This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Hrolf The Ganger 13 Mar 16 12.49pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Of course they also had the longest period of economic growth. The problem for labour, in terms of the economy was outside their control. Take the crunch out of the equation, and they were remarkably successful in terms of the economy. In large part due to the Tories in the previous administrations. See how easy it is?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 13 Mar 16 1.47pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Fullerer details here... One of the most oft repeated "economic" arguments posited by Tory party supporters is the "didn't Labour leave a note admitting there was no money left?" question, which is often used in conjunction with the absurdly counter-factual "Labour bankrupted Britain" narrative. The first thing to note about this question is that the note that was left by Liam Byrne saying that "there's no money" was intended as a joke, not as a serious statement of fact. The joke being a reiteration of the 1965 note left by the Tory Chancellor Reginald Maudling for his successor Jim Callaghan that said "good luck old cock, sorry to leave it in a mess". It's hard to believe that anyone could be credulous enough to believe that the proposition that "there's no money" was an accurate one rather than a joke, but apparently lots of Tory supporters do, and even use it as the keystone of their argument in favour of reelecting the Conservatives! It's hard to not feel like I'm being patronising in explaining what is to come in the next paragraph, but there are apparently a heck of a lot of Tories out there who honestly don't seem to understand this stuff. The idea that there ever was "no money left" is a childlike fantasy. The United Kingdom has a central bank called the Bank of England that can just create new money out of nothing via a process known as Quantitative Easing. Since the global financial sector meltdown of 2007-08 the Bank of England has created £375 billion in this way. When a country has a sovereign central bank that can create new money, the idea that there is "no money left" is economic baby talk. One of the things that this Tory reliance upon the "no money left" arguments illustrates is the incredible selectivity of the Tory mind. It seems that they have perfect recall of events in 2010 when it comes to stupid joke notes left in the treasury by an embodiment of uselessness like Liam Byrne, but when it comes to all of the promises and predictions made by Tory politicians back in 2010, they've managed to completely forget. They can remember Liam Byrne's stupid note perfectly, but they can't seem to remember stuff like George Osborne promising not to raise VAT (then raising it just 2 months later), David Cameron promising "no more top-down reorganisations of the NHS" (then launching the biggest top-down reorganisation in the entire history of the NHS) and they can't remember George Osborne predicting his ideological austerity experiment would have completely eliminated the deficit by now (it hasn't even been halved). Whenever you hear anyone use Liam Byrne's "there's no money" note as the crux of their economic argument, you can be absolutely sure that you're communicating with someone who is an economic illiterate who prefers to rote learn their opinions about the economy from the pages of the right-wing press in lieu of making the slightest effort to actually understand economic issues for themselves. Typical liberal lefty elitist boll1cks. "if you dont agree with us you're to stupid to understand". Guess what vast swaithes of the electorate understood all to well that labour policy an the economy had us going to hell in a hand cart and had enough. Not stupid, just not blinkered.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Sportyteacher London 13 Mar 16 3.42pm | |
---|---|
And who trusts the Daily Mail....the paper guilty of more court settlements than any other news paper re: mistruths
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
chris123 hove actually 13 Mar 16 4.07pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Fullerer details here... One of the most oft repeated "economic" arguments posited by Tory party supporters is the "didn't Labour leave a note admitting there was no money left?" question, which is often used in conjunction with the absurdly counter-factual "Labour bankrupted Britain" narrative. The first thing to note about this question is that the note that was left by Liam Byrne saying that "there's no money" was intended as a joke, not as a serious statement of fact. The joke being a reiteration of the 1965 note left by the Tory Chancellor Reginald Maudling for his successor Jim Callaghan that said "good luck old cock, sorry to leave it in a mess". It's hard to believe that anyone could be credulous enough to believe that the proposition that "there's no money" was an accurate one rather than a joke, but apparently lots of Tory supporters do, and even use it as the keystone of their argument in favour of reelecting the Conservatives! It's hard to not feel like I'm being patronising in explaining what is to come in the next paragraph, but there are apparently a heck of a lot of Tories out there who honestly don't seem to understand this stuff. The idea that there ever was "no money left" is a childlike fantasy. The United Kingdom has a central bank called the Bank of England that can just