UK election

I think he takes it, and the BofE's responsibilities, absolutely seriously.

It is the role of Government - not the BofE - to have a Plan to grow the economy. The BofE's contribution is to underpin that Plan, by managing inflation, adjusting interest-rates, or creating monetary-supply - dependent on the prevailing economic winds.

If there is no Plan, or its implementation is chaotic, it is the Government that is accountable, not Carney and the MPC.

This May administration is the most incompetent, selfish, aloof, undemocratic and (verging on) corrupt Government I have known in my lifetime. It's as if the last election never happened, and a completely different question was asked in the EU Referendum. No-one voted for a hard-Brexit, and to make it absolutely clear that it was the case, we denied May her precious majority; an absolutely resounding message from the public that the her policies were rejected. Yet they plough-on regardless, with their extreme approach. This Government claims we will have our sovereignty returned in one breath, whilst completely ignoring the will of the people in the next.

If it was down to me, we'd be going back hundreds of years in the statute-book, to find an archaic law that allows us to round-up the lot of them, and throw their scrawny-arses in the fu*cking clink.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
I think he takes it absolutely seriously.

It is the responsibility of Government - not the BofE - to have a Plan to grow the economy. The BofE's contribution is to underpin that Plan, by managing inflation, adjusting interest-rates, or creating monetary-supply, dependent on the prevailing economic winds.

If there is no Plan, or its implementation is chaotic, it is the Government that is accountable, not Carney and the MPC.
Click to expand...

I take your point.

Perhaps your good self, or people that know economics better than me, can tell everyone what the consequences of slow economic growth are, and why growth matters?


Grasshopper said:
The May administration is the most incompetent, selfish, aloof and (verging on) corrupt Government I have known in my lifetime. If it was down to me, we'd be going back hundreds of years in the statute, to find an archaic law that would allow us to round-up the lot of them, and throw their scrawny-arses in the fu*cking clink.
Click to expand...

Agree 100 percent. Well said.
 
Last edited:
Marble said:
Perhaps your good self, or people that know economics better than me, can tell everyone what the consequences of slow economic growth are, and why growth matters?
Click to expand...

In it's most simplistic form;

As economies develop, citizens expect more goods and services per capita—that is, an increase in income per capita. For example, in a more developed economy, citizens may expect air and water to be clean. ... To provide more goods and services for the same size population, the economy must grow.

Or to put it another way, the expectations of a population evolve, and to deliver against those expectations requires the economy to grow. If the economy doesn't grow, you have stagnation, and the expectations cannot be met. You can of course borrow the money from the markets to compensate, but this is just booting the can down the road, and also has an impact on economic performance.

This is why economic-growth is important to all political parties; it's generally needed to fund the promises they make to voters, during election campaigns.
 
If I remember correctly, prior to the referendum, Mark Carney advised against leaving the EU because of the devastating effect it would have on the economy [I'm sure there was critcism of his comments eg 'what right has he got to tell us what to do; he's Canadian']. He seemed to be the only person not running around like a chicken without a head post referendum and I dread to think what the state of the economy would be like now if he wasn't in charge. One of the few people I have any trust or faith in at the moment [and that includes my own Labour Party]. Can't imagine what he thinks of people like brexiter John Redwood who are advising people to 'invest abroad'.
 
Marble said:
I just think he should take lack of growth a bit more seriously, Grass. The country needs a real plan about how to grow the economy, short term, medium term, long term, otherwise we'll be looking at poor growth figures for the next 20 years.
Click to expand...

I've an idea.

Why not leave one of the worlds largest, richest and fastest growing trading blocks. Put up virtual walls so that the mobile capital, goods and skills sets from this trading block cannot easily interact with or infect your economy with their silly laws and then forge new trade agreements based on your status as one of the worlds economic powerhouses (c1851) and just sit back and watch as the wealth exponentially grows. Entrust the execution for all this to a shower of narcissistic incompetents to ensure it all works out well.

What could possibly go wrong?
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
the expectations of a population evolve, and to deliver against those expectations requires the economy to grow. If the economy doesn't grow, you have stagnation, and the expectations cannot be met
Click to expand...

The Great God Growth

Can economies continue growing for ever - and therefore continue to exact an ever-growing demand on the world's resources - or does there come a point where a mature and advanced economy fulfills the full expectations of its consumers and renders any further growth unnecessary as 'peak comfort' has been reached?

In my opinion the stable capitalist western democracies have now reached that point; the problem being that the wealth accrued by them over so many decades has not been distributed fairly amongst the populace: the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer, thanks to the slavish belief in the neo-liberal economic dogma of Hayek

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery

So I'm certainly not countenacing recession. Nope: the three factors that just might save the Capitalist Empire from going the way of the Egyptian, Greek, Inca, Aztec, Roman...Empires are:

Slight Growth
Slight Inflation
Slight increase in population

How to quantify "slight"?

