Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Gosh, I wonder what the cause of the big spike in borrowing in 2008-9 could be. :roll:

And obviously that was all the fault of Labour......... (that's the point, the picture changes if you put the data into context). Had Labour been habitually borrowing £100bn plus prior to the crash then Stevo's observation would have some political merit. But they weren't.

surrey_commuter

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Gosh, I wonder what the cause of the big spike in borrowing in 2008-9 could be. :roll:

And obviously that was all the fault of Labour.........

it is the years before when then took it from a surplus to a steady £40bn annual deficit. Without that we would have been £250-300bn better off which would be saving several billion pounds a year in interest

rolf_f

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Gosh, I wonder what the cause of the big spike in borrowing in 2008-9 could be. :roll:

And obviously that was all the fault of Labour.........

it is the years before when then took it from a surplus to a steady £40bn annual deficit. Without that we would have been £250-300bn better off which would be saving several billion pounds a year in interest

And this is the sort of context that posting the graph needs. But that said, the period of the graph is too short; we are still knocking around the same deficit prior to the crash and the surplus looks like a bit of an abberation.

The point is that the graph alone doesn't necessarily indicate any great economic competence (nor incompetence) on the part of the Tories.

coopster_the_1st

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Gosh, I wonder what the cause of the big spike in borrowing in 2008-9 could be. :roll:

And obviously that was all the fault of Labour.........

it is the years before when then took it from a surplus to a steady £40bn annual deficit. Without that we would have been £250-300bn better off which would be saving several billion pounds a year in interest

And this is the sort of context that posting the graph needs. But that said, the period of the graph is too short; we are still knocking around the same deficit prior to the crash and the surplus looks like a bit of an abberation.

The point is that the graph alone doesn't necessarily indicate any great economic competence (nor incompetence) on the part of the Tories.

I would quit while you are behind now Rolf.

You are just reconfirming the point that Labour and its voters have no competence when it comes to economics

coopster_the_1st

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

[
Also Rolf, how could Europeans leaving the UK reduce UK unemployment unless they were unemployed in the first place?

While I buy the point that economically active immigrants overall contribute to the finances of the country, how do unemployed ones do that? Personally I am relatively relaxed if significant numbers of unemployed people go to claim benefits in their country of origin instead of the UK.

You may want to reconsider your rationale for the drop in unemployment

Let's say Pierre decides he's leaving his job at HSBC and heading to Paris. Or Łukasz leaves his job at a high end joinery firm to return to Wrocław. This leaves a vacancy to be filled, most likely by someone already employed, leaving a vacancy in their position and so on until an unemployed person fills a vacancy, reducing the unemployment rate. Ta-dah!

It think the reality is that Rolfs 'reason' was more in hope than based on fact. Unless he can demonstrate otherwise.

Your explanation assumes the there are net outflows of people when in fact we have reduced positive inflows. The reason is more likely to be that more jobs are being created - another Tory win. Good try though
https://www.businessinsider.com/ons-uk-employment-data-from-july-2018-2018-7?r=UK&IR=T

In any event, I don't see you disagreeing with my main point which was that record low unemployment is good. You and Rolf are just trying to side track the discussion onto speculated causes.

Of course low unemployment is a good thing. Just think what they could do if they really focused on that instead of dicking around pretending not to want to be the next leader. The bit about salaries being forced up by a scarcity of labour seems to be lagging some way behind, as well.

There is quite a bit of slack in the labour market due to the gig economy and zero hours contract workers.

Then there are estimated to be up to 1m over 55's who could re-enter the employment market but are not classed as unemployed as they are semi-retired

rolf_f

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Gosh, I wonder what the cause of the big spike in borrowing in 2008-9 could be. :roll:

And obviously that was all the fault of Labour.........

it is the years before when then took it from a surplus to a steady £40bn annual deficit. Without that we would have been £250-300bn better off which would be saving several billion pounds a year in interest

And this is the sort of context that posting the graph needs. But that said, the period of the graph is too short; we are still knocking around the same deficit prior to the crash and the surplus looks like a bit of an abberation.

The point is that the graph alone doesn't necessarily indicate any great economic competence (nor incompetence) on the part of the Tories.

I would quit while you are behind now Rolf.

You are just reconfirming the point that Labour and its voters have no competence when it comes to economics

I see you still haven't learned how to understand sentences.

