Bolitics The New Condem Government

[peterms]

Those future earnings do exist. They are held by other people/banks/organisations etc on their balance sheets.

The total money supply is limited to what the reserve bank says it is. They are the only ones who control the total supply of curreny in any country.

No, future earnings do not exist. Neither do future events, future children, or future loaves of bread. When and if they do come into existence, they won't be "future" any more. Are we using the term "future" differently?

And being on a balance sheet doesn't mean something exists either - surely one of the biggest learning points of the financial crisis, if we didn't know it before.

The money supply is expanded when banks make new loans, precisely because they don't lend money which has been deposited with them (if they did, then lending wouldn't increase the money supply). This activity is not controlled by the central bank. If it were, then perhaps we wouldn't have seen such spiralling and unrepayable household debt over the last decade.

[drat01]

For just once could you actually talk about the Tory party rather than

if you could post without words like "ideologically " "certain Tory posters" in every post then I'm sure we could

but your not interested in that nor my answers so the pantomime may just as well continue

Now after 3 ...Oh no he didn't

But Tony that is the key points that you keep trying to deflect from. The Tory led Gvmt are introducing policies not based on requirements for the country but based on ideologically led views and the long held desire to suppress areas such as public services, and things such as the NHS. It seems that the Tory party and its supporters only defence when questioned on these matters is to deflect and say "Labour this and that" etc. as per your meaningless reference to ID cards previously

The Tory party are in a mess, their policies are being shown up on a daily basis to be sold on pure and utter BS, and the underlying reasoning is to provide support for their paymasters and to maintain long held views on dismantling areas such as the NHS and front line services. We saw it before and despite the lies they came out with pre-election we are seeing it again. The fact that they cannot and will not defend these directly is far more of a giveaway than anything else

The CBI are saying that Gideon's policies are not working as he is claiming and that growth rates will be below what he has claimed (not for the first time) , what are your views - and other Tory party supporters - to this?

[tonyh29]

. It seems that the Tory party and its supporters only defence when questioned on these matters is to deflect and say "Labour this and that" etc. as per your meaningless reference to ID cards previously

No ... you clearly used the word "oppress" and so ID cards , Smoking bans and other Orwellian policies introduced by Labour are perfectly valid , you raised the issue not me .. having scrapped ID cards I'm not really sure what oppression of the masses the Tories are actually supposed to be carrying out

Paymasters ..yep Ed's paymasters in the Union got him elected ... his predecessors sold honours for cash and employed cronies of theirs into top position and so on .....i

Now many many of us that post in these threads are happy to accept that it's cross party and they are all as bad as each other .. I'm not sure you've quite grasped that yet which is why your posts just get thrown back at you instead of debated ..nothing to do with deflection just more a case of "sigh"

now since you mentioned it the CBI haven't said that Osbornes polices are not working ,indeed just a few hours ago CBI director-general John Cridland said the Chancellor's deficit reduction plans showed that the UK was serious about its long-term health AND they warned it could be disastrous to switch course to a "Plan B". "I can see nothing to be achieved by the Government changing its deficit reduction plans.

"It's the very continuation of them that shows international money markets we're serious about the long-term health of the nation."

"investor confidence had been eroded by the impasse in Washington and the failure of the eurozone to prevent the debt crisis from spreading "

“It may be a lacklustre recovery, but with solid net trade contributions and the positive impact of business investment, the UK will remain on a growth track.”

now you may call that deflection but that is actual quotes from the CBI , perhaps if you supplied direct quotes from them where they stated that Osbornes policies were not working we could discuss it further ? if you could do so without the use of "paymasters" " oppress" "Murdochs pocket" and so on then even better

[drat01]

and again Tony your "defence" is to mention Labour - why?

The CBI declared

The UK economy will grow at a "sluggish" rate this year, according to the CBI. The group has lowered its forecast for the UK's GDP in 2011, predicting growth of 1.3%, down from its previous prediction of 1.7%, made in May.

that is not exactly an endorsement of the policies of Gideon is it? Time after time we are seeing downscaled growth estimations with little evidence of a plan B to allow for this.

You again are trying, and failing, to deflect any sort of questioning and criticism for the Tory party. Osborne's policies are failing, they are not delivering what he claims they would. Add to that the many other mistakes and general inept things this Gvmt are doing and even with deflection you will struggle to defend that surely?

The paymaster thing is a valid one as the beneficiaries of the idealogical led cuts on areas such as front line services like the NHS will benefit those who bank roll the Gvmt and not the people.

[Awol]

^ Political tourettes!

So basically when you wrote:

The CBI are saying that Gideon's policies are not working as he is claiming

that doesn't really stack up with:

The UK economy will grow at a "sluggish" rate this year, according to the CBI...

