General election

Quoted from Grim74

Read my posts again and you will realise I have commented.

Yes I have seen the big short thanks, but I already knew very well what happened, but despite warnings they carried on borrowing and spending money on an epic scale, in 2000/01 public spending was at 34.5% of GDP (the lowest for generations) by 2009/10 it was at 47.7% of GDP, thus leaving us well in the excrement when the global economic disaster finally arrived.

I have never blamed Labour for the global financial crisis but can you not even accept that they left us dangerously exposed considering all the warning signs, what was it Brown said again "no more boom and bust" 😩

As for Brexit we were told of financial Armageddon in the immediate aftermath of a Brexit vote! Well this was proved to be absolute bollox, even the Bank of England are now saying it was there Michael Fish moment! I salute the brave patriotic 17.5m of us.
Why can you not now just except the result pull together and get behind your soon to be proud sovereign country.

I'm not sure there are many who haven't accepted the Referendum result but democracy isn't just about respecting the victor. If that was the case then the Tory party would've ceased to exist after the hammering they got in 97. All democratic systems require the voice of opposition to continue to be heard and let's face it 48% is a pretty significant level of opposition. Brexit does undoubtedly mean Brexit but opponents have a right to have someone to fight for them as to what the eventual deal looks like.

Quoted from Grim74

Read my posts again and you will realise I have commented.

Yes I have seen the big short thanks, but I already knew very well what happened, but despite warnings they carried on borrowing and spending money on an epic scale, in 2000/01 public spending was at 34.5% of GDP (the lowest for generations) by 2009/10 it was at 47.7% of GDP, thus leaving us well in the excrement when the global economic disaster finally arrived.

I have never blamed Labour for the global financial crisis but can you not even accept that they left us dangerously exposed considering all the warning signs, what was it Brown said again "no more boom and bust" 😩

As for Brexit we were told of financial Armageddon in the immediate aftermath of a Brexit vote! Well this was proved to be absolute bollox, even the Bank of England are now saying it was there Michael Fish moment! I salute the brave patriotic 17.5m of us.
Why can you not now just except the result pull together and get behind your soon to be proud sovereign country.

Are you deliberately being obtuse or do you just not understand what was written?

Yes, Thatcher hacked back public spending to levels not seen since before the creation of the NHS and the Welfare state. Somehow, you seem to think that this is a good thing! Spending on health, education, roads and other infrastructure is a bad thing, is it?

Anyway, it is well known that the public infrastructure was practically falling to pieces when the New Labour government got into power and much of their expenditure was to fix what Thatcher wilfully broke - no end of spending on schools and roads, for example, though much of this was foolishly done under costly PFI schemes (pioneered by the Tories), to 'keep it off the books'. Governments can borrow money at greatly lower rates than the cost of PFI so this was idiotic. Amusingly enough, this was one of the sticks used by the Tories to beat Brown - only for Osborne to double-down on PFI and expand it further once they got into power! Liars and crooks, as they say.

You seem to be getting rather confused about the government expenditure situation. The global financial crisis first began in late 2007 and the excrement really hit the fan in September 2008. The increased government expenditure which occurs after tax receipts drop off a cliff in a recession and expenses go up (unemployment and housing benefit and the like) is always delayed by a year or so. So yes, of course expenditure was enormously greater in 2009/2010 which was right in the aftermath of the initial crisis! In just the same way that it increased massively under the Tories following the recession in the early 1990s. Claiming that the huge deficit in 2008-2010 was the fault of Labour profligacy is just idiocy. You are contradicting yourself when you say that you aren't blaming Labour for the financial crisis but then attempt to do so!

Borrowing as a percentage of GDP ranged between 2.4% and 3.4% from 2002 to 2008 (some debt was repaid in three out of the four years prior to that). As inflation was bumbling around at just under 2%, this means the Labour government was effectively borrowing around 1% per year. Not ideal, but hardly a disaster and very low in comparison to Tory borrowing during much of the 1980s and 1990s.