I dunno, how about 0.25% per annum? Strong and Stable
 
Drone said:
The Great God Growth

Can economies continue growing for ever -
Click to expand...

It has to be worth a try, Drone.

I say it again, the ageing population, etc.

The U.K will need growth in future years, for population necessities in decades' time; not just so we can scoff more Ferrero Rochers' and all subscribe to Sky TV.

Your points are noble ones, for sure, but aiming for "slight" growth, leaves the strong possibility, you'll get none at all, imho.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
This May administration is the most incompetent, selfish, aloof, undemocratic and (verging on) corrupt Government I have known in my lifetime. It's as if the last election never happened, and a completely different question was asked in the EU Referendum. No-one voted for a hard-Brexit, and to make it absolutely clear that it was the case, we denied May her precious majority; an absolutely resounding message from the public that the her policies were rejected. Yet they plough-on regardless, with their extreme approach. This Government claims we will have our sovereignty returned in one breath, whilst completely ignoring the will of the people in the next.

If it was down to me, we'd be going back hundreds of years in the statute-book, to find an archaic law that allows us to round-up the lot of them, and throw their scrawny-arses in the fu*cking clink.
Click to expand...

There seems to have been an audible increase in messaging in the last fortnight which suggests that the Russians did it (neatly overlooking the corrosive drip feed contributions made over decades by the conservative media and a couple of party leaders). I do wonder if they're preparing a face saving retreat?

Dear SIS, please write me a report/ letter (you know like you did for that Mr Zinoviev) that explicitly spells out that the poor innocent voters of the UK were put away by ruthless Russians, and allow me to put the whole thing into a holding position whilst we consider the dreadful implications of conclusions before reluctantly agreeing that the vote might be null and void and need doing again. Before we can do it again however, we must put in place a lengthy list of counter measures by way of precaution which we've agreed to ask a commission to consult and report on
 
Marble said:
His reporter friend on ITV just happy to tow the line for him. After we pay the E.U ******** billions the deficit levels should be back to that of pre-2010, at which point, everything will still be, fine, folks :)
Click to expand...

Nearly 8 years after austerity, they give 40 billion to E.U. All those hospitals underfunded, kids with no lunches, poor people topping themselves, all to control migrants, with 40 billions. Madness.
 
"Those who justify this system insist that economic growth is essential for the relief of poverty." - George Monibot

Marble's verdict as follows......:)

Growth will be Essential for public service-provision in years to come, including The NHS, especially after the Tories drain the economy, pay 40 billion to The E.U to stop migrants, and preside over a bigger deficit.

I'm sure George's Monbot's kiddies will have the cash to pay 26K a year to put him in an old people's home when he gets older, but most of his Guardian readers won't, and nor will I!
 
Last edited:
We need a different system, rooted*not in economic abstractions but*in physical realities, that establish*the parameters by which we judge*its health. We need to build a world in which growth is unnecessary, a*world of private sufficiency and public*luxury. And we must do it before*catastrophe forces our hand..

I like this sentence..
 
Marble said:
I'm sure George's Monbot's kiddies will have the cash to pay 26K a year to put him in an old people's home when he gets older, but most of his Guardian readers won't, and nor will I!
Click to expand...

Most Guardian readers are comfortably-off champagne socialists suffering from a particularly chronic form of middle-class angst: do as I say, not as I do

My old folks home will be a quiet corner in the Victoria Family & Commercial, Leeds. When I keel over chuck me out with the empties
 
This Government are a joke, and May is almost-certainy the worst PM in the country’s history. How can they call this a Budget for jobs, when the very act of Brexit will see thousands of jobs vanish; either because the role has been transferred to the EU, or because of people being laid-off when the economy inevitably tanks.

I might add we also have possibly the worst opposition in our history too. How this Corbyn-led Labour Party can vote with the Government on Brexit legislation actually beggars belief.

The cliff-edge is approaching fast, and we’ll get there before March 2019. We will cross an invisible-line before the actual Brexit date, when the EU have made too much investment in Brexit of their own, for them to want it to be repealed, and with agencies already moving to the continent, that process has well and truly started.

We are allowing the current political-class - save for some honourable exceptions - to sleepwalk us into an absolute disaster.
 
Last edited:
Cameron put himself in the right place at the right time, powering ahead when New Labour were running out of steam after 10+ years in government.

He'll be remembered by many as the cruellest PM, who created an even more brutal capitalist system, at a time when one was just ending with the 2008 financial crisis.

As for Corbyn, I give him more credit than some on here. He's played it smart, and now to the public, the E.U is seen as a Tory problem, when for the early part of the 21st century it was actually seen (and probably was) a New Labour love-in.
 
Last edited:
Cameron was the architect of so many of his own problems through his own poor judgement.

This is why I believe he's the worst PM in my living memory.
 
Fair point.

You've got bags more knowledge than me Warbs as your older and wiser, I'm not exactly in a position to give a good rundown of best/worst prime ministers.