...which is simply a statement of fact. Without a manufacturing base of Teutonic proportions we seem to be weathering the financial storms around UKPlc pretty well all things considered, due (according to the CBI) to an aggressive approach to bringing down the deficit.

that is not exactly an endorsement of the policies of Gideon is it?

Actually it sounds like it is to be honest.

[tonyh29]

and again Tony your "defence" is to mention Labour - why?

I told you why

that is not exactly an endorsement of the policies of Gideon is it?

that wasn't what you wrote though , you actually said "The CBI are saying that Gideon's policies are not working " without posting any quotes to support that ..where as i gave you direct quotes a plenty .. you see how this works don't you ?

deflect

sigh ..

Osborne's policies are failing

then give evidence , Osbornes policies have delivered a growth even if it is a smaller one than he wanted ... that doesn't necessarily mean they have failed .. you quote the labour stuck record of "plan B" and yet the CBI who moments earlier must have been on the approved labour source list (or have they since joined Murdoch on the evil list now that the article didn't support your claims :winkold:) clearly sate "it could be disastrous to switch course to a "Plan B" "

deflection

sigh

led cuts on areas such as front line services like the NHS

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that "NHS (Health)" spending had increased in cash terms but had been frozen, in real terms

so not a cut then ?

front line services like the NHS will benefit those who bank roll the Gvmt and not the people.

Mr Davies, a close friend of Gordon Brown, has invested almost £1 million in a company which sells medical equipment over the internet ..The firm, UKprocure, aims to cash in on a government drive to make NHS chiefs buy supplies online. Its chairman, Chai Patel, is also a Labour donor.

or PowderJect, whose chief executive, Labour donor Paul Drayson, could save £2million from a Budget tax break for vaccine developers

you pick a subject and it will just come back and bite you or you could just post without the hypocrisy stuff and save yourself the embarrassment

[drat01]

More deflection Tony, you really cannot defend the Tory / Gvmt policies can you without a reference to Labour. It's laughable now

I remember when you and other Tory supporters on here were claiming no front line services cuts would come from the Tory party, so what do we see now? Cuts in areas such as NHS, Police etc. Without a reference to Labour can you please explain why these are acceptable and who are the beneficiaries? Can you also explain who will benefit from privatisation of the NHS in key parts and which party they contributed to?

Maybe you can explain why growth estimates are constantly downgraded and questions about Gideon's plans are being asked by numerous organisations such as the CBI, and even the FT?

Maybe you can explain why Cameron refuses to talk about the meeting's he had with NI people in the run up to the BSkyB thing. Why have so many meetings been held with Cameron, Gideon and other members of this Gvmt with NI since they were elected?

It would be good to see how as a Tory supporter your thoughts on the news this morning that Hague and co. have seemingly shot their bolt early re Libya especially as many are saying now that the rebels cannot win? Is this acceptable foreign policy from this Gvmt?

What about Gideon's flagship policy from the last budget re Nat Ins "holidays" and how that has actually cost the country a lot of money?

Or what about Letwin threatening the public sector employees, is that a good thing?

It's a daily occurrence that people are questioning the Gvmt and thei policies and actions, but the only retort seems to be "Labour this, Labour that", rather than any sort of defence or justification. As you do above !!

[snowychap]

led cuts on areas such as front line services like the NHS

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that "NHS (Health)" spending had increased in cash terms but had been frozen, in real terms

so not a cut then ?

The Grauniad"]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies gave a cautious endorsement of the Labour interpretation of the figures. It said that "NHS (Health)" spending had increased in cash terms but had fallen, or at the very least been frozen, in real terms.

Rowena Crawford, of the IFS, said: "In reality whether the NHS gets plus 0.0% or minus 0.0% growth in a year makes very little real difference. While one 'breaks the pledge' and the other doesn't, the NHS still essentially faces a real freeze in its budget which it will find very constraining given increases in demand for healthcare and the large real increases in spending it has enjoyed for the past decade or so."

[tonyh29]

More deflection

well done you made it to 2 words before the "d" word ..some form of record ?

questions about Gideon's plans are being asked by numerous organisations such as the CBI

well seeing as the CBI don't post on Villatalk perhaps you could post these "questions" on their behalf ?

because if the previous own goal you scored on this wasn't enough i'll give you another chance

Today the CBI have said the Government should stick to its tough austerity package because repairing Britain’s battered finances was ‘vital’ to the recovery.

‘The economic outlook has become even more challenging, but we still expect the economy to continue to grow modestly this year and next,’ said CBI director-general John Cridland.