Anyway, Brown's "end to boom and bust" comment was just foolish hubris as they really thought they had the tools to achieve this without paying enough attention to the credit boom which was only made possible by the nonsense explained in "The Great Short". Still unbelievable that nobody in power had the faintest idea what was occurring behind the scenes but then it was all so ridiculously stupid that you wouldn't believe the bankers could make such catastrophic errors.

Regarding the claims about the likelihood of immediate catastrophe following the Brexit vote, I defy you to name one respected economist who claimed this would actually occur. Obviously, your man Osborne (who I imagine you praised to high heaven before the last election?) doesn't count because he's not respected, he's full of shite and he's not an economist. As with the deficits following a recession, things only begin to get dodgy some time after an event.

Inflation just now kicking in following the expected devaluation of the pound so we're getting to stage where the 'fun' has started to begin, so to speak Last month, for example, inflation rose higher than average wages for the first time in a couple of years so we're getting poorer already (and after the weakest 'recovery' from a recession for a century). Next step will be business uncertainty due to the fact that we don't hold any cards at all in the bargaining process and we'll see lots of companies relocating overseas but the real crap will only really occur in 2 years when we leave. There is no way we can get a better deal from the EU than is on offer to their other members so, even with the best will in the world (which doesn't exist), we'll be worse off. May and co (who will most likely be in power) seem more clueless than most - see Fox's ignorance about trade deals, for example - so I reckon it will be the hardest of hardest Brexits.

Anecdotally, one of my mates has recently accepted redundancy. The business where he works was previously expanding but they've been screwed because everything in their industry is traded in dollars. The depreciation of the pound has bunked up prices in the region of 15% on average and it has made much of their business untenable.

Incidentally, your hyperbolic jingoism sounds a bit flipping ridiculous. Claiming you're more patriotic because you wanted to leave the EU when others wanted to stay is just nonsense. People voting to remain were just as patriotic as you, wanting the best for their country. When you start sounding like Nigel Farage, you're developing a problem.  

Similarly the 'proud sovereign country' nonsense. We were a sovereign country before the Brexit vote, just one which was part of the world's largest trading bloc. In a couple of years, we'll still be a sovereign country, though most likely a much poorer one.

Anyway, I'll be a bit busy over the next few weeks so won't be able to more than dip into this forum once in a while.

Edit: Just read back my post which I dipped into and out of over the afternoon and it's a bit more aggressive in tone than planned. Apologies for that - no time to edit now, but the main points still stand.

If a British PM ever needs to launch nuclear weapons then the world's copulated already because the mainland USA will be a smoking crater.

Quoted from LH

If a British PM ever needs to launch nuclear weapons then the world's copulated already because the mainland USA will be a smoking crater.

I do not doubt that all major powers have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as well as so called conventional weapons.  When does a weapon become big enough to be a deterrent?  Why are nuclear bombs good chemical weapons bad. Min 80 billion on new trident is madness.  These are weapons are could never use. If they are a deterrent should every country have them? Surely this will end wars?
How long before a country develops s virus, slips the vaccination in with the baby jabs for a few years and then releases it? Would you put it past Russia or China or Isis or even the US?
If we are going to spend 80 billion on new nuclear weapons let's at least make them here, the French manage it and I'm sure we could

I can pretty much confirm that the UK doesn't have chemical or biological weapons. Obviously though the expertise is in place to create such vile weapons should the need arise (which it wouldn't because us Brits like to fight like gents and only fight back should we get started on (UKSF excepted)).

Nuclear weapons are unfortunately a necessary evil. In an ideal world nobody would have them. As long as our adversaries have them then we 'need' them to counter them without actually launching an attack. A shield which is also a weapon. A necessary evil for male masturbators, if you will.

Quoted from LH

I can pretty much confirm that the UK doesn't have chemical or biological weapons. Obviously though the expertise is in place to create such vile weapons should the need arise (which it wouldn't because us Brits like to fight like gents and only fight back should we get started on (UKSF excepted)).

