Surely you can understand that low growth with inflation of 5% is an absolute disaster for the British people?

    Japan went through what economists call a "lost decade" of low growth around 1%. With Osborne's approach this is likely to be what will happen, not all because of his lack of judgement.

    Thatcher and Reagan's economic policies relied on reduced demand to bring down output for an economy that suffers from "over-capacity" which is exactly what the British economy is suffering from.

    ALL their policies have relied on increased unemployment as a measure of dealing with the over-capacity of the economy. In the past, at least these conservative politicians would have at least acknowledged this, but in today's political environment for Osborne to declare that he needs to reduce the number of unemployed, this would make headlines and mark the end of the coalition.

    I gave the examples of Sweden and Canada in the 90s who introduced very sharp and tough deficit-reducing measures: there is no question about it, this approach hurts the population a lot but that's the price to pay to reduce the deficit and allow the economy to grow afterwards without any deficit burden.

    Economists are certainly not all against this approach or claim that it can never work. What the majority of economists, who tend to back the Keynesian approach, point out is the political and social price to pay, even if it may work. Basically, in the end, it's not worth it, especially if it doesn't go to plan as the population may turn back on the government before it has been able to implement the measures and say "we've suffered enough and have lost confidence in your economic policy". You end up with low or negative growth, an angry electorate without having been able to reform the economy to promote growth.

    What economists had always recommended was a strong fiscal stimulus and only in 2011, to look at making gradual cuts with reasonable targets.

    People will say "but why don't economists realise how bad this debt is?!!" because, unbeknown to most British voters, the debt isn't even that high. It's still lower than most developed countries and that fact is what allowed the previous government to introduce a stimulus package which brought the government out of a deep recession. If it had not had that leeway, like for example, France did not, the UK would have suffered deeply as it was particularly vulnerable to any financial crisis. Surely people understand that a recession results in massive unemployment? Do people not wonder why unemployment did not increase so much after this recession as usually happens?

    What is really at stake here is Tory ideology: the state has become much too large for their liking. The economy, growth, spending power of the British population are completely secondary in all this.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sashari)
    In my opinion our views match but you have a much more in depth economical knowledge than I do and by God I would love to have you as my Economics teacher <3 hehe

    On a further note I think you are right in saying that Conservative cuts are very harsh and they are displeasing a lot of people and unless the situation will improve by next elections we will not see conservative government in power for a very long time after this.

    I am concerned though that if the elections were to happen tomorrow (and although I legally still wouldn't have a vote, but again the situation is hypothetical) I have no clue, not a single prediction who people would like to see in power. Conservatives are 'destroying' many people's lives, Lib Dem are effectively turning into Conservatives at a rapid pace; and I think people are still edgy about Labour besides it having a new leader.

    To be also quite honest, as much as am against Conservative policies and think they make most suffer more than others I must admit although we are hit by the taxes and spending cuts now I think this is the only way out unless English people are willing to bury hem selves in more debt. However the rise of tuition fees is unnecessary and this view I am highly unlikely to change.

    It is of course unnecessary and even if I had backed a moderate rise in tuition fees, it is the decrease of public investment in higher education that is incredibly worrying. It's totally short-sighted and just a quick fix approach to an economy that needs proper attention to it.


    In any case, yes reducing the deficit was always going to be necessary: no politician was going to come out and say "the deficit is 10% of GDP, let's keep it there". A lot of people are under the impression that the deficit would have stayed where it is if they hadn't voted Conservative.

    The level of cuts necessary was also debatable: as long as you have a strong, growing economy, a deficit shortly after a recession is much less worrying although it should never be maintained. As your economy grows, your revenues grow and if spending is simply maintained, your deficit reduces.

    To give you an idea of why the British economy suffered so badly from the recession: before the recession, 1/4 of corporation tax came from financial services. No prize for guessing the effect this has on the budget when the revenue from financial services and other industries plummets drastically.

    I'm not an economics teacher haha. I work in financial markets and unlike a lot of my colleagues who aren't too knowledgeable about economics but only care about markets, I'm more interested in what is good for the British economy.