‘We do not believe the recovery has stalled. We will begin to make headway, but the rest of the year will be tougher than we thought.’

so where are they questionnaire Osbornes plans , if anything they appear to be endorsing it

[colhint]

can anyone explain to me the difference between the NHS has more cash, but less in real terms

[tonyh29]

can anyone explain to me the difference between the NHS has more cash, but less in real terms

the short answer is inflation

the long answer will be copied off a website and posted in detail later :winkold:

[colhint]

but if inflation is down next month does that mean they will have more cash

[tonyh29]

that is not exactly an endorsement of the policies of Gideon is it?

After the CBI gave Osbornes plans its endorsement the IMF have now ALSO endorsed his plans

Britain's economic recovery will be "bumpy and uneven" and families will be £1,500 worse off over the next five years - but the Government is on the right track.

That is the view of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in its latest health check on the state of the UK economy.

It backed Chancellor George Osborne's spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the deficit despite households having an estimated £35bn less to spend.

[colhint]

but tony I saw a politicians charity football match you played in when you to a freekick that went in off the wall. Typical more deflection

[tonyh29]

[drat01]

Good to see you quoting from the Conservative home page there Tony :-)

So the IMF are backing these set of plans are they, hmm let me see are these based on the growth forecasts of this week, or those of last or maybe the ones of a few weeks before or when exactly?

Funny how you chose to ignore the declare from the IMF also that UK families are 1500 per year worse off under this Gvmt and that will rise? link

Although it supported the Government's economic policies, the IMF said tweaks might be needed if Britain was faced with weaker than expected growth.

It warned the UK economy was "subject to considerable uncertainties" and would grow by just 1.5% this year and 2.5% in 2012.

The 2011 figure is slightly below the 1.7% forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility in March, although the forecast for 2012 is the same.

The IMF said weaker growth might require ministers to adopt "looser macroeconomic policies" such as tax cuts to stimulate demand.

A fresh round of quantitative easing by the Bank of England - effectively printing money - might also be needed.

However, the Bank might also need to dampen demand by raising interest rates from their record low of 0.5% if inflation shows signs of taking off.

Inflation will remain "well above 4%" for the remainder of 2011 before falling to meet the Government's 2% target by the end of next year.

The directors of the IMF "consider the current mix of accommodative monetary and tight fiscal policy to be appropriate", said the report.

Ajai Chopra, deputy director of the IMF's European Department, said the most likely scenario for Britain was gradual recovery with continued "headwinds".

These would be a consequence of the sluggish housing market, Government belt-tightening and firms and individuals paying off their debts.

But Mr Chopra said that another possible scenario was "a prolonged period of weak growth, high unemployment, and subdued inflation".

"We don't expect this to happen," he wrote in the Daily Telegraph. "But if such a scenario appears to be in prospect, we recommend responding quickly."

Mr Chopra said problems in the eurozone have added to the uncertain economic outlook. "It's not easy to steer a clear course in such circumstances," he added.

As the IMF does not exactly have the welfare of the UK population as its main objective, forgive me if I don't go arranging a street party just yet to celebrate this selective bits of their statement

It would be interesting to see what is the next forecast and what the excuses will be when the down turn continues, maybe Godeon can blame it on Greenfly this time?

[drat01]

And just to dampen Tony's apparent enthusiasm somewhat this article from the FT is an interesting one

Bad economic news bombarded the Treasury on Monday as new International Monetary Fund forecasts cast doubt on the chancellor’s deficit reduction plan, while near-term indicators suggested the recovery was losing the little momentum it had. The IMF judged that Britain’s economy had less capacity to grow quickly over the next few years than the government had hoped, slowing the reduction in borrowing to the point where it comes within a whisker of missing George Osborne’s main fiscal target.

Instead of eliminating his preferred measure of the deficit with billions to spare a year before the next election, Ajai Chopra, the IMF mission chief to the UK warned that the chancellor’s “mandate is met with a very slim margin”, raising the possibility that further spending cuts and tax rises would be needed. The IMF assessment came as figures showed manufacturing activity had all but ground to a halt as the third quarter started. The Markit/CIPS purchasing managers’ index fell to 49.1 in July from 51.4 in June. The weakness persuaded investors that the Bank of England was extremely unlikely to raise interest rates in the near future, pushing the UK’s benchmark borrowing costs close to their lowest levels.

Yields on 10-year Gilts fell to 2.797 per cent, just above their all-time low of 2.794 per cent from last August and far below their level as recently as February when they were at 3.89 per cent. Presenting the IMF’s annual health check on the UK economy, Mr Chopra stuck to his initial view from June that there was no need yet for any change in the government’s austerity drive, but it should be ready to alter its strategy as circumstances unfolded, he added. The Treasury latched on to this support with a spokesperson saying: “The IMF has again endorsed Britain’s strategy for reducing our deficit and dealing with our debt”.

