Poll: New poll on who you will vote for?

Who?

  • Labour

    Votes: 76 10.0%
  • Conservative

    Votes: 286 37.6%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 324 42.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 75 9.9%

  • Total voters
    761
Status
Not open for further replies.
We could have been in a much better position than we were if we'd had a fiscally responsible government.

Fallacy - appeal to emotion. There's no evidence that we would have been in a better position - we'd probably be in a worse position as the likely obscenely strong pound would have killed off what little manufacturing we have left.

As for PFI and public sector pensions, these aren't included in the debt figures because surprisingly, they aren't debts by any definition. Expect lots of PFIs to be renegotiated as the next government tears down public services.
 
Sorry but that's just not true. Prior to the global economic crisis, the deficit was under control at less than 3% of GDP, well within EU rules and total government debt well below the EU target of 60 %. Souce.

Make no mistake, the global banking crisis has really screwed this country up.
Simply not true. In 2004, the UK was the only country to run a budget deficit in the EU (http://bit.ly/4BeGMw).

- 2001: Adam Smith Institute warns that the “Chancellor is riding for a fall”, and that “the undermining of the competitiveness of the economy since 1997 could leave Britain particularly vulnerable.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1329044/Chancellor-riding-for-a-fall-says-think-tank.html

- 2001: Gordon Brown warned about the dangers of the personal borrowing bubble and potential downturn. The warnings are ultimately ignored. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1336805/Britons-run-up-a-debt-record.html

- 2003: The IMF warns Gordon Brown that he will breach his own borrowing rules, and stresses the need to cut the mounting public spending deficit. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3333125.stm

- 2004: The OECD warns Gordon Brown about mounting budget deficit and rate of government borrowing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3412495.stm

- 2005: Gordon Brown changes the economic cycle time-frame in which he measured his ‘golden rule’, so that he wouldn’t break it. http://www.channel4.com/news/articl...+has+gordon+brown+met+his+golden+rule/1286847

- 2005: UK has slowest rate of growth in 12 years. Gordon Brown “still didn’t heed warnings of slow-down”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4289358.stm

- 2005: Gordon Brown is warned he is ”on thin ice with the economy”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4348756.stm

- 2005: The CBI warns Brown about the criticality his widening budget deficit and spending ‘black hole’. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4413324.stm

- 2005: “The fact is [Gordon Brown] had already run out of money this time last year” - 2005, Ernst and Young Item Club, leading forecasting group. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4348756.stm



Lets also not forget Gordon Brown changed the length of the economic cycles because he had over-borrowed:
In 2005, for example, it looked like the government would miss the target. By coincidence, at that time, it added two extra years on at the start of the cycle, moving the beginning from 1999 to 1997. The government happened to run a surplus in those two years. So hey presto, the books were balanced again.

Brown may be meeting his own increasingly vague fiscal rules. But that doesn’t tell you much about rising debt - which is arguably much more significant.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articl...+has+gordon+brown+met+his+golden+rule/1286847



And about all of this just 'happening' to poor Gordon Brown:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124500992205413331.html

In relation to their long-term average, British house prices soared by 88.5% between 1997 and 2007, according to the OECD. In the U.S. the rise was 64.5%. Britain's household debt rose to 176.9% of disposable income in 2007 from 104.8% in 1997. During the same period, U.S. household debt rose only to 105.8% of disposable income from 64.3% in 1997. The increases in Germany and France were considerably lower.

Gordon Brown tolerated and even encouraged the formation of these bubbles for several reasons.

The gross value, in inflation-adjusted prices, of output from all production industries combined fell by 3% between 2000 and 2007. Their employment level dropped by nearly 1.1 million over the same period. These trends were not an inevitable result of shifts in comparative advantages that are said to occur in advanced economies. Real manufacturing output rose at an average annual rate of 2.2% in the U.S., 1.2% in Germany and 1.1% in France between 2000 and 2006, according to the World Bank.

So the boom in the financial and real estate sectors served Mr. Brown's political interests well. And he was by no means a passive bystander to their growth. He urged them along in several policy speeches. Introducing on April 1, 2005, a policy document entitled "Homebuy: Expanding the Opportunity to Own," he insisted that "this Britain of ambition and aspiration is a Britain where more and more people must and will have the chance to own their own homes."

