Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    Politics has always been a game to me. Just like moving pieces around a chess board. Plan ahead, make the right moves and you will win every time.

    I'm rather shocked that you've now switched from a Green to a Communist. Then again you was in favour of Agenda 21 few years ago if I remember correctly.

    The way things are going you might get your Communist uprising. I haven't been on TSR because I've been spending my time pro-actively preparing for a change which may catch most people off guard. This change is the rapid onset of a mini-ice age which could be in full effect by 2030. During this time food prices will go though the roof and there will be huge political unrest.

    Communism won't be the solution though because due to crypto-currencies the top 15% of the population will be able to move their capital out of the UK to warmer locations like New Zealand. There will be a huge exodus of capital towards New Zealand and Australia. So Communism won't have much capital to use.

    The only people who are going to do well out of this scenario is people who study STEM fields.
    I'm a commie in the sense these people I am arguing with would refer to me as one. I'm broadly left and will try anything really.

    Plus being openly communist winds poeple up.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamal tyrone)
    ok, cuck
    How is that helpful? Don't stoop so low.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I'm a commie in the sense these people I am arguing with would refer to me as one. I'm broadly left and will try anything really.

    Plus being openly communist winds poeple up.
    I’m the same RE fascist 👍🏻
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    It wasn't really a Tory v Labour type thing, as I generally think that from the 1950s to 2008, at almost any point you would be able to say 'this country is a better place than it was ten years ago', whoever the government was at the time. Sure there were set backs and bumps in the road, but the general trend was clear.

    But you also can't knock the opportunities that New Labour gave to people, including myself. I got a new school, with an increased budget which certainly has helped me and others who went there. Child benefits allowed parents to gain qualifications while still being able to afford to bring up their kids. The NHS was in a better state with waiting times right down compared to what they were now. Things like tax credits greatly helped low earners and helped people climb. Home ownership was up. Take someone like Angela Rayner (whatever you think of her policies), the support she received from the state was pivotal in helping her succeed from humble beginnings. I'm by no means the biggest advocate for New Labour either (I could write essays about stuff they got wrong). People may argue it was unsustainable, which I disagree with, but lots of people ended up in a much better position than they were.

    I still maintain that austerity and cutting spending was the wrong course in 2010 and I do accept that Labour were also proposing it. It was like they gave up and rather than blame the financial sector, they blamed their spending. In the last few months of 2010 the economy was already growing without cuts and we should have continued on that path. Perhaps the greatest annoyance was people like Osborne saying 'we are all in this together' without a hint of irony.
    I am not going to knock everything Labour ever did, but to a large extent they were able to spend money to achieve their goals because Major left them with a strong budgetary position. The Conservatives were forced to adopt a policy of austerity because Brown had left them with a very weak budgetary position.

    Whatever your view of the optimum balance of state spending in the economy, which is likely to be very different to mine, objectively had the government spent less in the New Labour years we could have spent more in the last decade. I would argue it would have been much better to let spending grow modestly over a 20 year period than increase it dramatically and therefore be forced to cut it correspondingly dramatically later. Even a government which wants to spend a higher % of GDP would do well to keep the budget balanced, otherwise the situation can only be unsustainable and you are effectively robbing later generations.

    This is an argument for prudent government, rather than an assault on redistribution or government spending in itself. The only real alternative to austerity were tax hikes, which probably would have been more damaging.

    I agree certain financial companies were very much to blame, and in my view they should never have bailed out the likes of RBS. But those decisions were taken in the heat of the crisis, and once it was over reclaiming the cost from the weakened financial sector wasn't really an option.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I’m the same RE fascist 👍🏻
    You are defined by your enemies.

    I would try communism though if it was of the right type :indiff:


    (Original post by Rinsed)
    The Conservatives were forced to adopt a policy of austerity because Brown had left them with a very weak budgetary position.
    lies lies lies
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    lies lies lies
    The thing is, it isn’t lies.

    If you don’t cut the deficit then you have to increase growth and that simply wasn’t going to happen to a high enough level to hold spending where it was.

    Austerity should end now in the form of structural investment with a clear ROI up to an unlimited amount of money.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    lies lies lies
    Do tell.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    I am not going to knock everything Labour ever did, but to a large extent they were able to spend money to achieve their goals because Major left them with a strong budgetary position. The Conservatives were forced to adopt a policy of austerity because Brown had left them with a very weak budgetary position.

    Whatever your view of the optimum balance of state spending in the economy, which is likely to be very different to mine, objectively had the government spent less in the New Labour years we could have spent more in the last decade. I would argue it would have been much better to let spending grow modestly over a 20 year period than increase it dramatically and therefore be forced to cut it correspondingly dramatically later. Even a government which wants to spend a higher % of GDP would do well to keep the budget balanced, otherwise the situation can only be unsustainable and you are effectively robbing later generations.