Most worrying for households was the Fund’s new assessment that structural unemployment is significantly higher than the OBR believes. Drawing on evidence from the past economic cycle, it estimated a long-term unemployment rate of 6.8 per cent or 2.2m people, nearly 300,000 more than the official estimate of 1.9m or 5.25 per cent of the labour force. With the IMF expecting the economy to struggle to reduce unemployment, deficit reduction becomes more difficult and the experts from Washington estimate the current structural budget will only just crawl into surplus in 2015-16 by 0.1 per cent of national income.

Mr Chopra refused to endorse Labour’s Plan B of immediate tax cuts. Only if the economy appeared “likely to experience a prolonged period of weak growth and high unemployment” should monetary policy be loosened and the government consider temporary tax cuts.

[drat01]

But of course with all these cuts in public services we are going to be OK, because Dave's master plan of the "Big Society" will backfill and charities will pick up the roles. Except they can't and won't because the cuts are closing them down

link

More than 2,000 charities are being forced to close services and sack staff as local authorities slash their funding, or in some cases completely withdraw it, according to research published on Tuesday.

The study – based on 265 freedom-of-information responses from local councils across England and obtained by the union-backed anti-cuts campaign False Economy – reveals the scale of the impact that cuts are having on the charitable sector. Birmingham city council has cut funding to the largest number of charities, with more than 190 organisations losing out, followed by the cross-council organisation London Councils, which has cut funding to 174 groups.

Many charities will see their funding cut by half while others will lose entire budgets. The hardest hit include children's and young-people charities, with more than 380 organisations hit. Another 150 disability, 142 elderly and more than 110 adult care charities are also affected.

The research immediately raised questions about the role of charities as a cornerstone of the government's 'big society'. Brendan Barber, the general secretary of the TUC which sponsors False Economy, said: "The big society is looking more and more like a big con … These deep cuts to voluntary groups across the UK show that government claims that charities can replace direct services currently provided by central or local government are false."

False Economy says its survey shows more than £110m this year will disappear from charities' bottom line although this analysis, the first attempt to map the extent of the cuts in England, does not include major cities such as Leeds and Manchester as well as some large shire counties such as Hampshire or Tory flagship boroughs like Westminster. These councils refused to hand over data on the grounds it would take too long to extract the information.

The final figure is also likely to be far higher given that some large authorities have not yet finalised where the cuts will hit, and only charities or voluntary groups receiving a funding cut of at least 5% are listed in the research. The calculation includes cuts to charity's grants and where they occur some increases to budgets.

Acevo, the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, which represents 2,000 charity leaders in Britain, has warned previously that the sector could lose £750m this year alone if "central and local government passed on cuts proportionately". Another £250m would be lost because of VAT increases and reductions in tax breaks.

Peter Kyle, deputy director of Acevo, said that if ministers' pledges of extra funding, outlined in last month's public services white paper, were to materialise then there would be another £2bn for charities – enough to fill the gap left by the estimated £1bn shaved from their local government grants. "But charities are instead going to the wall because of the cuts and you cannot magic them back into existence again. It's short-sighted and mindless."

Experts also questioned whether the charitable sector could cover for the sharp drop in funding for local government. Tony Travers of the London School of Economics pointed out that local authorities last year had to bear more than £4bn in cuts – amounting to an 8% drop in real terms: "Ministers have created a much bigger challenge in hoping to expand the voluntary and NGO sector in the name of the big society with the size of such cuts."

The government blamed councils for "being short sighted in their approach [and] failing to recognise the importance of the sector". A spokesperson for the Department for Communities & Local Government said: "In their approach to budget setting, the best councils are showing that they understand that a strong, thriving voluntary sector is more important now than ever and could be the key to providing high quality, good value services to their residents. But this is not the case everywhere."

Sir Merrick Cockell, chairman of the Local Government Association, defended its decisions to cut budgets in a time of austerity. "The severity of cuts to council budgets means savings are having to be made across the board, and unfortunately funding to charities, voluntary organisations and community groups is not exempt."

Decisions to reduce financial support to the voluntary sector will never be taken lightly and local authorities have rightly carried out full and frank consultations before reducing funding to groups."ENDS

It would be very interesting to hear what the Tory party had to say about this, but apparently they wont comment, maybe with Gideon and Dave on luxury holidays they are a bit short staffed? Would be good to hear from Tory supporters on the whole Big Society farce, oops I mean plan and how they think it can work - it certainly appears to be nothing more than marketing BS

[tonyh29]

Funny how you chose to ignore the declare from the IMF also that UK families are 1500 per year worse off

Funny how you appear to be unable to read the part of my post that clearly states

and families will be £1,500 worse off over the next five years

not aware the Tories also closed down Specsavers as part of the cuts :-)

[tonyh29]

it certainly appears to be nothing more than marketing BS

this week saw £600 million reason why you are wrong yet again