Nuclear weapons are unfortunately a necessary evil. In an ideal world nobody would have them. As long as our adversaries have them then we 'need' them to counter them without actually launching an attack. A shield which is also a weapon. A necessary evil for male masturbators, if you will.

The main reason you have nuclear weapons is every other country believes you WILL use them,

Telling them in advance that you will never use them is plain loony.

If a nuclear 'deterrent' is so important, why are the Germans not bothered about lacking one? Is it because they are members of Nato so realise that there is no chance they will be invaded/nuked by the Russians?

Our nuclear 'deterrent' doesn't deter anything and is there just for a bit of post-imperial willy-waving. It's a subsidy to the already massive US military as we need to buy most of the technology from them in any case. As least the French are sensible enough to develop their own deployment systems instead of buying them in, though they are still obviously a complete waste of money.

In the event that we deployed our nuclear weapons, most of the country would end up as a radioactive ruin because it's only the Russians who could be any realistic threat due to geographical proximity and they've got a lot more nukes than us. And they'd be obliterated by the Yanks if they nuked us as well.

Most senior generals admit the nuclear deterrent is a complete waste of money - once they've retirned, of course.

Quoted from Grim74

When Corbyn speaks I will admit I sometimes find myself nodding my head in agreement with him and then just before you know it WHAM! A bit stinking turd comes out his mouth and reality hits home he wants to disband the U.K. Armed forces, have unlimited immigration, give up our nuclear deterrent, give the Falklands back to Argentina, Gibraltar back to Spain, allow a SNP referendum, no doubt a Brexit 2nd referendum, backs the IRA, plans to put every adult on benefits, actually believes socialism works, and worst of all he wants Abbot as his deputy PM!  Of course he's a flipping clown.

I usually try to keep out of political discussions. I have my opinion, you have yours, and I generally think let's try and find some common ground and agree to compromise. If people have extremely polarised views, that's unlikely. But come on, how can you possibly say it's Corbyn that would cause the UK to be disbanded? It is literally the Conservative  / UKIP instigated Brexit that will cause Scotland to leave the UK and probably Gibraltar and Northern Ireland too. Brexit may work, it may not, but every one will want what's best for them in the outcome. This means Scottish Independence at the very least, and this will be entirely the responsibility of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as it's ironically called).

Quoted from Dan

I usually try to keep out of political discussions. I have my opinion, you have yours, and I generally think let's try and find some common ground and agree to compromise. If people have extremely polarised views, that's unlikely. But come on, how can you possibly say it's Corbyn that would cause the UK to be disbanded? It is literally the Conservative  / UKIP instigated Brexit that will cause Scotland to leave the UK and probably Gibraltar and Northern Ireland too. Brexit may work, it may not, but every one will want what's best for them in the outcome. This means Scottish Independence at the very least, and this will be entirely the responsibility of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as it's ironically called).

Gibraltar will not leave the UK the mass majority want to stay as part of the UK and now that they have seen how the EU dictatorship wanted to stitch them up the majority would now vote to leave the corrupt union as well.
The democratic majority of Scotland and Northern Ireland still want to remain as part of the UK any talk of Scottish independence when they want to be controlled by Brussels is just moronic.

Quoted from Maringer

Are you deliberately being obtuse or do you just not understand what was written?

Yes, Thatcher hacked back public spending to levels not seen since before the creation of the NHS and the Welfare state. Somehow, you seem to think that this is a good thing! Spending on health, education, roads and other infrastructure is a bad thing, is it?

Anyway, it is well known that the public infrastructure was practically falling to pieces when the New Labour government got into power and much of their expenditure was to fix what Thatcher wilfully broke - no end of spending on schools and roads, for example, though much of this was foolishly done under costly PFI schemes (pioneered by the Tories), to 'keep it off the books'. Governments can borrow money at greatly lower rates than the cost of PFI so this was idiotic. Amusingly enough, this was one of the sticks used by the Tories to beat Brown - only for Osborne to double-down on PFI and expand it further once they got into power! Liars and crooks, as they say.