    This is an argument for prudent government, rather than an assault on redistribution or government spending in itself. The only real alternative to austerity were tax hikes, which probably would have been more damaging.

    I agree certain financial companies were very much to blame, and in my view they should never have bailed out the likes of RBS. But those decisions were taken in the heat of the crisis, and once it was over reclaiming the cost from the weakened financial sector wasn't really an option.
    I agree Major left the economy in a good state. Indeed I'm probably now a bigger fan of Major than most of your party are!

    But what I would say is that in 1997, the country was in need of a major revamp. Our roads, buildings, bridges, hospitals etc needed upgrading and fixing. Again, I can use the personal example of my school which was run down and old. We got a brand new state of the art school with increased capacity and great facilities. Yes we had a good economy, but the country's facilities were no longer fit for use. The spending was necessary. It's a bit like having a leak in your house, you would go 'if we spend money on fixing it, the future generations will have to pay', it was something that needed doing. We needed to make this country's infrastructure fit for the 21st century.

    I also agree the economy the Tories inherited was not good, though I don't accept that was down to Labour's spending or that such austerity was needed. There were some areas of spending we could have reigned in, but cuts to things like tax credits and housing benefit really did seem simply unfair.

    I don't just blame the Tories, it's been a global phenomenon really. How many western countries can honestly say they are better than they were ten years ago? Or more economically secure?

    I am open to new ideas though and I am intrigued by how post war, both the US and UK spent hugely while achieving enormous economic growth. Scandinavia also has achieved high spending with high growth and increased quality of life.

    Ultimately though I think the country is at the point where political support for austerity is starting to wear thin. As Marr said, eventually if you keep promising people jam tomorrow and they don't get it, then they will start to believe its not coming. If we have a surplus now and the purse strings don't start to loosen, people will question the point of being asked to tighten their belts.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I agree Major left the economy in a good state. Indeed I'm probably now a bigger fan of Major than most of your party are!

    But what I would say is that in 1997, the country was in need of a major revamp. Our roads, buildings, bridges, hospitals etc needed upgrading and fixing. Again, I can use the personal example of my school which was run down and old. We got a brand new state of the art school with increased capacity and great facilities. Yes we had a good economy, but the country's facilities were no longer fit for use. The spending was necessary. It's a bit like having a leak in your house, you would go 'if we spend money on fixing it, the future generations will have to pay', it was something that needed doing. We needed to make this country's infrastructure fit for the 21sr century.

    I also agree the economy the Tories inherited was not good, though I don't accept that was down to Labour's spending or that such austerity was needed. There were some areas of spending we could have reigned in, but cuts to things like tax credits and housing benefit really did seem simply unfair.

    I don't just blame the Tories, it's been a global phenomenon really. How many western countries can honestly say they are better than they were ten years ago? Or more economically secure?

    I am open to new ideas though and I am intrigued by how post war, both the US and UK spent hugely while achieving enormous economic growth. Scandinavia also has achieved high spending with high growth and increased quality of life.

    Ultimately though I think the country is at the point where political support for austerity is starting to wear thin. As Marr said, eventually if you keep promising people jam tomorrow and they don't get it, then they will start to believe its not coming. If we have a surplus now and the purse strings don't start to loosen, people will question the point of being asked to tighten their belts.
    The things you're talking about are legitimate investment though, which wasn't really the problem. You're putting money in today, but expecting benefits in the future, so that's not really my quibble. You can argue with the cost-effectiveness of some of those investments, but that's really an argument of implementation rather than principle.

    The problem was the current deficit, where we are borrowing money to meet day-to-day spending. Things like welfare payments and civil-service salaries. There is no prospective payout down the line, this is money we were borrowing just to stop basic services running out of cash. Keynsians will tell you that running a current deficit can be helpful in a downturn, but running a persistent deficit in years of growth and plenty is just unforgivably poor economic management.

    Likewise today, we're currently growing, but on average recessions happen every seven years. We may have eliminated the current account deficit, but the debt burden is still sky-high by historic standards. If we don't get debt under control we won't have that buffer when times get harder, as they always do eventually.