Ignoring the inability of many house buyers to pay their mortgages, he touted this message to City bankers in successive annual speeches at the Mansion House in London, promising them "light-touch regulation." Already in 1997 he transferred the responsibility for bank regulation from the Bank of England to the inexperienced Financial Services Authority. He also curbed the central bank's ability to keep asset inflation in check by removing housing costs from the price index.

Mr. Brown also repeatedly praised the City's "innovative skills," bragging in 2006 that it was responsible for 40% of the world's over-the-counter derivatives trade -- which includes the now infamous repackaged subprime mortgages. He gave financial institutions a false sense of security by telling them on June 16, 2004, that "I am determined to ensure that we can lock in greater stability not just for a year, or for an economic cycle, but in this generation."

With this assurance from the chancellor, how could anyone expect bankers to forego juicy profits and bonuses by avoiding innovative but unduly risky practices? Because of the large size and global reach of Britain's financial sector, and the many newfangled financial instruments it created and marketed, Mr. Brown cannot honestly deny all responsibility for Britain's recession.
 
Last edited:
As for PFI and public sector pensions, these aren't included in the debt figures because surprisingly, they aren't debts by any definition. Expect lots of PFIs to be renegotiated as the next government tears down public services.
They might as well be debts. Public sector pensions are directly funded - there is no pension pot for them. PFI is purely debt 'off the books'.
 
Would you be able to cite that for me please? I would find such reading massively educational and interesting. Thank you.

It'll be from multiple sources, but sure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7853772.stm

Specifically, look at the change between 2000-2001 and 2002-2003 on the graph to see how quickly Labour reversed a large surplus into a deficit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy

You can find GDP per year data in the spreadsheet at the bottom of this one, showing the continuous growth of the UK economy during that time, hence the even greater real terms jump between 2000-2001 and 2002-2003.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/d...=c&title=UK Public Spending As Percent Of GDP

You can find the GDP percentage contribution of state spending above, to balance out claims that GDP was only rising due to state spending.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jun/29/public-sector-pensions-reform

Unfunded pensions equivalent to 85% of GDP (should be taken as part of the National debt)

http://www.cps.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=cpsarticle&id=263&Itemid=17

Shows the level of PFI debt (£139bn), unfunded pension liabilities (£1,104bn).

Combine the information in those sources, and you get all the points I raised.
 
Is the claim that Lib Dems will take away the trident subs true? It's between lib dems and tories for me, but if they're going to take away our biggest defences then I can't really justify voting for them. It seems like a stupid move.
Pretty much yes, they have said they won't do a like for like replacement. Which surely points to less subs (which wouldn't provide a constant 24hr deterrernt) or free fall bombs which are no longer credible delivery vehicles. Unfortunately, we have been very lucky since the end of the cold war and not faced a threat from another nation. This has seen our navy practically halve in size from the 1970s and people like the lib dems have started to bring out the tired old "trident's a cold war, russia bombing nasty thing we don't need". How very, very short sighted. Another Lib Dem policy on defence which doesn't seem to be getting any mention is how they won't order the last batch of eurofighters, still maybe we can share an airforce with France eh Nick?
 
Fallacy - appeal to emotion. There's no evidence that we would have been in a better position - we'd probably be in a worse position as the likely obscenely strong pound would have killed off what little manufacturing we have left.

That's not an appeal to emotion, it's wishful thinking ;)

Anyway, it's also historically backed wishful thinking, Labour can't manage an economy, see 1951, 1979 and 2010 for a demonstration of the end results of a long period of labour government.

As for PFI and public sector pensions, these aren't included in the debt figures because surprisingly, they aren't debts by any definition. Expect lots of PFIs to be renegotiated as the next government tears down public services.

Actually, the government was told it should count PFI as debt by the Financial reporting advisory board in 2007, in order to be compliant with IFRS standards. They just ignored it. (FWIW, I feel PFI is a stupid idea that gives the worst of both public and private worlds, but that's beside the point)

The pensions liabilities are completely unfunded, so must count as debt, we cannot avoid them, we have to pay for them, and they have no investment backing them. How can that be anything other than Debt?
 
That's not an appeal to emotion, it's wishful thinking ;)

Anyway, it's also historically backed wishful thinking, Labour can't manage an economy, see 1951, 1979 and 2010 for a demonstration of the end results of a long period of labour government.

