• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Radio
LBC 97.3 Politics Thread
<<
<
87 of 127
>>
>
MartinRosen
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“Yes, far too simple and wrong. I don't think the point could have been clearer - it's about the need for a working age population to support the increasing size of the population that needs support and claims a pension. In other words, the strain on the infrastructure is increasing massively because of the ageing population, and needs input to stop it breaking.”

Solved - Maybe we adopt the principles of the film Logan's Run

*checks birth certificate* over the age of 75 !!!
makeba72
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by MartinRosen:
“Solved - Maybe we adopt the principles of the film Logan's Run

*checks birth certificate* over the age of 75 !!!”

It's certainly one way of reducing the strain...

What colour is your hand showing, everyone?!?
gurney-slade
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“Yes, far too simple and wrong. I don't think the point could have been clearer - it's about the need for a working age population to support the increasing size of the population that needs support and claims a pension. In other words, the strain on the infrastructure is increasing massively because of the ageing population, and needs input to stop it breaking.”

I suppose that would work if the working age population didn't get sick and need medical care and didn't have children who need educating. It's across the board. Everybody places demands on the care services, regardless of age.
makeba72
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by gurney-slade:
“I suppose that would work if the working age population didn't get sick and need medical care and didn't have children who need educating. It's across the board. Everybody places demands on the care services, regardless of age.”

Oh gosh, I really didn't think I'd have to explain this.

The ageing population is putting a MASSIVE strain on the services, far beyond anything you're referring to from the other sectors. It is increasing massively, as the population balance changes and people live longer, whilst the population underneath it isn't keeping up. The cost of elderly care and pension, etc, is right up there among the most massive costs this country carries and it's only getting bigger.

It's basic economics and even the most cursory internet search will throw up just how serious an issue this for the UK.
MartinRosen
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“
What colour is your hand showing, everyone?!? ”

I can't see for all the hairs
Charlie Drake
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“
It's basic economics and even the most cursory internet search will throw up just how serious an issue this for the UK.”

I've read through some interesting articles on these issues. This is a good one:
http://populationmatters.org/documen...ng_society.pdf
From what I've read, I would conclude that the actual and projected situation is not necessarily as drastic as we are sometimes led to believe, usually because of political expediency. It's not always easy to predict, either, because demography does not always follow computer models. Who would have thought, for example, that Italy would have the lowest birth rate in the world?
sandstone
20-03-2015
Bringing in more people in to the country isn't a long term answer though is it?
a vicious cycle of needing more and more people in to prop up the increasing amount of old people.
makeba72
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by Charlie Drake:
“I've read through some interesting articles on these issues. This is a good one:
http://populationmatters.org/documen...ng_society.pdf
From what I've read, I would conclude that the actual and projected situation is not necessarily as drastic as we are sometimes led to believe, usually because of political expediency. It's not always easy to predict, either, because demography does not always follow computer models. Who would have thought, for example, that Italy would have the lowest birth rate in the world?”

That wouldn't be, erm..., 'research' you're showing us, would it? (Sorry, I couldn't resist).
makeba72
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by sandstone:
“Bringing in more people in to the country isn't a long term answer though is it?
a vicious cycle of needing more and more people in to prop up the increasing amount of old people.”

On the surface, I agree, but can you think of another answer?
tahiti
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by sandstone:
“Bringing in more people in to the country isn't a long term answer though is it?
a vicious cycle of needing more and more people in to prop up the increasing amount of old people.”

this assumes immigrants stay in the host country in old age which is mostly not the case.
sandstone
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“On the surface, I agree, but can you think of another answer?”

no, we would likely need to totally change the way we think about working and living.
a problem for bigger minds than ours, but one which will have to be addressed in the future.

Japan seems to be a good candidate for study, where the birth rate isn't enough to cover the ageing population but they don't want foreigners to come in.
Charlie Drake
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“That wouldn't be, erm..., 'research' you're showing us, would it? (Sorry, I couldn't resist).”

Leave it out!
The point was, as I'm sure you know, that just saying 'research shows that…' isn't helpful, and is often used to 'support' a biased point of view. Citations and links is what I'm after, rather than pure speculation, which is what we often get.
But…you know that.
Charlie Drake
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“On the surface, I agree, but can you think of another answer?”

From what I've read, one of the 'answers', perhaps surprisingly, could be to lower the birth rate.
But it's difficult to create legislation for this. Probably a combination of carrot and stick.
One problem with all of this is vote-catching politicians who see no further than their career in office. In other words, expedient short-termism.
Another challenge which makes predicting difficult is the lack of counting people in and out of the country, in order to be able to work with more precise figures.
makeba72
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by Charlie Drake:
“From what I've read, one of the 'answers', perhaps surprisingly, could be to lower the birth rate.”