    There is an argument that 20th century growth was so high (astonishingly so by historic standards) because of a series of groundbreaking events. The invention of the car, the plane, the computer, the robot, the internet and the corresponding automation and efficiency they all heralded. Likewise the entrance of women into the workforce, basically doubling the productive population. These are all one time events and, arguably, we've plucked all the low-hanging fruit and shouldn't necessarily expect any new innovations to dramatically boost growth figures quite in the same way.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    The things you're talking about are legitimate investment though, which wasn't really the problem. You're putting money in today, but expecting benefits in the future, so that's not really my quibble. You can argue with the cost-effectiveness of some of those investments, but that's really an argument of implementation rather than principle.

    The problem was the current deficit, where we are borrowing money to meet day-to-day spending. Things like welfare payments and civil-service salaries. There is no prospective payout down the line, this is money we were borrowing just to stop basic services running out of cash. Keynsians will tell you that running a current deficit can be helpful in a downturn, but running a persistent deficit in years of growth and plenty is just unforgivably poor economic management.

    Likewise today, we're currently growing, but on average recessions happen every seven years. We may have eliminated the current account deficit, but the debt burden is still sky-high by historic standards. If we don't get debt under control we won't have that buffer when times get harder, as they always do eventually.

    There is an argument that 20th century growth was so high (astonishingly so by historic standards) because of a series of groundbreaking events. The invention of the car, the plane, the computer, the robot, the internet and the corresponding automation and efficiency they all heralded. Likewise the entrance of women into the workforce, basically doubling the productive population. These are all one time events and, arguably, we've plucked all the low-hanging fruit and shouldn't necessarily expect any new innovations to dramatically boost growth figures quite in the same way.
    You missed oil off that list the number one growth factor of the 20th century.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    There is an argument that 20th century growth was so high (astonishingly so by historic standards) because of a series of groundbreaking events. The invention of the car, the plane, the computer, the robot, the internet and the corresponding automation and efficiency they all heralded. Likewise the entrance of women into the workforce, basically doubling the productive population. These are all one time events and, arguably, we've plucked all the low-hanging fruit and shouldn't necessarily expect any new innovations to dramatically boost growth figures quite in the same way.
    Which is precisely why we should be focusing on delivering greater economic equality, rather than chasing the impossible dream of infinite and high growth. This was the crux of Piketty's thesis. The high growth and relative economic equality of the 20th century can be largely put down to the recoveries that followed the shocks of the world wars and Great Depression. Low economic and population growth, over the long term, is causing us to regress back to the patrimonial rentier capitalism and wealth accumulation that characterised the 19th century. It's a dour prospect, no matter how much the defenders of capitalism like to pretend inequality is a non-issue.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    The things you're talking about are legitimate investment though, which wasn't really the problem. You're putting money in today, but expecting benefits in the future, so that's not really my quibble. You can argue with the cost-effectiveness of some of those investments, but that's really an argument of implementation rather than principle.

    The problem was the current deficit, where we are borrowing money to meet day-to-day spending. Things like welfare payments and civil-service salaries. There is no prospective payout down the line, this is money we were borrowing just to stop basic services running out of cash. Keynsians will tell you that running a current deficit can be helpful in a downturn, but running a persistent deficit in years of growth and plenty is just unforgivably poor economic management.

    Likewise today, we're currently growing, but on average recessions happen every seven years. We may have eliminated the current account deficit, but the debt burden is still sky-high by historic standards. If we don't get debt under control we won't have that buffer when times get harder, as they always do eventually.

    There is an argument that 20th century growth was so high (astonishingly so by historic standards) because of a series of groundbreaking events. The invention of the car, the plane, the computer, the robot, the internet and the corresponding automation and efficiency they all heralded. Likewise the entrance of women into the workforce, basically doubling the productive population. These are all one time events and, arguably, we've plucked all the low-hanging fruit and shouldn't necessarily expect any new innovations to dramatically boost growth figures quite in the same way.
    Interesting points.

    I guess re civil service salaries, the argument would be that the country needs its best and brightest in the civil service and it has to pay high salaries to tempt those who would otherwise chase the high corporate salaries.

    As for what could be next to increase productivity, the most obvious candidate would surely be automation. That could potentially increase productivity exponentially which may again allow for a period of big spending and big growth.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I would try communism though if it was of the right type
    I did. I was a Marxist of some sort for 8 years 😂


    Still find some of his stuff interesting about economics but some if it is completely wrong and the societal stuff is hopeless, but I can st least see where he’s coming from unlike some if his discipline
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Interesting points.

    I guess re civil service salaries, the argument would be that the country needs its best and brightest in the civil service and it has to pay high salaries to tempt those who would otherwise chase the high corporate salaries.

    As for what could be next to increase productivity, the most obvious candidate would surely be automation. That could potentially increase productivity exponentially which may again allow for a period of big spending and big growth.
    It’s important to have good growth but I’d actually say it is more important right now to focus on structural issues to make life easier for the people.

