What if Labour had not won?

[unbeliever]

no way will we hit deficit targets. Governments are not as powerful as you think they are. Businesses and people will decide the outcome. There could be an all out rejection of austerity.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 11:55 ----------

 

 

growth is stagnant, it's got the same problem as Japan in the 1960's.

The issue is China is important now, and with the UK's place in europe in jeopardy so many other factors could derail the recovery.

 

It's all tied up in Business and the markets / confidence.

 

 

China's growth was at about 3% last time I checked.

 

Confidence depends on sensible government. Creating yet another debt crisis with massive overspending as you suggest can only destroy it.

[TJC1]

This is the modern socialist definition of austerity again which means "continuously increasing public spending but not as fast as we would like".

 

The UK people are going to have to get used to what you laughably refer to as "austerity" which is in reality a sensible sustainable rate of increase in public spending which doesn't put us on course of end up in a worse mess than Greece.

 

Im not having another debate on "fake austerity". Really, look out the window once in a while.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 12:02 ----------

 

China's growth was at about 3% last time I checked.

 

Confidence depends on sensible government. Creating yet another debt crisis with massive overspending as you suggest can only destroy it.

 

China had an 8% growth last time I checked. It was about double that towards the back end of 2000's.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 12:04 ----------

 

It's a comparatively fast growing economy. Downwards trend and issues with stock market crash and property.

 

Its possibly a boom and bust situ.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 12:06 ----------

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11805523/Doomsday-clock-for-global-market-crash-strikes-one-minute-to-midnight-as-central-banks-lose-control.html

[unbeliever]

Im not having another debate on "fake austerity". Really, look out the window once in a while.

 

Every time you use the term "austerity" on a thread which I'm also following, I'm going to correct you. If you don't want the debate again, then stop using the term.

[TJC1]

The People’s Bank of China has pursued several measures to boost the flagging economy. The rate of borrowing has been slashed during the past 12 months from 6pc to 4.85pc. Opting to devalue the currency was a last resort and signalled the great era of Chinese growth is rapidly approaching its endgame.

Data for exports showed an 8.9pc slump in July from the same period a year before. Analysts expected exports to fall only 0.3pc, so this was a huge miss.

The Chinese housing market is also in a perilous state. House prices have fallen sharply after decades of steady growth. For the millions who stored their wealth in property, it makes for unsettling times.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 12:09 ----------

 

Every time you use the term "austerity" on a thread which I'm also following, I'm going to correct you. If you don't want the debate again, then stop using the term.

 

its even got its own wikipedia page

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme

 

The United Kingdom government austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending, intended to reduce the welfare state. The cuts have affected the National Health Service, welfare, education, and other public institutions.

 

The programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. Its original stated goal was to, "achieve cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period." At the June 2010 budget, the end of the forecast period was 2015-16. However, in 2014 the Treasury extended the proposed austerity period until at least 2018.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 12:09 ----------

 

I've underlined the important bit for you...

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 12:12 ----------

 

What evidence would that be?

 

"At the June 2010 budget, the end of the forecast period was 2015-16. However, in 2014 the Treasury extended the proposed austerity period until at least 2018"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme

[unbeliever]

 

its even got its own wikipedia page

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme

 

The United Kingdom government austerity programme is a series of sustained reductions in public spending, intended to reduce the welfare state. The cuts have affected the National Health Service, welfare, education, and other public institutions.

 

The programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. Its original stated goal was to, "achieve cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period." At the June 2010 budget, the end of the forecast period was 2015-16. However, in 2014 the Treasury extended the proposed austerity period until at least 2018.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 12:09 ----------

 

I've underlined the important bit for you...

 

That's nice. It's still not true. Public spending has not been cut.

 

From the OED:

Restraint in public spending; spec. a programme of government measures designed to reduce public spending and conserve resources, esp. during a time of economic hardship; the conditions resulting from such measures.

 

Public spending has been rising continuously. Therefore it is not a correct usage of the term. Greece has austerity. The UK does not.

 

It seems you did want the debate after all.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 12:14 ----------

 

"At the June 2010 budget, the end of the forecast period was 2015-16. However, in 2014 the Treasury extended the proposed austerity period until at least 2018"

 

That constitutes evidence that the 2015 target was not met. Which is not in dispute. It is not in any way evidence that the 2020 target will not be met.

[geared]

I can't see what the Torys would have done drastically differently to be honest, they were a pretty crap party back then, things would have roughly been the same as there wasn't the will to bother with change.

 

To be honest I think we needed the 2008 financial crisis, and the MP expenses scandal to give our politicians a good kick up the arse and remind them who they do work for.

 

They'd all got massively complacent, they'd all taken their eye off the ball and spent far too much time feathering their own nest.

 

The previous two elections have been just what this country needed, Labour took an absolute pasting and lost important safe seats, it's shown the political establishment that there is a cost of failure.

The Lib Dems lost their ass in Scotland and it's shown that there are places outside of the M25 worth bothering about.

[unbeliever]

I can't see what the Torys would have done drastically differently to be honest, they were a pretty crap party back then,

 

To be honest I think we needed the 2008 financial crisis, and the MP expenses scandal to give our politicians a good kick up the arse.

 

They'd all got massively complacent, they'd all taken their eye off the ball and spent far too much time feathering their own nest.

 

The previous two elections have been just what this country needed, Labour took an absolute pasting and lost important safe seats, it's shown the political establishment that there is a cost of failure.

 

Really?

I've already posted my opposing opinions on most of that, but you think it was worth £1trillion to teach the politicians a lesson?

[geared]

Really?

I've already posted my opposing opinions on most of that, but you think it was worth £1trillion to teach the politicians a lesson?

 

I'm sure everyone would have loved a cheaper way, but it didn't pan out like that.

 

Not so sure how you've figured a trillion either to be honest.

[unbeliever]

I'm sure everyone would have loved a cheaper way, but it didn't pan out like that.

 

More of lessons for the electors in my view.

1. When a politician tells you that he's ended recession, he's a big fat liar.

2. When a politician fails to cut the PSBR during a period of growth, vote for somebody else.

[geared]

China had an 8% growth last time I checked. It was about double that towards the back end of 2000's.

 

It's not had that growth rate for a couple of years.

 

IIRC last year was 7.5% and this year it's a bit lower, 7% or thereabouts.

It's been the main policy of the Chinese president to reduce growth to sustainable levels ever since he came to power in 2013.

 

They had been rocking along at double digit growth for ages and it simply wasn't sustainable in the long run.

 

However the financial papers are up in arms about it, China has for a long time been such a 'sure thing'.

The state stood behind its companies and picked them all up if they fell over.

As an investor you'd just chuck money into this massive hole and tons more comes out, you couldn't loose.

 

All of a sudden the Chinese are putting the breaks on, and for the first time they are refusing to bailout state companies that get themselves into trouble.