I think I'd need to see the reasoning behind that, as it doesn't make logical sense to me. In the very long term, if you have a low birth rate and no immigration, then ultimately you have fewer older people, but it would be pretty awful in the meantime for those who need care-givers and rely on pensions funded by taxpayers, surely?
Charlie Drake
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“I think I'd need to see the reasoning behind that, as it doesn't make logical sense to me. In the very long term, if you have a low birth rate and no immigration, then ultimately you have fewer older people, but it would be pretty awful in the meantime for those who need care-givers and rely on pensions funded by taxpayers, surely?”

Research from Imperial College:
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandev...-2014-9-10-45/
Many of the actual and potential problems in the UK (and the world) are not caused by a lack of funds, but by a lack of allocation and distribution of those funds.
makeba72
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by Charlie Drake:
“Research from Imperial College:
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandev...-2014-9-10-45/
Many of the actual and potential problems in the UK (and the world) are not caused by a lack of funds, but by a lack of allocation and distribution of those funds.”

Before any comment on the article, I absolutely agree about the allocation of funds being the problem. And I could go on all day about the choices politicians make in terms of taxation, leaving loopholes open, and spending.

We can't read the whole report, as you have to be a member of the Science magazine, so this article/summary leaves me with too many questions to be persuaded yet, especially in the face of other reports that say differently.

I share the question underneath the article from an online contributor: very interesting read! just out of curiosity, is the "just-about-right" birth-rate in the UK in relation to the current pension spending only? If not, how would the birth rate have to adjust to a changing number of pensioners? So, in other words, what is the birth rate elasticity in relation to public pension spending in this "just-about-right" status-quo equilibriumin the UK, and is it reasonable from a macro-reproductive point of view?

I'd add the question as to whether that was also including immigration rates as they are at present.

I also note that the report is about 40 countries, but I think the UK has an almost unique system in terms of benefits and the NHS, so again I'm not sure how it would work or whether the effects here have been lost in the averaging out.

FInally, it also doesn't answer the question about the size of the workforce. One report I read, and I'm afraid I don't keep links to point to you at, suggested that regardless of money, there simply wouldn't be enough working people to sustain the increasing care needs of the elderly population. In other words, proportionally, the number of working people in the health and social sectors would grow so much that it wasn't going to happen.
Charlie Drake
20-03-2015
http://www.cityam.com/1412942583/low...my-says-report

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../364/1532/3023

http://www.economist.com/node/14743589
Chuck Wao
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by sandstone:
“no, we would likely need to totally change the way we think about working and living.
a problem for bigger minds than ours, but one which will have to be addressed in the future.

Japan seems to be a good candidate for study, where the birth rate isn't enough to cover the ageing population but they don't want foreigners to come in.”

Foreigners can and do go and work in Japan - what they cant have is a passport which are very tightly regulated : unlike the UK where they are doshed out like confetti .
makeba72
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by Charlie Drake:
“http://www.cityam.com/1412942583/low...my-says-report

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../364/1532/3023

http://www.economist.com/node/14743589”

Thanks Charlie - it'll take a while, but I'll read through those. I'm afraid the last link says it's no longer active, though.
Charlie Drake
20-03-2015
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“Thanks Charlie - it'll take a while, but I'll read through those. I'm afraid the last link says it's no longer active, though.”

Cheers, Makeba - not sure what's happening with The Economist link, but I'll have a look…
Edit - I think maybe they block copying and pasting, in order to encourage taking out membership.
Nihonga
29-03-2015
Now the election campaigning is underway and LBC will saturated with near wall-to-wall coverage of it, I thought some of you might be interested in this really quite useful article from the Independent. It makes a summary assessment of the Coalition's achievements, its promises set against what they actually what they managed to deliver.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10141419.html

ETA: Strange that the article didn't include the rise in the use of food banks. Then again, according to the Cameron/Miliband debate on Thurs, I'm inclined to think the Tories and New Labour were just as responsible for the rise in their usage. Miliband believed and argued that the gap in economic and social inequality widen under New Labour; the Coalition merely exacerbated it.
makeba72
29-03-2015
Thanks for that article.

Could anyone explain to me about the whole 'deficit being cut' thing? That article claims it's been cut in half, Osborne claims a big success in reducing debt and borrowing, but then there are other claims that in fact, debt and borrowing has risen under the Coalition if you look more closely at the real figures.

Who's right?
Nihonga
29-03-2015
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“Thanks for that article.

Could anyone explain to me about the whole 'deficit being cut' thing? That article claims it's been cut in half, Osborne claims a big success in reducing debt and borrowing, but then there are other claims that in fact, debt and borrowing has risen under the Coalition if you look more closely at the real figures.

Who's right?”

It's truly confusing, isn't it?

According to this from the BBC, that understanding what the economic terms actually mean is key and then to go on to understand what each term does in context also important.

But from what I understand from that article, there seems to be a misappropriation of the way the government, the opposition and other commentors use the terms in public discourse. For instance, when politicans and other commentors are talking about "the deficit", in what context are they using and talking about the term? Are they referring to 'the current budget deficit' or 'the structural/underlying deficit' or 'Total UK debt' or 'Net Govt Borrowing' when it seems that each term refer to very different things? For example among other points of confusion, when refering to 'net borrowing', is the govt 'borrowing' to invest to stimulate the economy into growth or is it borrowing to make a short-fall/deficit in public finances (which merely "debt" in any other parlance)?