(Apologies Stevo, I was wrong - you are still much better than Coopster!)

coopster_the_1st

And now the SNP are doing everything they can to make Labour look good...

tangled_metal

Coopster the 1st wrote:

And now the SNP are doing everything they can to make Labour look good...

Really, how?

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Gosh, I wonder what the cause of the big spike in borrowing in 2008-9 could be. :roll:

And obviously that was all the fault of Labour.........

it is the years before when then took it from a surplus to a steady £40bn annual deficit. Without that we would have been £250-300bn better off which would be saving several billion pounds a year in interest

And this is the sort of context that posting the graph needs. But that said, the period of the graph is too short; we are still knocking around the same deficit prior to the crash and the surplus looks like a bit of an abberation.

The point is that the graph alone doesn't necessarily indicate any great economic competence (nor incompetence) on the part of the Tories.

I assumed you were already aware of that sort of context.

You're quite good at trying to distract from the fact that the annual deficit has been coming down over a period. However your claims that I don't understand the data are weak - I know what they mean, but I suspect that you are simply trying to find reasons not to give the Tories any credit - I know it's not easy for you.

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

You'll know better than me but wasn't those the figures from the month where traditionally you get the best tax receipts. Something about self assessment tax receipts coming in that month and other taxes. Kind of if you are ever going to get a surplus that month would be your best chance so make it hit the news desks big style when it happens and hope that nobody notices it's the big tax receipts month?

I'm not saying it's all spin, any surplus is good, but one good month doesn't make everything hunky dory. Let's wait until a few more months if surplus are published to get excited about it.

It's the biggest July surplus in 18 years - so comparing it with other Julys.

If you want a pattern, see below: a strong downward trend in UK net borrowing by year the 8 years since the tories came to power in 2010.



Not sure that waiting a few more months is going to change that materially.

You and I read graphs differently. What I see is that in the last year of the previous labour Govt, borrowing shot up (so the first question is - "why was that"?) and that after that it took the Tories a decade to get things back down again to the levels that Labour were more normally at (so the second question is "why was that, why so long"?)

Note - I don't know what the answer to that is. But the point is that that, to pick your own time frame, the 8 years since the tories came to power in 2010 shows the highest level of borrowing over the whole period covered by the graph. Blithely saying "I see a strong downward trend" is just a case of convenient selectivity with the data!

It's like when the Tories (or anyone else - they are all as bad as each other) have gone on about us having the highest growth in Europe or whatever - when you are at the bottom the rate of change is high. When at the top, it is low. A high rate of change usually means you are playing catch up.

The pattern of deficit reduction is clear and over a sustained period, whichever way you try to spin it Rolf. Which as I've said is a good thing, no?

Stevo - looking at the whole data set isn't spinning it. You are spinning it by being by being selective with the data. Yes, the deficit reduction is a good thing but why is it taking so long and why did it suddenly rise in the first place? I asked for the reasons and you obviously don't know what they are. You post a graph which, out of context, doesn't really tell us very much. If the best you can manage is to plot a trend line for the part of the graph you like best then honestly, don't bother. Come back when you know what the data means - otherwise you are guilty of the spin you accuse me of.

You're not much better than Coopster at the moment. Are you feeling a bit off?

Try to answer questions rather than trying to 'widen out' the argument which is really just trying to wriggle off the hook. Either the annual deficit coming down is good or it isn't. Which is it?

I shouldn't have to educate you about the context either. That's your job and if you understood the subject matter you wouldn't need to ask, would you?

tangled_metal

Oh come on you guys! Nobody bringing up Frank Fields? What is wrong with you? Forgotten the basics of Corbyn criticism already?

surrey_commuter

Tangled Metal wrote:

Oh come on you guys! Nobody bringing up Frank Fields? What is wrong with you? Forgotten the basics of Corbyn criticism already?

As long as any of have been politically aware we have known that Corbyn is a communist, anti-Semite, supporter of terrorists so I am not sure what this news tells us.

I have long had respect for Frank Field (singular) so was surprised that he had nominated Jezza for leader. In that regard he has reaped what he sowed.

tangled_metal

It's not just about Corbyn though, it's related to local activism that's changing the face of local Labour Party. It's about aggressive and bullying behaviour by the newer element of local Labour Party groups. In his constituency I think he mentioned a female new member and iirc momentum member who has been bullying councillors. Something about activists being grief for canvassing opinion for the local party. About her standing for Councillor after the incumbent left the role due to harassment.