My instinctual feeling is that the worst prime minister is someone that does something(s) so damaging to the nation that this rendors' them the 'worst'. The thing that springs to mind, in terms of foreign policy, is that man again, (sorry) Tony Blair.

But in terms of statesman abilities, charisma, and at least trying to form his own political calculus he was probably quite decent.

My mum was a cleaner lady for Blairs secretary in the 90's, she was at a tea party once, I remember she came back home and said he was a nice bloke, very charismatic etc.

Then he got in power and shite happens as the saying goes!!!! :)

The thing with Cameron, is he will always fall back and say every decision he made was because of Labour and the financial crisis, etc.

Or if he had any sense he would........

Libya was a bad decision, for the record I wasn't in favour ousting Gaddafi as the gut was telling me it was a bad idea, although I thought Syria was such an awful situation we should have done something, I was probably wrong, but rest assured, I had the right motives.
 
Last edited:
Marble said:
Fair point.

You've got bags more knowledge than me Warbs as your older and wiser, I'm not exactly in a position to give a good rundown of best/worst prime ministers.
Click to expand...

You're right Martin, Warbler goes back to Gladstone days. :whistle:
 
Maruco said:
You're right Martin, Warbler goes back to Gladstone days. :whistle:
Click to expand...

Gutter snipes like me were excluded in Gladstone's days, just aristocrats like you I seem to recall. I was still campaigning for to get the third reform extended. In any case, I couldn't read back then so never knew what was happening until the advent of public libraries
 
Marble said:
Libya was a bad decision, for the record I wasn't in favour ousting Gaddafi as the gut was telling me it was a bad idea, although I thought Syria was such an awful situation we should have done something, I was probably wrong, but rest assured, I had the right motives.
Click to expand...


I think you could argue that Cameron's foreign policy was even more short-sighted precisely because he had the benefit of being able to look at Iraq. Ultimately Blair's involvement didn't really make any difference. Bush had thanked him already for his support but explained that if he wasn't able to win parliament over (second UN vote) then America would proceed without him anyway. Blair was never the architect of Iraq, but a willing a accomplice. Cameron, and Sarkozy were very much the architects of Libya however, and had to recruit Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice to their cause in order to tip a less than convinced Obama into opening the door for them.

On March 18th, 2011, Cameron gave a parliamentary statement where he moved the case for war and regime change (lets call it what it was). This quote is from his summing up when building his case and explaining his reasons

"We simply can not have a situation where a failed pariah state festers on Europe's southern border. This would potentially threaten our security, push people across the Mediterranean and create a more dangerous and uncertain world for Britain and for all our allies as well as for the people of Libya."


I'd be interested to know which part of this he doesn't feel he ended up achieving?

If you want an example of just how muddle headed Cameron, then Syria is another good example. On 30th August 2013, he lost a vote in the commons to replicate his Libyan disaster in Syria when the totally hapless William Hague tried to build a case for intervention around his own opinion and hunch. You will recall that Cameron wanted to bomb Assad and the SAA, (one of the few fighting forces that were resisting the advance of ISIS). Just to illustrate how disorientated and poor a judge Cameron was, he would come back to the house in December 2015 with another proposal to bomb the other side. That's quite an achievement. It took him about four years to recognise that ISIS were the bad guys here, and even then he was still putting his faith in the FSA (a fighting entity that had largely failed to exist for the 12 months previous) and various rebel group (many of whom had actually joined, or sold their weapons to the Islamists). It perhaps needs to be remembered also that Cameron only decided to commit to this action about 3-4 months after the Russians intervened and began hitting rebel groups and ISIS. He spent months denouncing Russia, and then did the same (see Aleppo and Mosul for other examples)

I actually regard Cameron's decision making as worse than Blair's​
 
Last edited:
Marble said:
He'll be remembered by many as the cruellest PM, who created an even more brutal capitalist system, at a time when one was just ending with the 2008 financial crisis.
Click to expand...

Brown and Darling "saved the (unfettered capitalist) world", apparently; Cameron and his counterparts around the world just continued to nurse it through convalescence and rehab, though the patient is little improved and appears to be terminally ill

This attempted resuscitation of a very sick man seemed to be viewed as the correct and expected procedure

Treat the cancerous lungs of a 40-a-day smoker and then let him resume his habit

One or two distant voices in the wilderness were heard to whisper 'You'd have thought he'd have learnt a hard lesson and given it up' cough! splutter!

Off at a tangent:

If Brexit materializes and if democracy is restored in Zimbabwe - both 24-point Bold Arial Black ifs then it strikes me that there would be trading opportunites galore for us and them in the brave new world. Zimbabwe has a young, well-educated population and a wealth of resources that are crying out for foreign investment. Don't um-and-ah sluggish Britain, get in there

Long thought that the UK should set its sights on bumping-up trade with the dear old Commonwealth following Brexit, particularly the relatively impoverished members in Africa and the Caribbean. Most are 'bread baskets' constrained by lack of funds
 
Last edited:
Back
Top