Tories set to lose Britain second AAA credit rating

135

Comments

  • OLD HIPPY GUYOLD HIPPY GUY Posts: 28,199
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Phil 2804 wrote: »
    What insane increases in public spending? The public spending average when measured against GDP for the first ten years of the Labour Government was the lowest of the post war period, lower than Maggie, lower than any Tory Government. Welfare spending was also lower than that of the Major Government.

    In fact it was so low, George Osborne no less was 100% pledged to not only matching but also in some areas exceeding Labour's spending plans. That was of course until it became politically opportunist to claim spending was out of control in the middle of steep recession.

    Mind you this is the same party that in 1979 claimed unemployment was out of control and then proceeded to more than treble it in the following three years. Why anyone expects honesty and integrity from the Tory Party is beyond me.

    Lying scumbags all of them.


    Indeed my personal favourite 'double think buzz phrase' of the moment is,
    "We support those who work hard and want to do the right thing"

    REALLY? So how come they are about to impose the bedroom fine on thousands of hard working, but low paid, people?
    Because contrary to the myth they love to spread "benefit claimant" does not always mean "unemployed"
    but they dont like to mention the hundreds of thousands of low paid workers who also depend on housing and council tax benefits in order to STAY in work and keep a roof over their heads,
    doesn't quite fit in with their "every one on benefits is a scrounger" propaganda,
    even when research carried out by their own ministry shows that this is indeed a LIE

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/03/myth-welfare-scrounger

    The myth of the "welfare scrounger"

    A little noticed piece of DWP research shows that four out of five claimants spent at least three quarters of the past four years OFF unemployment benefit.


    In the real world, it’s pretty hard to find families that have never worked, let alone generations of people on the dole.

    Into this rhetorical maelstrom, was last week released a fascinating – and little noticed - piece of research by the Department for Work and Pensions on the benefit histories of dole recipients. It’s a precious piece of evidence in an argument that tends to be fuelled by anecdote, prejudice and fear (on all sides). And it rather undermines the picture that our welfare system is awash with people taking advantage of its 'something for nothing' deal.
  • GibsonSGGibsonSG Posts: 23,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    flagpole wrote: »
    that is nothing to do with the war bonds which we still haven't paid back.

    I'm not arguing that we haven't paid them back I was just showing that we paid back what we borrowed from our alies. I am well aware that in real terms we still have debts from the last hundred years that we are paying back which is made more difficualt now we longer have an empire.
  • Glyn WGlyn W Posts: 5,819
    Forum Member
    flagpole wrote: »
    War bonds were an altogether different affair. we just didn't pay them back. still haven't.

    Really? The UK didn't issue War Bonds in WW2. Spin your way out of that one.
  • GibsonSGGibsonSG Posts: 23,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glyn W wrote: »
    Really? The UK didn't issue War Bonds in WW2. Spin your way out of that one.

    Didn't we? Well I stand corrected. I shall have to go and look it up.
  • GibsonSGGibsonSG Posts: 23,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just looked it up and yes you are right it was the first world war we issued bonds for.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bond#United_Kingdom
  • Glyn WGlyn W Posts: 5,819
    Forum Member
    GibsonSG wrote: »
    Didn't we? Well I stand corrected. I shall have to go and look it up.

    I was actually adressing flagpole as he's the one that brought up War Bonds with regard to the WW2 debt.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Glyn W wrote: »
    Funny when things change though. Before losing the AAA rating it was the most important thing to judge the country's economy by; as soon as we lose it then it's relevance suddenly disappears in a puff of spin.

    As QE was the sign of a failed chancellor/government...or words to that effect. Anyone remember who said that?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    These ratings agencies. They announce they are "very likely" to do something. Why don't they just do it? Stop teasing.
  • Raring_to_goRaring_to_go Posts: 20,565
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WindWalker wrote: »
    As QE was the sign of a failed chancellor/government...or words to that effect. Anyone remember who said that?