Or something like that. A whole raft of issues stemming from new momentum types of new Labour members / supporters taking over or trying to gain undue influence.

I think in interviews Frank Field's been saying that his share of the vote has been going up each election. The thought of him forcing a by-election and standing at independent Labour against the new Labour candidate is interesting. If he does there is a very good chance he'll get in with a reduced majority but that won't change anything.

I reckon if he tried that labour should just not field a candidate that'll just lose. They should give it to FF and that'll dilute his message somewhat.

Yes Field singular but autocorrect pluralist tendency was not spotted by me before posting. It's a Huawei honor 8 and after 1.5 to 2 years the autocorrect has degraded to a lot of annoying mistakes. It's supposed to learn but doesn't. Things like size becomes Suze. Capital letters appear for no reason, the single letter word "a" disappears and becomes an extra space, letters b and m appear for no reason and other annoyances that I don't always pick up and correct before posting.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Oh come on you guys! Nobody bringing up Frank Fields? What is wrong with you? Forgotten the basics of Corbyn criticism already?

Sorry TM, got busy putting people right on other things yesterday.

Must try harder...

surrey_commuter

Tangled Metal wrote:

It's not just about Corbyn though, it's related to local activism that's changing the face of local Labour Party.

in my world the two are intrinsically intertwined. Anybody who cares enough to join a political party to campaign for radical change will be perceived as a swivel eyed lunatic by the rest of the population.

the attempt to take over the Tory Party by Brexit activists is equally interesting. I am not convinced it is wrong to take over a political party to advance your own cause. To me it is just another weakness in our electoral system. And let's face it when the media starts pulling at the thread that is JRM's belief system he will look just as mad as Corbyn. Or they could find somebody even madder that we have never heard of.

tangled_metal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Oh come on you guys! Nobody bringing up Frank Fields? What is wrong with you? Forgotten the basics of Corbyn criticism already?

Sorry TM, got busy putting people right on other things yesterday.

Must try harder...

I noticed! Reckon that Trumps this thread!

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Oh come on you guys! Nobody bringing up Frank Fields? What is wrong with you? Forgotten the basics of Corbyn criticism already?

Sorry TM, got busy putting people right on other things yesterday.

Must try harder...

I noticed! Reckon that Trumps this thread!

World leaders come and go but Leftiebollox is here to stay - this thread will outlive the DT thread

tangled_metal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Oh come on you guys! Nobody bringing up Frank Fields? What is wrong with you? Forgotten the basics of Corbyn criticism already?

Sorry TM, got busy putting people right on other things yesterday.

Must try harder...

I noticed! Reckon that Trumps this thread!

World leaders come and go but Leftiebollox is here to stay - this thread will outlive the DT thread

But who will outlive the other? Corby or Trump? Both are old men. Politically Corbyn will outlive Trump IMHO but beyond that I'm not sure who will be 6 feet under first.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Oh come on you guys! Nobody bringing up Frank Fields? What is wrong with you? Forgotten the basics of Corbyn criticism already?

Sorry TM, got busy putting people right on other things yesterday.

Must try harder...

I noticed! Reckon that Trumps this thread!

World leaders come and go but Leftiebollox is here to stay - this thread will outlive the DT thread

But who will outlive the other? Corby or Trump? Both are old men. Politically Corbyn will outlive Trump IMHO but beyond that I'm not sure who will be 6 feet under first.

More to the point, who gives a toss?

Stevo_666

Looks like even McDonnell is getting worried about a Labour split:-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-latest-john-mcdonnell-worries-saddened-brexit-jeremy-corbyn-a8518886.html

He implores Labour MP's who are thinking of leaving to 'stay and try to win the argument'. Well I guess that's going to persuade them.

rjsterry

The greatest intolerance in the current Labour party seems to be of those who disagree with the sainted Jeremy.

DeVlaeminck

Margaret Hodge is a disgrace, her actions over the child abuse scandal in Islington (he guyshe had to apologise to was my old boss - a great guy) tell you all you need to know about her.