    Namely, housing, transport, workers rights and how services are delivered to them both public and utilities.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by paul514)
    Again, NO!

    Your thinking is way too narrow, both need to be done and councils can be overruled on planning by the government which has been happening more and more. There are two big occasions for this in the last year in Birmingham alone where I live.

    Councils have had their budgets cut from central government and given local revenue raising powers which don’t fill the gap, what planet are you living on? My local council has two billion of debt.
    Overruling councils via central government just exacerbates the problem because you have the council wasting money trying to block things, then central government wasting money overturning the decisions, all the while the time to get construction started is still far above reducing the powers of the council in the first place; also the notion that local councils are the pinnacle of efficiency and there is no wasteful spending is absurd, just had a quick look through the Suffolk accounts (first county council that came up on Google for me) and nearly 1% of the budget goes to a company where two of the non-executive directors sit on the council. I have decided to look up how much this cycle path is costing, the second phase which is being built now is costing over £1000 per meter and of those who have used phase 1 so far over 80% use it once a month or less frequently.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bob072)
    Where did I say Labour created the global financial crash? Nowhere.


    But they made things very difficult for us, you struggle to follow arguments but try this without just retorting Momentum simple slogans.


    - They ran a deficit at a time where we had uninterrupted growth for ages; we should have used that time to have a responsible budget with a surplus.


    - When we borrow money, investors buy government bonds. Until we can buy them back we have to pay interest every year (effectively wasted taxation), and when investors lose confidence in us paying back like with Greece we can't borrow anything for schools or hospitals (or invading Iraq) at the time it's needed most.


    - If New Labour had paid off more of the debt we would have more to spend on helping grow the economy again and investing in public services.

    - Since you mention hospitals, the spending on PFI contracts adds tens of billions to our national debt unnessecarily. Tony Blair opened our borders unconditionally to 8 former communist countries putting far more pressure on public services

    - They signed us up to EU integration so our financial services was regulated not in Westminster but by the EU/IMF. The main problem with banking was not deregulation, but changing from experienced banking where good decisions were made to box-ticking.
    This 'opening up the borders' guff falls flat when the EU already permits countries to send back EU immigrants who fail to secure work after a given period of time. We just didn't exercise that right, because these immigrants tend to be net contributors to the economy and fill areas where we either lack skilled workers or where British workers can't be bothered.

    The global financial crash originated in the US where Bill Clinton started mass deregulation and Dubya put it into overdrive. Bankers had free rein to commit fraud and when the world's biggest economy goes pop it's going to hit you whether you like it or not. Could Labour have been more prudent while in government-absolutely. Have the Tories come anywhere near meeting their promises-absolutely not and things are cut as far as they will go.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I did. I was a Marxist of some sort for 8 years 😂

    I mean in a practical real way.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I mean in a practical real way.
    What do you mean? Like living in a commune or something?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    I am not going to knock everything Labour ever did, but to a large extent they were able to spend money to achieve their goals because Major left them with a strong budgetary position. The Conservatives were forced to adopt a policy of austerity because Brown had left them with a very weak budgetary position.
    That wasn't my memory of 2008. I seem to remember a global recession starting in the US sub-prime housing market. The result was a run on some of the weaker banks in the UK. The government was left with no choice but to bail them out. This combined with a rapid contraction of the UK economy left the government with significantly lower income and larger outgoings in the perfect storm. I was no fan of Brown, but I wouldn't say that government policy was directly the result of this nightmare scenario although I would agree that it didn't go anywhere to preventing the catastrophe that was 2008.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    That wasn't my memory of 2008. I seem to remember a global recession starting in the US sub-prime housing market. The result was a run on some of the weaker banks in the UK. The government was left with no choice but to bail them out. This combined with a rapid contraction of the UK economy left the government with significantly lower income and larger outgoings in the perfect storm. I was no fan of Brown, but I wouldn't say that government policy was directly the result of this nightmare scenario although I would agree that it didn't go anywhere to preventing the catastrophe that was 2008.
    I am not blaming everything on Brown, but he demonstrably showed a lack of prudence in the decade he was in charge up of the treasury. Had he been more circumspect in his spending, the UK budget would have fared better in the stresses of the crisis. He was not responsible for the crisis, but he was responsible for the fact we were so unprepared.

    Brown hiked spending beyond the government's income, and we were running a current account deficit from basically the moment he took over all the way up to the crisis. He told everyone this was fine because he had 'abolished boom and bust', but actually he was hubristic and irresponsible. And so, come the inevitable thunderclouds, we found ourselves in a much more precarious position than we should have done.
 
 
 

945

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.