From what I can deduce from all that the article is saying is this: *When the Coalition govt are talking about "the deficit" falling, they are actually refering to the structural/underlying deficit and not necessarily the current budget deficit and/or indeed net government borrowing, both of which are still on the rise (as of March 2015). In other words, the Coalition/Conservatives are claiming that under their economic stewardship their policies in tackling the current budget deficit and govt borrowing are resulting in an overall down-ward trend thus giving us an overall picture of debt reduction - i.e. the rate at which our total national debt grows is actually falling. So Obsorne is right in claiming that the rate in net borrowing (and thus the rate of growth of our total national debt) is falling. But, of course, that is only half the picture as Labour and other commentors argue: Our total national debt is still rising because we are still operating budget deficits. and net borrowing continues to increase. The real key is to reducing our total debt is to get net borrowing down year-on-year by balancing the budget and working towards budget surpluses over the coming years and decades - which is something the govt is simply failing to achieve year-on-year.

I guess if the electorate understands more acurately the way politicans use the term 'deficit', they will be better placed to address the question the Conservatives are asking them: "Which party and their policies do you think will make a better fist at tackling the underlying structure and trend of the UK economy towards long-term debt reduction?" The Conservatives would argue that they have the figure to prove that. However, Labour are also better placed to ask the electorate: "Which party and their policies do you think will make a better fist at tackling the underlying structure and trend of the UK economy towards long-term debt reduction without indebting the nation year-on-year and triggering a fall in our living standards and making our social and economic lives unbearable?" They too will have (and do) have the figures to prove the hypothesis behind the question.

------------------------------------------------------
*According to the BBC article: You will hear some politicians, particularly from the Conservative Party, talk not just of deficits, but of structural deficits.. As the article says: "the structural deficit is basically 'the current budget deficit, adjusted to strip out the cyclical nature of the economy'. You would expect, for example, the budget deficit to narrow when the economy grows after a sluggish period. The structural deficit attempts to exclude the effect of this recovery. In other words, the structural deficit is "the bit of the deficit that remains even when the economy is operating at full tilt". Or put another way, it's the underlying deficit that is not directly affected by economic performance" (my italics).

And then there is the meaning of the term of another "deficit" that politicans and economists talk about, which is 'the current budget deficit'. Again referring to the article, this particular deficit is "the difference between the government's everyday expenses and its revenues; in other words, between what it spends and what it receives. In recent years, it has spent a lot more than it receives, so we are used to hearing about a budget deficit ... And there is a direct link between the current budget and debt. If the government runs a [budget] deficit, it is effectively overspending and, therefore, in most cases adding to the overall pile of debt. By running a surplus, the government can chip away at this pile" (my italics).

And yet again, while the meaning of this particular "deficit" - i.e. the current budget deficit is clear (as is the meaning of the other "deficit" - i.e. structural/underlying deficit - is clear), there is still remains a misappropriation of the way the word "deficit" is used in public discourse. While it seems, according to the article, that the Coalition (particularly the Tories) are referring to the structural/underlying deficit when addressing the issue of the "deficit" in public interviews etc, other politicians are referring to and talking about something entirely different: Ed Balls "as a former Treasury man ... {is] talk[ing] about the current budget [deficit]" while others are "actually referring to government borrowing".
makeba72
04-04-2015
I forgot to say thank you for that long explanation, Nihonga, apologies. It was much appreciated.

I see LBC has yet another advert for the Tory party today, inviting the boss of Yo Sushi onto the show as someone who 'was' socialist, but now thinks the Tories are better for business. DM's introduction to him tried to make out that this conversion made him a neutral... even more 'propoganda' for the blue team, then.

Mind you, I was interested in how Yo Sushi is branching out into new types of business. He talked about starting 'Yo-tels' (hotels) and then mentioned 'Yo Ho's'... Now, I'm not sure where anyone else's mind went when he said that, but I'd like to suggest that he change that name quite soon!

Erm....
clitheroe1
04-04-2015
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“I forgot to say thank you for that long explanation, Nihonga, apologies. It was much appreciated.

I see LBC has yet another advert for the Tory party today, inviting the boss of Yo Sushi onto the show as someone who 'was' socialist, but now thinks the Tories are better for business. DM's introduction to him tried to make out that this conversion made him a neutral... even more 'propoganda' for the blue team, then.

Mind you, I was interested in how Yo Sushi is branching out into new types of business. He talked about starting 'Yo-tels' (hotels) and then mentioned 'Yo Ho's'... Now, I'm not sure where anyone else's mind went when he said that, but I'd like to suggest that he change that name quite soon!

Erm....”

Yo Sushi would probably have gone bankrupt, along with thousands of other businesses, had the last Labour government not bailed out the banks.
<<
<
87 of 127
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map