    We haven't yet seen the impact of the Conservatives' actions. At worst, if the cuts are implemented but not properly so as to ruin any chance of economic growth, we will continue to have a large deficit with rising unemployment. This hasn't happened yet.
    What is more likely, is just a lost 5 years of an economy with a stagnant economy growing at 1% or so, high inflation and a much poorer British population. I reckon that within 3-4 years, we will have an economy that can start growing again but we will have paid a massive price for it.

    If anything, this coalition is a nightmare for the economy: it prevents the Conservatives from implementing the full scale of their cuts because of a need to please LibDem MPs with cuts that are "fair" (whatever that means) while not being able to promote growth. Rather than having a sharp knife at his disposal, Osborne has got a rusty, blunt one with which he needs to implement cuts and implement Tory economic ideology.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -2D-)
    initially labour didn't- remember Brown's labour investment, tory cuts and only changed later which is probably why they weren't trusted

    as I explained before (due to crowding out interest rate effects) demand won't necessarily shrink and most other major economic bodies/think tanks believe that the economy will grow although at least slugishly
    It is a matter of timing, not of ideology: to come out of the recession, Labour had insisted on a stimulus package and a part-nationalisation of failing banks. This strategy was actually followed by Obama and Ben Bernanke (how often do you see the US following UK measures?).

    Although until the crisis, Conservatives had backed Labour economic policy, as soon as the crisis hit, the Conservatives were caught off guard without any real strategy during the crisis (notice how John McCain lost the US presidential election because he made all the wrong calls once the crisis hit and seemed out of touch. Until then he was favourite by a few percent).

    The crisis but especially the stimulus package resulted in a massive deficit and the Conservatives were quick to point out this massive deficit and to blame the government's mismanagement. I'd be the first to point out that the previous government had made a few wrong calls (as expected) when things were good and their overspending resulted in a deficit that didn't need to be there but we're talking a few percent, when the crisis and the stimulus package cost us significantly more.

    Labour have not been able to explain the reason for the deficit coherently which is why the majority of people think that the deficit is where it is because of the previous government:
    - either they come and say "yes it's all our fault.", which wouldn't be true but politically may divert attention from the deficit
    - or they manage some how to explain to what extent the deficit is their fault, but that's an incredibly huge challenge, without entering economic theory that most voters don't want to hear.

    Labour suggested introducing the cuts in 2011, that's the only difference. The British economy was strong enough to withstand any market reaction and was not even close to becoming Greece (I love how in Politics, sometimes people will compare countries that are not even close to comparable...). For the markets to lose trust in Britain's ability to pay back its debt, there are far more smaller countries, that have far worse finances, between Greece and Britain that would need to be hot:
    Portugal, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Ireland and probably even France, an economy which is particularly comparable to the UK that did not have a massively widening deficit because it was already massively wide before the crisis. It also has a larger debt burden.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Beat Gordon Brown. Showed Nick Clegg up for the lying, spineless %&*$ he really is.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Increasing the bank levy?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    The IMF is a fund of last resort to the international community of countries. If you think it is some independent body that is particularly concerned about British growth, you don't know anything or don't know enough about it.
    If you'd read the Return of Depression Economics written by Paul Krugman, you'd know the number of incidents in history where the IMF has introduced punitive measures to countries not because they want that country's economy to get back into shape but because they don't want any contagion effect between countries and in the markets. An example being the South East Asian countries in the 90s. Yes, from the point of view of the IMF, Osborne's approach is somewhat more interesting as he promised to reduce the deficit the quickest.

    A level fiscal budget is always reassuring as it reassures the markets that countries will be able to pay back the issued debt (in the case of Britain, UK Gilts).

    As I showed, the IMF does not back a particular party's policy. It is simply interested in seeing measures to reduce the deficit, something all 3 main parties had announced.
    Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a Social Democrat and if you think he has any admiration for George Osborne or for most Conservative economic policy, you're again sorely mistaken.
    http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2010...ficit-cutting/

    However market fundamentals are not what rule an economy: if anything, the British population have blamed a government that relied too much on market fundamentals and free markets, with over-reliance on financial markets and speculation on house prices.

    What is ironic is that with all this anger against banks and free markets, the English voters voted mostly for the party that supported these even when in opposition.