1951 - a post-war economy crippled by "our friends" the Americans.
1979 - a global economic crisis exacerbated by the Conservative "Barber Boom" policies of the early '70s sparking massive inflation, industrial unrest and leaving Labour the massive headache of sorting it out.
2010 - another global economic crisis exacerbated by the adoption of Conservative-ethos "light touch" regulation as policy.

It's not like there were no economic hard times for this country before 1924 either.

Actually, the government was told it should count PFI as debt by the Financial reporting advisory board in 2007, in order to be compliant with IFRS standards. They just ignored it. (FWIW, I feel PFI is a stupid idea that gives the worst of both public and private worlds, but that's beside the point)

The pensions liabilities are completely unfunded, so must count as debt, we cannot avoid them, we have to pay for them, and they have no investment backing them. How can that be anything other than Debt?

All I know is that I pay £35 a month for my mobile phone contract and I don't consider that part of my personal debt. PFI isn't necessarily a bad thing, there have been many very successful PFI projects (I've worked on a couple) but you won't hear the government-bashing media ever talk about them.

Debt = money we have borrowed, not money we may have to borrow in future.
 
Last edited:
I'd say it was more of an attack on Brown than on Labour. This bit in particular should please the forum and provide even more reason to vote LibDem.

Perhaps you missed this part (taken from BBC on the same interview)

He also stressed there were many differences between his party's policies and those of Labour.

"Do I think Labour delivered fairness? No. Do I think the Labour Party, in its heart, has a faith in civil liberties? No. They are clutching at straws."

He told a press conference Labour had been "a stubborn block to reform and progress" for 13 years which had failed to tackle the "democratic outrage" that was the House of Lords, and added that the "old politics" with a choice of just two parties was "over".

I also again repeat my view that if Clegg sides with a third place (popular vote-wise) Labour, he will destroy any case for electoral reform when it's put to a referendum, because he will absolutely prove Cameron right. He needs to form a coalition with the winner, even if that means biting his tongue on a couple of issues, if he really wants to create a shift in politics. The lib dems are already in more coalitions with the Tories than Labour around the country, so it's certainly not unheard of.
 
1951 - a post-war economy crippled by "our friends" the Americans.
1979 - a global economic crisis exacerbated by the Conservative "Barber Boom" policies of the early '70s sparking massive inflation, industrial unrest and leaving Labour the massive headache of sorting it out.
2010 - another global economic crisis exacerbated by the adoption of Conservative-ethos "light touch" regulation as policy.

I love the smell of denial in the morning...

All I know is that I pay £35 a month for my mobile phone contract and I don't consider that part of my personal debt. PFI isn't necessarily a bad thing, there have been many very successful PFI projects (I've worked on a couple) but you won't hear the government-bashing media ever talk about them.

Do you consider your mortgage to be debt? Because that's how Labour have actually been using PFI. As for your mobile bill, cancel it during the minimum term and see what happens. You are obligated to pay a certain amount irrespective of what else happens.

Debt = money we have borrowed, not money we may have to borrow in future.

Debt = unfunded liabilities, commitments made. You are confusing obligations with maturity rates. Just because we don't have to pay it immediately doesn't mean we aren't committed to the liability.
 
Last edited:
Do you consider your mortgage to be debt? Because that's how Labour have actually been using PFI. As for your mobile bill, cancel it during the minimum term and see what happens. You are obligated to pay a certain amount irrespective of what else happens.

Of course my mortgage is debt, because it is money I have actually borrowed and not money I may have to borrow in future. If I cancel my mobile contract then I agree my future liability becomes a debt until my bill is paid. Until then however it is not a debt.

PFI is more like buy-to-let, with private companies taking on the mortgage and then renting the property to the government rather than the buying the property themselves. By doing so the government benefits from transferring a significant portion of the risk away from itself and onto its sub-contractors. Once again people have have short memories if they can't remember what happened when they tried implementing public services using fixed price contracts.

Debt = unfunded liabilities, commitments made. You are confusing obligations with maturity rates. Just because we don't have to pay it immediately doesn't mean we aren't committed to the liability.


debt
   /dɛt/ Show Spelled[det] Show IPA
–noun
1.
something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another: a debt of $50.
2.
a liability or obligation to pay or render something: My debt to her for advice is not to be discharged easily.
3.
the condition of being under such an obligation: His gambling losses put him deeply in debt.
4.
Theology. an offense requiring reparation; a sin; a trespass.