You seem to be getting rather confused about the government expenditure situation. The global financial crisis first began in late 2007 and the excrement really hit the fan in September 2008. The increased government expenditure which occurs after tax receipts drop off a cliff in a recession and expenses go up (unemployment and housing benefit and the like) is always delayed by a year or so. So yes, of course expenditure was enormously greater in 2009/2010 which was right in the aftermath of the initial crisis! In just the same way that it increased massively under the Tories following the recession in the early 1990s. Claiming that the huge deficit in 2008-2010 was the fault of Labour profligacy is just idiocy. You are contradicting yourself when you say that you aren't blaming Labour for the financial crisis but then attempt to do so!

Borrowing as a percentage of GDP ranged between 2.4% and 3.4% from 2002 to 2008 (some debt was repaid in three out of the four years prior to that). As inflation was bumbling around at just under 2%, this means the Labour government was effectively borrowing around 1% per year. Not ideal, but hardly a disaster and very low in comparison to Tory borrowing during much of the 1980s and 1990s.

Anyway, Brown's "end to boom and bust" comment was just foolish hubris as they really thought they had the tools to achieve this without paying enough attention to the credit boom which was only made possible by the nonsense explained in "The Great Short". Still unbelievable that nobody in power had the faintest idea what was occurring behind the scenes but then it was all so ridiculously stupid that you wouldn't believe the bankers could make such catastrophic errors.

Regarding the claims about the likelihood of immediate catastrophe following the Brexit vote, I defy you to name one respected economist who claimed this would actually occur. Obviously, your man Osborne (who I imagine you praised to high heaven before the last election?) doesn't count because he's not respected, he's full of shite and he's not an economist. As with the deficits following a recession, things only begin to get dodgy some time after an event.

Inflation just now kicking in following the expected devaluation of the pound so we're getting to stage where the 'fun' has started to begin, so to speak Last month, for example, inflation rose higher than average wages for the first time in a couple of years so we're getting poorer already (and after the weakest 'recovery' from a recession for a century). Next step will be business uncertainty due to the fact that we don't hold any cards at all in the bargaining process and we'll see lots of companies relocating overseas but the real crap will only really occur in 2 years when we leave. There is no way we can get a better deal from the EU than is on offer to their other members so, even with the best will in the world (which doesn't exist), we'll be worse off. May and co (who will most likely be in power) seem more clueless than most - see Fox's ignorance about trade deals, for example - so I reckon it will be the hardest of hardest Brexits.

Anecdotally, one of my mates has recently accepted redundancy. The business where he works was previously expanding but they've been screwed because everything in their industry is traded in dollars. The depreciation of the pound has bunked up prices in the region of 15% on average and it has made much of their business untenable.

Incidentally, your hyperbolic jingoism sounds a bit flipping ridiculous. Claiming you're more patriotic because you wanted to leave the EU when others wanted to stay is just nonsense. People voting to remain were just as patriotic as you, wanting the best for their country. When you start sounding like Nigel Farage, you're developing a problem.  

Similarly the 'proud sovereign country' nonsense. We were a sovereign country before the Brexit vote, just one which was part of the world's largest trading bloc. In a couple of years, we'll still be a sovereign country, though most likely a much poorer one.

Anyway, I'll be a bit busy over the next few weeks so won't be able to more than dip into this forum once in a while.

Edit: Just read back my post which I dipped into and out of over the afternoon and it's a bit more aggressive in tone than planned. Apologies for that - no time to edit now, but the main points still stand.

No warnings eh?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....tabase-released.html

I beg to differ voice of doom, how can you be sovereign when you are controlled and dictated to by Brussels, how can you be sovereign when you can't even control your borders? I would go further in my view we are not even a Country anymore just a bit part state of a corrupt union, well hopefully we will be getting it back.