    It must have been Gideon Gono of Zimbabwe.....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2098830/Quantitative-easing-A-dangerous-experiment-consequences-live-years-come.html
  • GibsonSGGibsonSG Posts: 23,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glyn W wrote: »
    I was actually adressing flagpole as he's the one that brought up War Bonds with regard to the WW2 debt.

    I know but I thought the same thing so there you go.
  • BrokenArrowBrokenArrow Posts: 21,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Osbournes error was trying to reduce the defecit when he should have just taken the axe and eliminated it in one go.

    It was stupid to pledge to preserve the NHS. Either that or the welfare budget has to go.
  • Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jcafcw wrote: »
    What this current Government has merely done is to carry on the shambolic, selfish, short-sighted, vote-obsessed policies of the last four decades where promising tax cuts has taken precedence over joined-up intelligent economic thinking and action.

    Exactly.

    You can expect both major political parties' 2015 manifestos to be committed to increased outstanding UK government debt.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Osbournes error was trying to reduce the defecit when he should have just taken the axe and eliminated it in one go.

    It was stupid to pledge to preserve the NHS. Either that or the welfare budget has to go.

    If he was going to do it perhaps it would have been better to cut it down 15% across the board in one year. Doing it over many years is just putting the economy into permanent deep freeze.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,845
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Osbournes error was trying to reduce the defecit when he should have just taken the axe and eliminated it in one go.

    It was stupid to pledge to preserve the NHS. Either that or the welfare budget has to go.

    Very true. But I guess he's quite scared of the political and social repercussions..
  • GibsonSGGibsonSG Posts: 23,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Very true. But I guess he's quite scared of the political and social repercussions..

    It would pretty much finish his party and create a social disaster.
  • Glyn WGlyn W Posts: 5,819
    Forum Member
    Very true. But I guess he's quite scared of the political and social repercussions..

    Vive la revolution!
  • GibsonSGGibsonSG Posts: 23,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glyn W wrote: »
    Vive la revolution!

    Yes but who will be first for the chop.
  • Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ... or the welfare budget has to go.

    all of the welfare budget ? including the welfare payments to over the 65s ?
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    WindWalker wrote: »
    Why did government debt rise markedly in 2008 through 9
    Because Labour were in charge
    and remain high since?
    Because it's difficult to pay for things like benefits, pensions, the NHS, Schools and also service the massive debt.
  • BrokenArrowBrokenArrow Posts: 21,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    GibsonSG wrote: »
    It would pretty much finish his party and create a social disaster.

    They should have said they were going to do it as part of the manifesto.

    They probably wouldn't then of got elected, which is more desirable than getting elected with no mandate to do what's necessary.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    Because Labour were in charge
    Because it's difficult to pay for things like benefits, pensions, the NHS, Schools and also service the massive debt.

    If you have no idea, just say so. Making things up won't get you very far.
  • AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,469
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Glyn W wrote: »
    And it's very different from War Bonds.

    I used to take my little booklet to school every Monday and give the teacher a thrupenny bit and she stuck a stamp into my booklet. The whole booklet was worth ten shillings and you could cash them in at the Post Office. Forty stamps to a booklet.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭

    Head out of the sand rtg.


    Osborne 2009: 'Printing money last resort of desperate govts'

    The Bank today increased its QE programme by a shock £75bn in a bid to kick-start the UK’s ailing economy. Previously only £50bn had been discussed as a possible rise. It is the first time the Bank has issued QE under the coalition government. The first round - which pumped £200bn into the economy - happened under Labour.

    ln 2009 Osborne, then shadow Chancellor, slammed Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling's emergency plan to print more money. Osborne said at the time: "The very fact that the Treasury is speculating about printing money shows that Gordon Brown has led Britain to the brink of bankruptcy.

    "Printing money is the last resort of desperate governments when all other policies have failed.


    http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline/news/2115040/bank-expands-qe-programme-gbp75bn
Sign In or Register to comment.