    Please reassure me that you understand that positive economic growth is not always the sign of a healthy economy. Surely you can understand that low growth with inflation of 5% is an absolute disaster for the British people?

    Japan went through what economists call a "lost decade" of low growth around 1%. With Osborne's approach this is likely to be what will happen, not all because of his lack of judgement.

    Thatcher and Reagan's economic policies relied on reduced demand to bring down output for an economy that suffers from "over-capacity" which is exactly what the British economy is suffering from.

    ALL their policies have relied on increased unemployment as a measure of dealing with the over-capacity of the economy. In the past, at least these conservative politicians would have at least acknowledged this, but in today's political environment for Osborne to declare that he needs to reduce the number of unemployed, this would make headlines and mark the end of the coalition.

    I gave the examples of Sweden and Canada in the 90s who introduced very sharp and tough deficit-reducing measures: there is no question about it, this approach hurts the population a lot but that's the price to pay to reduce the deficit and allow the economy to grow afterwards without any deficit burden.

    Economists are certainly not all against this approach or claim that it can never work. What the majority of economists, who tend to back the Keynesian approach, point out is the political and social price to pay, even if it may work. Basically, in the end, it's not worth it, especially if it doesn't go to plan as the population may turn back on the government before it has been able to implement the measures and say "we've suffered enough and have lost confidence in your economic policy". You end up with low or negative growth, an angry electorate without having been able to reform the economy to promote growth.

    What economists had always recommended was a strong fiscal stimulus and only in 2011, to look at making gradual cuts with reasonable targets.

    People will say "but why don't economists realise how bad this debt is?!!" because, unbeknown to most British voters, the debt isn't even that high. It's still lower than most developed countries and that fact is what allowed the previous government to introduce a stimulus package which brought the government out of a deep recession. If it had not had that leeway, like for example, France did not, the UK would have suffered deeply as it was particularly vulnerable to any financial crisis. Surely people understand that a recession results in massive unemployment? Do people not wonder why unemployment did not increase so much after this recession as usually happens?

    What is really at stake here is Tory ideology: the state has become much too large for their liking. The economy, growth, spending power of the British population are completely secondary in all this.
    You have suggested that the reason why the IMF has said what it has said is as it is worried of contagion yet haven't you contradicted that by saying (2 posts later) that there are several countries more at risk hence the UK is more likely to be contaminated than contaminate.

    Also the IMF did back the coalition, all it has said there is that growth will be lower (nobody has denied that the coalition's plan would be tougher in the short term).

    The IMF clearly has backed the coalition what else could you interpret the below as meaning

    "The IMF described the deficit reduction plan as "essential" in supporting the UK's debt position, and said it "supported a balanced recovery".
    The body also said that the UK economy would continue to recover at a moderate pace while the cuts were implemented."
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11419937

    I am not saying that the Conservative Party's Policy on banks was perfect (as I have not read much of the Party's literature I won't comment further) but surely what is more important is that we look forwards and learn from the mistakes.

    I am indeed aware of the difference between real and nominal growth and that inflation is essentially a tax.

    However surely the Coalition's spending plans would reduce inflation by more than Labour's as Aggregate Demand would fall further and both Keynesian and Neo-Classical/Monetarist Economics recognise that this would result in a larger contraction along the Aggregate Supply curve (unless you are arguing that we are actually on the flat part of the Aggregate Supply curve) hence lower inflation.

    I'm not sure where you get the 1% figure from most banks/think tanks etc. predict 1.5 to 2% next and higher afterwards the ORB's head recently said that the lowest prediction out of the 38 used for their own reports was 1% so I am a bit sceptical about your lost decades arguement.

    I am preety sure that the best way of dealing with overcapacity is to spend more money so I doubt his intention is to reduce overcapacity after all surely unemployment means that capcity is not being used and is in excess.

    The problem with our national finances isn't the debt but its growth rate.

    And again Keynesian economics isn't the only branch of economic thinking you have completely ignored Monetarism and Crowding it which suggest that the spending cuts and tax rises shouldn't have a huge impact.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    It is of course unnecessary and even if I had backed a moderate rise in tuition fees, it is the decrease of public investment in higher education that is incredibly worrying. It's totally short-sighted and just a quick fix approach to an economy that needs proper attention to it.