We aren't committed to the liability until the service has been delivered and therefore PFI is not debt.
 
Vote Lib-Dem - choose change!

Funny isn't it,

You were a stunch Labour supporter. As soon as it's obvious that Labour won't win, you switch to Lib dems. You've shown yourself to be skin deep and fickle.

Vote Conservative - Vote for real change!

Unless they say different, if you vote Lib-dem, you'll vote in Labour via the back door, don't let it happen people!!
 
Last edited:
By doing so the government benefits from transferring a significant portion of the risk away from itself and onto its sub-contractors.
No - this is what is SUPPOSED to happen, but it isn't. Risk isn't being spread - the private sector keep out-negotiating the government because it knows they couldn't afford it otherwise; the result is the government has all the risk, pays over the odds.

Also, I see you've completely glossed over my last response to your "The global crisis happened to Gordon" trollop.
 
Of course my mortgage is debt, because it is money I have actually borrowed and not money I may have to borrow in future. If I cancel my mobile contract then I agree my future liability becomes a debt until my bill is paid. Until then however it is not a debt.

PFI is more like buy-to-let, with private companies taking on the mortgage and then renting the property to the government rather than the buying the property themselves. By doing so the government benefits from transferring a significant portion of the risk away from itself and onto its sub-contractors. Once again people have have short memories if they can't remember what happened when they tried implementing public services using fixed price contracts.

Many of the PFI contracts do not require the service to be delivered, there are cancellation or contract breach costs roughly equivalent to the service costs (see the mobile phone minimum term example). We also are bound to pay assuming the service is delivered, and the service is contracted, there is a strict obligation here.

debt
   /dɛt/ Show Spelled[det] Show IPA
–noun
1.
something that is owed or that one is bound to pay to or perform for another: a debt of $50.
2.
a liability or obligation to pay or render something: My debt to her for advice is not to be discharged easily.
3.
the condition of being under such an obligation: His gambling losses put him deeply in debt.

4.
Theology. an offense requiring reparation; a sin; a trespass.

We aren't committed to the liability until the service has been delivered and therefore PFI is not debt.

Emphasis mine, that's exactly my point, PFI is debt, it's a liability or obligation to pay something, it is something that we are bound to pay. Don't simply argue with me, this is in line with international accounting rules as was pointed out to the government.
 
Unless they say different, if you vote Lib-dem, you'll vote in Labour via the back door, don't let it happen people!!
But if enough people vote, LibDem will get in! Pavements will be made out of chocolate and they'll be free BJ kiosks everywhere! Don't venture into the FB group - they'd believe this.
 
Many of the PFI contracts do not require the service to be delivered, there are cancellation or contract breach costs roughly equivalent to the service costs (see the mobile phone minimum term example). We also are bound to pay assuming the service is delivered, and the service is contracted, there is a strict obligation here.

My emphasis - if the service isn't delivered then there is no obligation to pay. All I can say is that none of the PFI contracts I've worked on involve paying money for no service. Unsurprisingly I am against the government signing contracts that involve paying money for nothing, I've seen no evidence that this is the case.

Emphasis mine, that's exactly my point, PFI is debt, it's a liability or obligation to pay something, it is something that we are bound to pay. Don't simply argue with me, this is in line with international accounting rules as was pointed out to the government.

It's a liability or obligation to pay for a service once delivered. The government has no liability or obligation until the service has been delivered. It's a simple point that only requires a simple argument.

If PFI is so bad why are private companies following the government's lead in buying services off other companies rather than buying assets?
 
My emphasis - if the service isn't delivered then there is no obligation to pay. All I can say is that none of the PFI contracts I've worked on involve paying money for no service. Unsurprisingly I am against the government signing contracts that involve paying money for nothing, I've seen no evidence that this is the case.

There is no obligation if the service is failed to be provided, however if the government wants to get out of the obligation, they can't without large liabilities.

It's a liability or obligation to pay for a service once delivered. The government has no liability or obligation until the service has been delivered. It's a simple point that only requires a simple argument.

Don't tell me, tell the government's financial reporting advisory board, who strongly disagree with you regarding reporting requirements.

If PFI is so bad why are private companies following the government's lead in buying services off other companies rather than buying assets?

Mostly because various rule changes made it a more efficient way of doing it. Of course they are running in a much more structurally effective manner in the first place mind you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom