´óÏó´«Ã½

The day after the election the ´óÏó´«Ã½ told us that George Osborne's policies would result in a double dip recession. You continued to promise us a double dip recession many times a day for several months after the recession and you enlisted various members of the Labour Party in support of your promise. So far you have not only not kept your promise but your have failed to offer any explanation for breaking your promise.

You might think you bear no responsibility for your extravagant and baseless promises but I think you should provide an explanation for why, and for what purpose, you chose to broadcast a load of rubbish about the economy.

IS ADHERENCE TO A RELIGIOUS DOGMA DE FACTO PREJUDICE?

Yes. Would anyone argue otherwise? Much accrues. . .

"AN HONOURABLE AND DECENT MAN"

At the Iraq Enquiry, a close aide to Tony Blair has asserted that Tony is 'an honourable and decent man'.

Why does it not seem to show in what he has said and done since '97?

Is it me?

"Prejudice against Muslims has "passed the dinner-table test" and become socially acceptable in the UK, according to Baroness Warsi, co-chairman of the Conservative Party"

Er, why do you reckon that is then? Care to hazard a guess.

Hmmmm... I think I might be tuning in to RT at 10:30pm instead:



David Malone & Max Keiser tell it how it really is.

@Maggie - How about these charts for a sign of a double dip recession? Funny how none of the media outlets actually report how Consumer Confidence is doing these days:



These charts say "bleak" to me. Combine it with escalating food, fuel and energy prices and perhaps 2011 might be a bit bumpy, to say the least.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Why is Warsi making her speech in Leicester? Preaching to the converted I would hazard a guess.

Why not in deepest little englander land? Where they all wait to be converted to religion. Surely that is where the supposed bigot is? And not just sit around the dinner table discussing their jobs/houses/children/money/theatre/films seen/celeb gossip! ; )

ENDORSEMENT (#5)

Anyone who can should watch Keiser as HP suggests. I swa it in the early hours this morning. Keiser is always a bit wild, but 'our man' has gravitas to spare and is just what this mess needs.

In passing, please also watch Chilcot - Sir Stephen Wall's evidence - 1'30" in to 1'45". messianic Tony writ discretely large.

Norman Tebbits comment on Warsi's view of us brits

WHEN IS A BONUS NOT A BONUS - WHEN IT'S COMPENSATION (#6 link)

Like I said, recently, this is way past 'Alice's Adventures'. And when I realised the guilty ones were playing NLP games, by changing the laughable word BONUS to the 'displacement-speak' word COMPENSATION, I could hear the Emperor sweating under the weight of inappropriate clothing for the time of year.

1.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ said there was a RISK of a double dip recession - not the same thing at all - and leading Tory ministers said similar things about the risk coming from a meltdown in the global financial system - i.e. Ken Clarke.

If you assess the impact of Alistair Darling's construction industry stimulus package - 300,000 construction jobs - plus the olympics probably another 250,000 jobs - without these public sector projects the UK would have slipped into recession after the election - it takes time for policy to feed into the economy and produce change - so for the first year of the coalition, we were in effect living with Labour's economic policies, not Osborne's.

Look at yesterday's unemployment figures - the private sector is not growing at all, whilst it needs to create a million NET new jobs this parliament according to the OBR.

There are probably a million public sector jobs going to be lost this year if you count all the sectors like local government in - plus another million construction jobs as projects come to an end.

Inflation is high because the pound is so weak - you can begin to see the makings of a perfect storm here - ballooning unemployment and welfare costs, UK deficit getting bigger not reducing, trade deficit mounting and no scope to cut interest rates or increase public spending.

Real living standards are falling steeply and 1 in 5 16-24 year olds is out of work and unemployment has just risen above its forecast rate.

The spending cuts are only now beginning to bite and the Darling stimulus package that kept the economy out of recession is ending.

Only when the Labour stimulus package ends and the job loses in the public sector bite will the economy probably go into recession.

Or you might think that it's perfectly possible to take £1Tn+ of aggregate demand out of our economy in the current economic climate at home and in our export markets, and it will have no effect.

Eire was a year further down the track than the UK in terms of drastic spending cuts for deficit reduction - how do you fancy a 40% fall in house prices and having your pension fund confiscated to bail out the banks here as well as a big hike in taxes?

A few years ago George Osborne hailed Eire as a "shining beacon" in economic policy - he's followed virtually exactly the same path as the Irish government has....

The brown stuff should hit the extractor Winter 2011, I'd say...

.... several commentators agree with me.

With the FTSE currently above 6000, I'm liquidating all my pension assets, paying off my mortgage and investing in farm land (finite supply, so no more being made and people will always have to eat - and so will we) - and waiting for the perfect storm to hit.

A second banking crisis in the UK is on the cards from the EuroZone problems and not being in the Euro leaves the UK at the mercy of speculators - get ready for the £5 litre of fule and the £5 loaf of bread...

HAIL BIGOTS! (#10 link)

Britain's Implacably Godless Obstinate Tribe.

I am proud to be one of you - in the eyes of those who cannot see.

Nuff sed.

warsi should keep her mouth shut for once. I can't believe that she has managed to make me agree with Tebbit. Do we really need to go over this again? Shall we explore every minority group who feels discriminated against?

if she wants to speak up about such matters, i *STRONGLY* suspect most UK Muslims would be more grateful to her if she raised the topics of Afghanistan, or Palestine, rather than shrilly whine about "dinner-table topics".

or she should take up the issue of general racism and xenophobia in the press full stop, and maybe if she was very very brave, she would tackle the question of ownership and monopolisation of the mass media.

frankly, i expect Muslims around the UK, immigrant, born here or converts, to have put their head in their hands at the thought of another 'telling off' by some well-meaning idiot that will actually fuel the very behaviour she is supposed to be reducing. The comments on this blog over the last 2 days illustrate nicely why Warsi's speech will cause more harm than good, although, to be honest, i think that it is due to inexperience and bad advice, rather than malice on her part. The same will definitely not be true of those who will seize upon her comments though.

richard bunning: exceptional. Spot on analysis.

I've blogged my thoughts on Baroness Warsi's Islamophobia claim:

"How should local councils set their priorities? They were under fire yesterday for planning to close libraries."

so much for all that mightily chest-thumping "Victorian Values" the Tories keep bleating about, like posing in front of statues of Winston, or proclaiming their admiration for UK culture whilst planning to sell off the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to Rupert Murdoch.

i thought in the 80s, then the 90s, then the 00s, that NOW i had plumbed the mendacity and tar-filled trap that passes for souls in politicians - now finally i am realising that there really are NO limits to the depths they will plummet to.

Ambrose Beirce, my apologies for regarding you as too cynical in my earlier years:

--"POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. "

--"POLITICIAN, n.
An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When we wriggles [sic] he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive. "

MORK - HELLO - THE LADY IS A TRAINED LAWYER! (#14)

"i think that it is due to inexperience and bad advice, rather than malice on her part."

I suggest, m'lud, that the above comment has a fool or knave quality about it. I further suggest, that Lady Warsi, skilled as she is, has given much 'aforethought' to her remarks and her intent, but as to 'malice': Mork might say that - I could not possibly comment.

'The mother of a disabled child has criticised Prime Minister David Cameron saying he should do more to protect respite care for families like hers.'

Is she accurately representing the situation, and/or are the facts in turn being accurately represented in 'reports'.

This comes across as the latest heartbreaking cuts consequences story, but there surely is a distinction to be made between doing less with less, and a person seeking more when less is in the kitty? 'Protect' infers a loss. Is that the case here?

Equally, considering the manner of reporting I have been exposed to, it all seems laid at Mr. Cameron's door. I carry no flag for him at all, but to what extent is he responsible and/or empowered to meet this lady's demands?

It seems pretty clear she is at her wits end, and even that there is a clear financial case to be made for assisting, but some seem more keen on petty personal politicking than actually getting to the root of what this young girl needs, what is in the way and the best solution to get around that. I'm getting the impression that a single case is getting inaccurately conflated with a bigger picture and, depending on affiliations, certain aspects are getting played up whilst others are quietly sidelined.

I used to rely on the MSM to do the job of sifting the hype to get to the facts, but such objective, non-tribal, sensationalism-free sound bite averse professionalism is a long past pipe dream, where news has become simply more views.

If Kevin Maguire or somesuch gets invited on to 'comment' tonight again, especially on emotive phrase side issues that only excite WUVIs seeking a headline grabber, I'll know you'll have lost it. Equally any Labour short-term memory loss megaphone, unless they get asked why Gordon wasn't in the hot seat on this when he was saving the world, the poor, kids, etc with, as it turns out, no more money either but a more 'flexible' approach to debt.

#17: then she is a [bleep], if you are correct Barrie, and i make no apologies for using that word.

she seems to have aged 20 years or more since her performance on QT a year or so ago, when she was suddenly overtaken by a desire to inform everyone of the primary importance of Human Rights. I remember thinking how cute she looked. Now she reminds me of the nurse in 'One flew over the Cuckoos Nest', blended with every horrifying 'blue-rinse' stereotype of the 80s.

if it turns out that this IS part of an orchestrated Tory attempt to shift the gaze of the Public from bankers, warfare, corporate corruption, educational cuts and health privatisation, and onto this minority group YET AGAIN, and it WILL be obvious, - words fail me.

I COMMENT FROM A POSITION OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

If Cameron were more sensitive (not usually part of the party-political mentality) he might realise that his underlying wealth - giving him access to medical care, at the drop of a cheque - disqualifies him referencing the plight of others to his own, recent, situation. He cannot win when challenged in this area, but a more real person might lose less messily.

THAT SITS WELL WITH MY OWN COINAGE MORK (#16)

"Politics is the art of self deception, wrapped in the craft of deceiving others for their own good."

PARTY politics is all of the above, raised to an obscene power.

#15: petros, seriously, look around you at the World. How many countries is Islam occupying "for their own good". How many people aound the world are dying due to Islamic-nations imposed sanctions? How much money are Islamists spending on WMD, warfare, aircraft carriers, general arms, Trident, compared to OUR countries?

yes, Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is intolerant. Its built into most monotheism. But in fact, even a brief reading of history/comparitive religion will deonstrate to you that of the three, Islam wins hands down in the liberal stakes.

if you REALLY want to investigate a totalitarian religion, that is peparing openly for, and even trying to create "Armegeddon", let alone being hysterically intolerant, look up the some of the US Christian Fundamentalist groups, or Opus Dei, or the Fundamentalist Rabbis spreading a tainted teaching of the Kabbalah.

it is ever easier to point fingers at the excesses of those who are currently the supposed 'hate-figures' of popular culture, but more revealing of a mature conciousness is the ability to critique ALL elements without favour or secret prejudice.

dislike Islam if you want. But if you wish to be intellectually and morally honest, try appling the reasons you don't like Islam to other groups as well, and seeing what you find.

I CAN ONLY COMPUTE A COUPLE OF LAYERS OF SKULDUGGERY AT ONCE(#19)

Forsooth Mork! That makes too much Machiavellian (aka Westminster) sense to be lightly dismissed! It is JUST THE SORT OF CARP THE UNACCOUNTABLE BACKROOM WEASELWORDERS COME UP WITH.

I shall monitor the Lady with a greater number of pixels from now on.

#21: barrie, you might enjoy a peruse of his whole dictionary! :)

barry: there is infinitely more sense coming out of the blogrealm and the streets than from the PALACE of Westminster. If ever the UK needed democracy, it is now.

#6: interesting link, brossen.

Baroness Warsi's imminent speech may well clarify some of the points grabbed by the media and some strident bloggers.

The "dinner table test" is clearly a reference to Tebbit's "cricket test"; my understanding of her comments so far suggest that what she means is that the middle classes now feel able to discuss prejudice against muslims; included in those middle classes are of course muslims, lawyers like herself.

I think she's saying that the media stridency about religion in general and what passes in their media shorthand as "Islam" in particular is something that needs to be discussed openly and in that, I do agree with her.

The Taliban or al'Quaida are no more typical of Islam than the I.R.A. were of Catholicism.

There are extremists at both ends of the spectrum; the strident atheist and the canting fundamentalist.

What I find quite vulgar is this type of throwaway generalisation, typical of the sixth former; "yes, Islam like Judaism and Christianity is intolerant."

Mork? needs to do a bit of growing up.

AH YES - THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (#25)

The Palace of Westminster can be likened to a black hole. In there, all the normal laws break down, and nothing makes any sense that can be described. The black hole, sucks in reality and transmutes it to an incredibly dense mass called Governance. Then, defying all reason, it spits out a stream of improbability initiatives, that interfere with normal matters of great importance, distorting reality.

Oh hell - I can't write any more of this - it's too painful.

21; I do sometimes become exasperated by these cynical comments; what do you want?

Anarchy? The dictatorship of the proletariat? A People's Republic? Fascism? Despotism? What, Barrie?

Defining stances by what is not wanted is somewhat bereft of vision, don't you think?

WELL KASHI - WE CAN START WITH YOU READING WHAT I WRITE (#29)

That is if you truly want to understand my credo. I have spelled it out, played devils advocate with it, believed in it (however briefly) despaired of it and offered a starting point to its achievement.

I assert that one needs to DEFINE a problem before it can be effectively tackled; #21 defines. To define 'cynic': I aspire to being a (4th century BC Greece) Cynic.

I think that covers it - or was your motive ulterior?

#27 kash: i would certainly agree that a reasoned discussion of "Islam" would be beneficial. But do you honestly believe that is what will happen from her comments? Do you think it will induce discussions about points like these:



or will it be more tabloid-inspired and directed hysteria?

i hope you are right. And in ANY understanding of the word "intolerant", the major faiths do not do well. Nor, for that matter, do atheists.

vulgar? Perhaps. But based upon experience and observation, nonetheless.

#30; playing "devil's advocate" is a truly dramatic description; in Goethe's Faust Mephistopheles declares, "I am the spirit who eternally negates."

Somewhat apt.

In the Islamic world our sort of politics is frowned upon as an attempt to replace the rule of god with man-made government.

Long ago we asked our God if he and his appointees would kindly deal with the major issues like "is there life after death?" and "where is that other sock?"and leave the minor tasks (like shall we commit genocide)to politicians ....and whichever moneylender or american president holds most power over them at the time.

But recently hard religion seems to be muscling back in to politics and government using the old wheeze of claiming that it`s being victimised....and discriminated against!

I`m beginning to feel as anxious about "the faith community" as I am about organised crime!

Balls being chancellor to millipede is like attaching a Ferrari engine to a wheel-barrow.

Leader flopp'Ed chose Johnson originally because he was afraid of Balls popularity - plus his own economic complete ignorance, and lack of duty to anything except his own career, making the choice now seem somewhat forced. I wonder why Johnson felt the need to step down suddenly?

either way, although i an heartily glad Balls is now running the Shadow treasury, it is slightly worrying that some voters may be swayed by Balls undoubted vantage over Osborne, and believe Labour is worth voting for again.

Under Milliband, it emphatically is not.

there is no real other choice to voting for the Greens, or independents.


and the Tories should be very careful of referring to Brown - many voters are probably beginning to think longingly of the 'Brownite' days, for the Tories are doing the same things wrong - but 10x worse.

we might remember now that NuLabour was called "Tory-lite", and with very good reason when compared to the full-on version.

#34 So you think it's ok that brown and balls got us into 1 trillion in debt then MH?



Crumbs with money men leading the way like them, we could make it 2 - 3 trillion when they get back in!

So are you paying back up front cash for the £40,000 owed in your household?

PUZZLING HIJACK OF QUESTION TIME BY ALASTAIR CAMPBELL

As Campbell protected his two great loves: Blair and New Labour, Dimbo sat impotent. Was it orders, fear, or is it time to replace him?

Campbell's obsessive, protective blustering, was an insult to all competent minds - he should have been put in the corner.

35

We need a reasoned analysis of the Brown economic legacy.

Role of government & BoE in the economy:

1. Take the heat out of inflationary periods by taxing more, running a surplus and raising interest rates.

2. Take the sting out of a recession by borrowing and spending more and BoE cuts interest rates.

This combination of fiscal and monetary policies is described as COUNTER-CYCLICAL action - it irons out the effects of booms and busts, which makes UK PLC more efficient because it prevents the worst excesses at either end of the cycle - Brown's gold rule was that the surpluses and deficits should balance each other out over the cycle - "prudence" in his own words - but IMHO he didn't change this rule - the whole rulebook of the global economic game were changed overnight and he was powerless to do anything about it.

What happened to cause this - and was Brown to blame for it?

Firstly, the economy was going into a mild recession - then the world's banking system self-destructed overnight and there was a huge risk of the commercial banking sector disappearing. This was caused by a number of factors virtually exclusively from the USA - sub-prime mortgages and worthless paper dressed up as "special financial vehicles" - i.e. a massive con trick - suddenly Leaman Bros et al were caught out and had to realise these huge loses and went bust.

What should the UK government do?

Firstly UK PLC invested vast sums in buying equity in the banks to recapitalise them - the alternative? No banks, deposits disappear, unforseen collapses in companies suddenly without credit or access to their money - back to bartering until a new state bank could be established - the choice to prop the commercial ubanks p was the least worst option - and we can sell UK PLC's stockholding in the banks at a later date - currently showing a healthy profit.

The paralysis of the banks resulted in the credit squeeze - no money to lend, so no money to borrow. The effect of the credit tap being turned off was a sharp fall in demand - and a recession heading for a global slump.

What should government do now?

Counter-cyclical doctrine and the experience of the Great Depression of the 1930s tells us that governments need to inject demand into the gloal and domestic economy to stop it going off a cliff - this means borrowing and spending.

The difference in this case was the scale of the borrowing - add in the bank recapitalisation and the stimulus package and critics are right in saying it's a record.

Where they are wrong is that you cannot view the bank recapitalisation as the same thing as running a "normal" deficit - for start there is an ASSET there which can be sold - bank shares - and unlike hiring a council worker or commissioning a new road, the bank holdings can be unravelled and the borrowing repaid without recourse to tax rises of spending cuts.

If you blame Brown for all this you are simply shooting the messenger - he had nothing to do with the credit crisis and if he hadn't recapitalised the banks, then god help us.

We are currently still feeling the benefit of the stimulus package Alistair Darling put in place - but we are about to feel thev full force of the "negative stimulus" of the spending cuts.

What would a sensible, pragmatic economic do as Chancellor?

Firstly in assessing the level of UK PLC debt, he'd discount the value of the bank holdings from the total debt because they are a realiseable asset we will eventually cash in and use the money to replay the debt - next he'd accept that the credit crisis wasn't "business as usual" it was a very serious crisis unrelated to the normal economic cycle - and one that should not be balanced out over a single cycle - i.e. probably two parliaments or more.

Should Broewn have thrown on the brakes earlier, cutting spending harder, sooner?

Clearly with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, we now know that cutting spending would have kept UK PLC in recession with lower GDP, lower incomes and higher unemployment, all of which would probably have produced the same level of deficit anyway due to higher welfare payments and lower tax take.

The ConDems believe that they can cut the deficit over this parliament. They propose to do this by £110 Bn of tax rises and spending cuts. As each £ borrowed and put into the economy circulates and changes hands several times, taking £110 Bn out is magnified - I'd say by a factor of up to ten. We call spending money in UK PLC as "aggregate demand" - and if you take my figure of 10, that equates to a fall of £1Tn.

In an economy barely keeping its head above recession, with our export markets in a similarly fragile state, conventional wisdom says UK PLC will be tipped into a deep recession.

However, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility says we're going to get loads more new private sector jobs, billions of investment and our exports will surge.

This is because of a quasi-religious belief that the public sector "crowds out" the private sector, so hack back public spending and the private sector will expand to fill the gap - the "magic of the market" will ensure that underused resources are snapped up and applied to make money.

So who do you believe? did Brown splurge our money and leave us in so much debt that we need a stiff dose of spending cuts to pay them off?

Or do you see the current plan as a dangerous gamble based on ideology not economics?

Luckily we will find out who was right in the next 18 months.

There is however a precedent for Osborne's plan - a very similar austerity plan was implemented in Eire, which he described as a "shining example" of a successful economy.

Eire is now on its knees unable to service its debt and unable to stimulate its economy because the spending cuts have so surpressed demand that GDP shrank by 17% last year and house prices fell by 40%.

The verdict of history will be that Brown was a boringly conventional Chancellor faced with an unprecedented crisis that left him little or no choice.

Osborne on the other hand is likely to be seen as the man who drove UK PLC over a cliff in the winter of 2011.

lizzy, #35: "Britain’s government debt smashed through £1trillion for the first time yesterday – a staggering £40,000 per household.

Campaigners branded the milestone ‘terrifying’ and warned that taxpayers will have to foot the bill for decades to come.

Debts of £1trillion – an almost unimaginable figure with 12 zeros equivalent to one million million pounds – mean Britain will pay interest of £43billion this year alone."

- why?


"From boon to bust: The staggering figure comes after unprecedented levels of borrowing by Labour under Gordon Brown (left) and Tony Blair to pay for lavish state spending and the bailout of the banking system"

- that's right - the majority of the debt comes from the up to £1,500,000,000 we almost literally GAVE to the banks. That "lavish state spending" was the in fact miserly growth in actual money to the NHS, most of the increases went in to ring-fenced 'high finance' works, such as new hospitals built by the Corporate sector. Most of the rest went in necessary pay increases for normal staff, doctors and nurses (although despite increases in responsibility for nurses, doctors got the lions share, that is true). Education also got some extra spending, notably on "AKKkademies", notionally State schools but actually operated usually at a profit by corporations.

yet as i said, the lions share of the "bounty" from nuLabour went to the banks and Corporations, the only difference between *.*Labour and the 'Conservatives', is that not ALL the tax-payers monies go to the Corporations.


"That is nearly £120million a day and more than the government spends on defence.

It comes after unprecedented levels of borrowing by Labour to pay for lavish state spending and the bailout of the banking system."

- see above. Funny how "the borrowing" is always cast upon the arms of the welfare state, and not upon the military, or their hesitance to either tax, or check up on the taxes that should be paid, by the Corporations, isn't it? Looking at where the taxes go, is NOT mutually exclusive to keeping an eye on who actually pays taxes, is it? Both can happen at the same time. And it is remarkable how rarely the Tory govt refers to the debt caused by the bailout of the Banking sector!! Why would it cause ashes in their mouth to admit much of the problems, closing hospitals and schools, forcing the privatisation of both health and Education, have been caused by the failures of regulation in the past, and a lack of will in the present generation of Government?

to be honest, i don't - i just think it would cause them anguish to admit the truth. Mainly, it has to be said, because their policies would then fail, rather than a non-desire to tell the truth. They just don't think we would 'believe' them.

funny, that.


"George Osborne plans to slash annual borrowing of £156billion under Labour to £35billion by 2014-15 through £81billion of spending cuts and £30billion of tax rises."

- tax rises upon *whom*? The poor and normal citizens? I think we know that already.


"But it does not include items such as the cost of public sector pensions and private finance initiatives - or people’s own mortgages, credit cards, overdrafts and personal loans.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance said the real national debt was close to £8trillion – or more than £300,000 per household."

- Probably true, and most of that debt to Corporates, and their banks. Who deliberately sold cheap debt, to people who could hardly afford it. And that includes (local) companies.


"The Ernst & Young Item Club yesterday forecast growth of 2.3 per cent this year and 2.8 per cent in 2012.

- do they have to apologise when they are wrong?


"Tory MP Matt Hancock, a close ally of Mr Osborne’s, said: ‘Labour maxed out the nation’s credit card and burdened our children and grandchildren with £1trillion of debt."

- indeed. And his own wider family have been beneficiaries. As has Mr Osborne's. Food for looong thought.


thank you for that mail article, lizzie. It reveals much.


x

RB: superb structure.

some hints, perhaps?

"This was caused by a number of factors virtually exclusively from the USA - sub-prime mortgages and worthless paper dressed up as "special financial vehicles" - i.e. a massive con trick - suddenly Leaman Bros et al were caught out and had to realise these huge loses and went bust.

What should the UK government do? "

- back then, i posted on the newstatesman that what the UK needed was a financial sector free of the corruption of the current Financial sector, and that what that current Govt should have done is to capitalise NEW mutual societies, to rebuild a clean banker sector, rather than bail out the 'old' one.

i still think that should be done, but i see little signs of THIS Govt moving in that direction.


"The paralysis of the banks resulted in the credit squeeze - no money to lend, so no money to borrow. The effect of the credit tap being turned off was a sharp fall in demand - and a recession heading for a global slump."

- and yet! There was enough money 'sloshing around' for Kraft to purchase Cadbury's, Briton's might, remember.

no monies for less-than-Corporates though. Hummmm/.


"The difference in this case was the scale of the borrowing - add in the bank recapitalisation and the stimulus package and critics are right in saying it's a record."


"Where they are wrong is that you cannot view the bank recapitalisation as the same thing as running a "normal" deficit - for start there is an ASSET there"

- unless 'they' offload the 'toxic' debt to a "sell-off" that doesn't work. Keep an eye!!


"What would a sensible, pragmatic economic do as Chancellor?

Firstly in assessing the level of UK PLC debt, he'd discount the value of the bank holdings from the total debt because they are a realiseable asset we will eventually cash in and use the money to replay the debt - next he'd accept that the credit crisis wasn't "business as usual" it was a very serious crisis unrelated to the normal economic cycle - and one that should not be balanced out over a single cycle - i.e. probably two parliaments or more."

yes!!


"Or do you see the current plan as a dangerous gamble based on ideology not economics?"


"Luckily we will find out who was right in the next 18 months."

-


"There is however a precedent for Osborne's plan - a very similar austerity plan was implemented in Eire, which he described as a "shining example" of a successful economy.

Eire is now on its knees unable to service its debt and unable to stimulate its economy because the spending cuts have so suppressed demand that GDP shrank by 17% last year and house prices fell by 40%."


"Osborne on the other hand is likely to be seen as the man who drove UK PLC over a cliff in the winter of 2011."

- if we let him.

tonights QT was a good indication it might not be all cleaning sailing, cuts welcomed by the public. Haven't yet watched tonight's NN, was very interested in the problems of the Indian micro-credit system though, and why they came about.

38 and 39 good stuff Mork....but I do wonder if journalists are struggling just as much as politicians to breathe life into what is now a political corpse of pure diversion and distraction.

Just been listening to Jim Naughtie interrupting Harriet Harman.... and it was pitiful as he tried to impose a journalistic "story" onto the Milliband/Balls issue.

The constant refrain is how can journalists personalise and trivialise....but there`s worse to come ....because without all this pantomime personality politics NEITHER politicians NOR journalists have ANYTHING credible to say!

They are BOTH talking up nonsense to give the APPEARANCE that we have a functioning two party democracy when everyone except our emperors and their spinning journalist courtiers think IT`S OVER!

The REAL story is that politics is DEAD!

This made me chuckle



Obviously never heard of King Canute! ; )

if people spend loans on consumption rather than as investment in business then obviously nothing will happen? the loans should only be for business not consumption.

ed balls isn't in the labour party but the co op party?

steffi today? excellent. she has cahonnas?

'Westminster is aflutter'

This phrase alone, much less enhanced by the heft of the story it is associated with, confirms all I ever suspected about the value of our WUVI classes across the politico-media infirmament.

41. At 1:33pm on 21 Jan 2011, ecolizzy wrote:
This made me chuckle

And me, in so many, ironic ways....

'...while the man who bought Britain for £43 million, Safi Qurashi, is serving seven years in jail in Dubai after being accused of bouncing cheques.'

As I understand it, at least someone managed to get money FOR our fair isle. The real thing would need £1T before acquiring value into the black, asset wise.

Honestly, these developers are missing a trick. Admit they are sinking asap.

But... slap an airport on one of them, a few dozen 5* hotels on a few others, and have a climate conference quick-smart, whilst in passing gunning for compo on account of the sea levels rising due to something no target-obsessed pol or journo worth their press pass will argue with.

Baroness Warsi...I hope she goes to many dinner parties..just as long as she stays off Question Time as she talks too much....all the time...

SHINING THE FREUDIAN SPOTLIGHT ON TONY

Poor Tony - perhaps he really does believe in God. He certainly keeps on confessing, even while appearing to deny!

At the end of his Chilcot bravado, he declared his deeply felt sorrow for all those dead, and followed, rather oddly, with: "I just wanted to say that, because I think it's right to say it, and it's what I feel."
Just repeat those words out loud. How was it for you?

Note the order of importance in the Blair mind: 1)'IT'S RIGHT TO SAY' 2)'IT'S WHAT I FEEL'. Little Boy Blair is asking us to see that he is DOING RIGHT (I'm a good boy) adding as a rider that HE HAS FEELINGS (I'm a nice boy).

This is the individual who the Westminster system elevated to near absolute power. Jekyll/Hyde Brown was to follow, and now we have Destiny Dave. How many more little boys will it take until we, collectively, realise WE KEEP GETTING OURSELVES ANOTHER ONE? fundamental change is needed. Let's make a start:

SPOILPARTYGAMES