create new money out of nothing via a process known as Quantitative Easing. Since the global financial sector meltdown of 2007-08 the Bank of England has created £375 billion in this way. When a country has a sovereign central bank that can create new money, the idea that there is "no money left" is economic baby talk. One of the things that this Tory reliance upon the "no money left" arguments illustrates is the incredible selectivity of the Tory mind. It seems that they have perfect recall of events in 2010 when it comes to stupid joke notes left in the treasury by an embodiment of uselessness like Liam Byrne, but when it comes to all of the promises and predictions made by Tory politicians back in 2010, they've managed to completely forget. They can remember Liam Byrne's stupid note perfectly, but they can't seem to remember stuff like George Osborne promising not to raise VAT (then raising it just 2 months later), David Cameron promising "no more top-down reorganisations of the NHS" (then launching the biggest top-down reorganisation in the entire history of the NHS) and they can't remember George Osborne predicting his ideological austerity experiment would have completely eliminated the deficit by now (it hasn't even been halved). Whenever you hear anyone use Liam Byrne's "there's no money" note as the crux of their economic argument, you can be absolutely sure that you're communicating with someone who is an economic illiterate who prefers to rote learn their opinions about the economy from the pages of the right-wing press in lieu of making the slightest effort to actually understand economic issues for themselves.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Sportyteacher London 13 Mar 16 4.42pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Fullerer details here... One of the most oft repeated "economic" arguments posited by Tory party supporters is the "didn't Labour leave a note admitting there was no money left?" question, which is often used in conjunction with the absurdly counter-factual "Labour bankrupted Britain" narrative. The first thing to note about this question is that the note that was left by Liam Byrne saying that "there's no money" was intended as a joke, not as a serious statement of fact. The joke being a reiteration of the 1965 note left by the Tory Chancellor Reginald Maudling for his successor Jim Callaghan that said "good luck old cock, sorry to leave it in a mess". It's hard to believe that anyone could be credulous enough to believe that the proposition that "there's no money" was an accurate one rather than a joke, but apparently lots of Tory supporters do, and even use it as the keystone of their argument in favour of reelecting the Conservatives! It's hard to not feel like I'm being patronising in explaining what is to come in the next paragraph, but there are apparently a heck of a lot of Tories out there who honestly don't seem to understand this stuff. The idea that there ever was "no money left" is a childlike fantasy. The United Kingdom has a central bank called the Bank of England that can just create new money out of nothing via a process known as Quantitative Easing. Since the global financial sector meltdown of 2007-08 the Bank of England has created £375 billion in this way. When a country has a sovereign central bank that can create new money, the idea that there is "no money left" is economic baby talk. One of the things that this Tory reliance upon the "no money left" arguments illustrates is the incredible selectivity of the Tory mind. It seems that they have perfect recall of events in 2010 when it comes to stupid joke notes left in the treasury by an embodiment of uselessness like Liam Byrne, but when it comes to all of the promises and predictions made by Tory politicians back in 2010, they've managed to completely forget. They can remember Liam Byrne's stupid note perfectly, but they can't seem to remember stuff like George Osborne promising not to raise VAT (then raising it just 2 months later), David Cameron promising "no more top-down reorganisations of the NHS" (then launching the biggest top-down reorganisation in the entire history of the NHS) and they can't remember George Osborne predicting his ideological austerity experiment would have completely eliminated the deficit by now (it hasn't even been halved). Whenever you hear anyone use Liam Byrne's "there's no money" note as the crux of their economic argument, you can be absolutely sure that you're communicating with someone who is an economic illiterate who prefers to rote learn their opinions about the economy from the pages of the right-wing press in lieu of making the slightest effort to actually understand economic issues for themselves. Ahhh...the very Tory press barons still not paying their tax. Add to Barclay Bros. 'The Ritz' that they own where Thatcher spent her final months and ...hey ho, no tax again either.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hoof Hearted 14 Mar 16 9.50am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Sportyteacher
And who trusts the Daily Mail....the paper guilty of more court settlements than any other news paper re: mistruths I notice you never mentioned my link in the first post from the Guardian - saying pretty much the same stuff about this as the Daily Mail. I used the Guardian link because I knew lefty dreamers like you would have criticised my source if it was a right wing paper and I was right wasn't I. Priceless........