StillGoing

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Margaret Hodge is a disgrace, her actions over the child abuse scandal in Islington (he guyshe had to apologise to was my old boss - a great guy) tell you all you need to know about her.

Islington represented by Corbyn. Labour and the PIE scandal has not been forgotten and now they look like welcoming back that other eejit Derek Hatton. He of the claim to fame of ruining Liverpool.

Stevo_666

philthy3 wrote:

Islington represented by Corbyn. Labour and the PIE scandal has not been forgotten and now they look like welcoming back that other eejit Derek Hatton. He of the claim to fame of ruining Liverpool.

And it has to be said, that takes some doing.

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Margaret Hodge is a disgrace, her actions over the child abuse scandal in Islington (he guyshe had to apologise to was my old boss - a great guy) tell you all you need to know about her.

What's your point? How does her handling of investigation into child abuse in Islington relate to her current criticism of Corbyn's failure to deal with antisemitism in the Labour party? She has at least apologised for her error, whereas the latter seems unwilling to concede that he has ever made one.

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Margaret Hodge is a disgrace, her actions over the child abuse scandal in Islington (he guyshe had to apologise to was my old boss - a great guy) tell you all you need to know about her.

What's your point? How does her handling of investigation into child abuse in Islington relate to her current criticism of Corbyn's failure to deal with antisemitism in the Labour party? She has at least apologised for her error, whereas the latter seems unwilling to concede that he has ever made one.

My point is she is dishonest and lied for her own ends about one of the most serious issues there could be. If you think she apologised out of regret for having made an error you don't know the case.

DeVlaeminck

philthy3 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Margaret Hodge is a disgrace, her actions over the child abuse scandal in Islington (he guyshe had to apologise to was my old boss - a great guy) tell you all you need to know about her.

Islington represented by Corbyn. Labour and the PIE scandal has not been forgotten and now they look like welcoming back that other eejit Derek Hatton. He of the claim to fame of ruining Liverpool.

I'm not a fan of Corbyn but the anti-semitism row is clearly manufactured by an alliance of right wing and Israeli interests.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Margaret Hodge is a disgrace, her actions over the child abuse scandal in Islington (he guyshe had to apologise to was my old boss - a great guy) tell you all you need to know about her.

Islington represented by Corbyn. Labour and the PIE scandal has not been forgotten and now they look like welcoming back that other eejit Derek Hatton. He of the claim to fame of ruining Liverpool.

I'm not a fan of Corbyn but the anti-semitism row is clearly manufactured by an alliance of right wing and Israeli interests.

it is amazing that as the centuries tick over one of the few consistencies is the number of people who continue to blame the Jews for anything they don't like

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Margaret Hodge is a disgrace, her actions over the child abuse scandal in Islington (he guyshe had to apologise to was my old boss - a great guy) tell you all you need to know about her.

Islington represented by Corbyn. Labour and the PIE scandal has not been forgotten and now they look like welcoming back that other eejit Derek Hatton. He of the claim to fame of ruining Liverpool.

I'm not a fan of Corbyn but the anti-semitism row is clearly manufactured by an alliance of right wing and Israeli interests.

it is amazing that as the centuries tick over one of the few consistencies is the number of people who continue to blame the Jews for anything they don't like

I was reading a piece yesterday by a Jewish man who had lost close family to the Nazis who had exactly the opinion I expressed, was he also blaming the Jews ? If someone shows me evidence of this "hatred of Jews" I'll change my mind but where is it - can you point us to any?

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Margaret Hodge is a disgrace, her actions over the child abuse scandal in Islington (he guyshe had to apologise to was my old boss - a great guy) tell you all you need to know about her.

Islington represented by Corbyn. Labour and the PIE scandal has not been forgotten and now they look like welcoming back that other eejit Derek Hatton. He of the claim to fame of ruining Liverpool.

I'm not a fan of Corbyn but the anti-semitism row is clearly manufactured by an alliance of right wing and Israeli interests.

it is amazing that as the centuries tick over one of the few consistencies is the number of people who continue to blame the Jews for anything they don't like

I was reading a piece yesterday by a Jewish man who had lost close family to the Nazis who had exactly the opinion I expressed, was he also blaming the Jews ? If someone shows me evidence of this "hatred of Jews" I'll change my mind but where is it - can you point us to any?

can you clarify what you mean