altus Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Like the Irish having referendums until they get the right answer? Possibly - but that's a matter for the Irish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boblet Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Unfortunately it appears - from what appears to be threatening Ireland (and Greece and perhaps also, in the future, Portugal) that if you don't select the first option - you live as frugally as possible and pay as much back as possible over as short a period as possible - your creditors may call in the debt and you will see an even poorer standard of living. The yield on the government debt already issued was set. The government knows how much it will have to pay in interest on that debt and how much capital it must repay. The government has not stopped borrowing money however and if the creditors lose faith in the ability of the government to repay that debt, they will require a higher rate of interest (and will probably require the British government to insure the debt - which has the same effect as a higher rate of interest. The policies of the coalition government may have worried many citizens, but they appear to have pleased the potential creditors. Ireland, on the other hand, is required to pay (comparatively) very much higher rates of interest on its debt, hence a part of the the concern about whether they will be able to repay it. If the UK's creditors demanded higher interest rates and if there was any doubt about the ability of the UK to repay the capital in a timely manner, then the government might find itself in an even deeper hole. Sticking with the mortgage metaphor, the UK has an Endowment mortgage. The government does not plan to pay off the capital at any time in the near future. The mortgage must be increased and Government policies are an attempt to limit the rate of increase of that mortgage and to cap the overall amount borrowed. - Eventually. Whilst fully accepting the admirably clear and concise summary provided, the key issues in our case are the phrases if the creditors lose faith in the ability of the government to repay that debt and If the UK's creditors demanded higher interest rates and if there was any doubt about the ability of the UK to repay the capital in a timely manner You may believe, and the coalition Government certainly argue, that if the steps they want to take aren't taken, the scenario you suggest will become reality - I don't accept that assumption. I am not arguing that we should go on increasing the debt without any thought for tomorrow, I am merely arguing that a steadier reduction over a longer period would have the benefit of re-assuring lenders that a realistic plan is in place to take control of the spiralling debt, without the unnecessarily severe cuts being proposed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Yes...marvellous idea Harleyman. http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.wn.com/pd/70/13/96fe4865732b922c25b32fd7266a_grande.jpg&imgrefurl=http://article.wn.com/view/2010/08/27/Malema_highlights_issues_with_BEE_land_deals/&usg=__K_f3312T2eRgtpx36m7Ope8AZpU=&h=352&w=468&sz=32&hl=en&start=101&sig2=RAWUvyufmtjh6QGzTiFaRA&zoom=1&tbnid=5ek5vW2-OhKK-M:&tbnh=142&tbnw=200&ei=l2jhTInrJJa6jAe3sejHAQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpictures%2Bof%2Bqueen%2Belizabeth%2Blooking%2Bsour%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D1276%26bih%3D595%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C2618&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=252&vpy=187&dur=52&hovh=195&hovw=259&tx=168&ty=109&oei=32fhTJaDNeiAhAfF4JnRDA&esq=27&page=6&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:101&biw=1276&bih=595 This includes you Swami. Long faces will not be tolerated under any circumstances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free energy Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 The key to happiness is just to be happy in your own skin wherever you may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Well, why not? People usually don't tend to change their political views during one year. If they were doing that, i guess that election would be once year. Sounds logical? Well, let's have one then and find out one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Because Labour didn't win and Mecky wants us to keep having elections until they do. No, only until someone wins with a majority and parliament is not hung. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 No, only until someone wins with a majority and parliament is not hung. But hung parliaments are part of our electoral system. Let's face it, if Labour had formed a minority government and had just announced unpopular cuts you wouldn't be calling for a new election so someone can win with a majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 This includes you Swami. Long faces will not be tolerated under any circumstances You are preaching to the converted. My daily mantra is Life. Love. Laughter. Catch you later man...I'm off for an hour of Sycamore hugging. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.