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Mar 16 11.37am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
In large part due to the Tories in the previous administrations. See how easy it is? Probably true to an extent, given that New Labour adopted a right of centre position, and favoured corporations over the electorate. However, one could argue, if the Conservatives were doing such a good job, they wouldn't have suffered such a humiliating defeat in 1997.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Mar 16 11.40am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
Hmmm. By the time of the next election, George Osbourne will have been in control of the economy for 10 years. Perhaps time for the Tories to stand on their own merits, perhaps? Let's see how far that would get them. Notably, in that 10 year period, the Conservatives would probably rank far behind Gordon Brown's period in the treasury. Credit where credits due, one of the countries longest periods of economic prosperity was under New Labour. Then again, the myth of generations, is that Government actually have any control over the economy of the UK, at best they have minor influence - arguably New Labour just did what the Conservatives did, and will do, appeal to the financial markets and corporations over the needs of the electorate.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hoof Hearted 14 Mar 16 11.53am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Notably, in that 10 year period, the Conservatives would probably rank far behind Gordon Brown's period in the treasury. Credit where credits due, one of the countries longest periods of economic prosperity was under New Labour. Then again, the myth of generations, is that Government actually have any control over the economy of the UK, at best they have minor influence - arguably New Labour just did what the Conservatives did, and will do, appeal to the financial markets and corporations over the needs of the electorate. To quote Willo... that is "Hogwash". Brown inherited the most favourable economic conditions of any Chancellor taking over yet failed to capitalise on those conditions. At the end of his spell (and Darlings brief tenure) the UK had more debt from overspending than ever before. All the hospitals and schools built under New Labour were done on credit -on unfavourable terms and it is this that is crippling us now. Brown was a disastrous Chancellor and an even worse PM. He couldn't even get the removal of the 10% band of tax right - not realising that by removing it he was hitting the poorest paid, but thought reducing the 25% band to 20% would compensate everybody. Luckily the majority of voters know not to trust Labour with the economy and are not fooled by lame excuses and claims for periods of prosperity that wasn't down to them and achieved despite their incompetence.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 14 Mar 16 12.15pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
To quote Willo... that is "Hogwash". Brown inherited the most favourable economic conditions of any Chancellor taking over yet failed to capitalise on those conditions. At the end of his spell (and Darlings brief tenure) the UK had more debt from overspending than ever before. All the hospitals and schools built under New Labour were done on credit -on unfavourable terms and it is this that is crippling us now. Brown was a disastrous Chancellor and an even worse PM. He couldn't even get the removal of the 10% band of tax right - not realising that by removing it he was hitting the poorest paid, but thought reducing the 25% band to 20% would compensate everybody. Luckily the majority of voters know not to trust Labour with the economy and are not fooled by lame excuses and claims for periods of prosperity that wasn't down to them and achieved despite their incompetence. To say nothing of the debacle surrounding the sale of gold.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Mar 16 12.49pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
To say nothing of the debacle surrounding the sale of gold. Definitely agree with that, it was a mistake, but hindsight is a beautiful thing. Problem I always had with New Labour, it couldn't be honest about balancing the books, and used the old tory approach of pretending you can have more without cost.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Mar 16 12.57pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
To quote Willo... that is "Hogwash". Brown inherited the most favourable economic conditions of any Chancellor taking over yet failed to capitalise on those conditions. At the end of his spell (and Darlings brief tenure) the UK had more debt from overspending than ever before. All the hospitals and schools built under New Labour were done on credit -on unfavourable terms and it is this that is crippling us now. Brown was a disastrous Chancellor and an even worse PM. He couldn't even get the removal of the 10% band of tax right - not realising that by removing it he was hitting the poorest paid, but thought reducing the 25% band to 20% would compensate everybody. Luckily the majority of voters know not to trust Labour with the economy and are not fooled by lame excuses and claims for periods of prosperity that wasn't down to them and achieved despite their incompetence. Ah its all the tories hard work. So why did they do so badly at the General election. The voters clearly were wrong then, but now are right? The mistake has always been to believe that political parties in the UK have the best interests of the public and country at heart. Its so lucky that the Conservatives had done so well at hitting their fiscal targets, and eliminating deficit, bringing down spending and so on. I wouldn't trust them with the economy either. In terms of the PFI schemes, I'm inclined to agree, it wasn't a great plan, but the successive cuts and under spending by government over the previous decade created a massive problem that hadn't been addressed. Plus PFI also injected a massive boost into the UK tech industry - I'm surprised so many Conservative Voters regard PFI as something terrible, I'm pretty sure they benefited from it. The problem of course, was it was more false economics, because ultimately it had to be paid for. But then we're now back into the rounds of cuts with the promise of 'no impact on services' nonsense, as absurd to me as the idea that you can fund services without paying for them.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.