    In any case, yes reducing the deficit was always going to be necessary: no politician was going to come out and say "the deficit is 10% of GDP, let's keep it there". A lot of people are under the impression that the deficit would have stayed where it is if they hadn't voted Conservative.

    The level of cuts necessary was also debatable: as long as you have a strong, growing economy, a deficit shortly after a recession is much less worrying although it should never be maintained. As your economy grows, your revenues grow and if spending is simply maintained, your deficit reduces.

    To give you an idea of why the British economy suffered so badly from the recession: before the recession, 1/4 of corporation tax came from financial services. No prize for guessing the effect this has on the budget when the revenue from financial services and other industries plummets drastically.

    I'm not an economics teacher haha. I work in financial markets and unlike a lot of my colleagues who aren't too knowledgeable about economics but only care about markets, I'm more interested in what is good for the British economy.

    We haven't yet seen the impact of the Conservatives' actions. At worst, if the cuts are implemented but not properly so as to ruin any chance of economic growth, we will continue to have a large deficit with rising unemployment. This hasn't happened yet.
    What is more likely, is just a lost 5 years of an economy with a stagnant economy growing at 1% or so, high inflation and a much poorer British population. I reckon that within 3-4 years, we will have an economy that can start growing again but we will have paid a massive price for it.

    If anything, this coalition is a nightmare for the economy: it prevents the Conservatives from implementing the full scale of their cuts because of a need to please LibDem MPs with cuts that are "fair" (whatever that means) while not being able to promote growth. Rather than having a sharp knife at his disposal, Osborne has got a rusty, blunt one with which he needs to implement cuts and implement Tory economic ideology.
    Allowing the economy to grow does reduce the deficit's size but not by much very quickly- if the economy grows by say 3% (a little optimistic) then the deficit will fall by about 3% extra per year as a share of GDP, considering the fact that economy is likely to grow at between 1 and 2% per year anyway its not a huge difference.

    And corporation accounts for what, 10% of all tax revenue so hardly catastrophic.

    And again why 1% growth most prediction predict growth to be slighly higher and inflation is currently imported and VAT related so likely to be one off problems with the cuts likely to keep it under control.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    It is a matter of timing, not of ideology: to come out of the recession, Labour had insisted on a stimulus package and a part-nationalisation of failing banks. This strategy was actually followed by Obama and Ben Bernanke (how often do you see the US following UK measures?).

    Although until the crisis, Conservatives had backed Labour economic policy, as soon as the crisis hit, the Conservatives were caught off guard without any real strategy during the crisis (notice how John McCain lost the US presidential election because he made all the wrong calls once the crisis hit and seemed out of touch. Until then he was favourite by a few percent).

    The crisis but especially the stimulus package resulted in a massive deficit and the Conservatives were quick to point out this massive deficit and to blame the government's mismanagement. I'd be the first to point out that the previous government had made a few wrong calls (as expected) when things were good and their overspending resulted in a deficit that didn't need to be there but we're talking a few percent, when the crisis and the stimulus package cost us significantly more.

    Labour have not been able to explain the reason for the deficit coherently which is why the majority of people think that the deficit is where it is because of the previous government:
    - either they come and say "yes it's all our fault.", which wouldn't be true but politically may divert attention from the deficit
    - or they manage some how to explain to what extent the deficit is their fault, but that's an incredibly huge challenge, without entering economic theory that most voters don't want to hear.

    Labour suggested introducing the cuts in 2011, that's the only difference. The British economy was strong enough to withstand any market reaction and was not even close to becoming Greece (I love how in Politics, sometimes people will compare countries that are not even close to comparable...). For the markets to lose trust in Britain's ability to pay back its debt, there are far more smaller countries, that have far worse finances, between Greece and Britain that would need to be hot:
    Portugal, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Ireland and probably even France, an economy which is particularly comparable to the UK that did not have a massively widening deficit because it was already massively wide before the crisis. It also has a larger debt burden.
    France has a much lower deficit than us so it is probably of less risk.

    If you think others should stop comparing the UK to Greece then stop comparing the UK to Japan.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.