Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Longshot

rjsterry said:

For example, the amount of your own money you need to put in (including loss of earnings) just to get selected as a candidate is somewhere between £30K and £100K. Another snippet: those with absent or disinterested fathers during their childhood are disproportionately represented in parliament.

That's interesting. Weird but interesting.

Longshot

Someone once said that the first thing that should stop someone from becoming a politician is them having a desire to become a politician.

Sounds good to me.

rjsterry

Longshot said:

rjsterry said:

For example, the amount of your own money you need to put in (including loss of earnings) just to get selected as a candidate is somewhere between £30K and £100K. Another snippet: those with absent or disinterested fathers during their childhood are disproportionately represented in parliament.

That's interesting. Weird but interesting.

Not that weird. Underlying need to prove themselves to the absent parent. To show they've made something of themselves.

rjsterry

Just to counter the "they're all a bunch of venal grafters" line, this stood out.

Following the announcement that he had lost his constituency to the Tories by 629 votes, Brake went home to sleep for two hours before getting up to attend a constituency surgery on Friday afternoon. “I explained to people that I wasn’t their MP but that I would take up the issue and pass it on to my successor,” he said. “On Saturday I had the prizes to present to the winner and runner-up of my Christmas card competitions, so I had to go and do that.”

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

Just to counter the "they're all a bunch of venal grafters" line, this stood out.

Following the announcement that he had lost his constituency to the Tories by 629 votes, Brake went home to sleep for two hours before getting up to attend a constituency surgery on Friday afternoon. “I explained to people that I wasn’t their MP but that I would take up the issue and pass it on to my successor,” he said. “On Saturday I had the prizes to present to the winner and runner-up of my Christmas card competitions, so I had to go and do that.”

I don't doubt that.

It's just different when you grow up with them, because you know them before they had any status.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Just to counter the "they're all a bunch of venal grafters" line, this stood out.

Following the announcement that he had lost his constituency to the Tories by 629 votes, Brake went home to sleep for two hours before getting up to attend a constituency surgery on Friday afternoon. “I explained to people that I wasn’t their MP but that I would take up the issue and pass it on to my successor,” he said. “On Saturday I had the prizes to present to the winner and runner-up of my Christmas card competitions, so I had to go and do that.”

I don't doubt that.

It's just different when you grow up with them, because you know them before they had any status.

I obviously can't comment specifically on the chap you know, but I think most of them mean well even if we strongly disagree with the way they go about it.

rick_chasey

Yeah that's not the vibe I get from this one.

Me me me is more apt. Narcissistic is another that two friends have used.

tangled_metal

Does anyone have figures for the total number of labour voters in labour constituencies that switched their vote to Tories resulting in a win for Tories?

How many labour voters lent their votes to Tories to help them win strong labour seats? I read somewhere a claim if 50,000 but I'd have thought more personally.

I'm not finding that anywhere

rjsterry

The long way would be to look at each constituency result for 2017 and 2019.

Equally have a trawl of the polling companies websites.

Jon Worth on Twitter is very good for electoral data analysis.

rjsterry

Here you go.

https://mobile.twitter.com/hopisen/status/1206973529922711553

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Column in the FT today by Rana Foroohaar.

First line I thought was striking given the usual discourse on here.


https://www.ft.com/content/d1d012ac-1cf5-11ea-97df-cc63de1d73f4

One of the major economic lessons of the past decade is that austerity doesn’t work. As Greece and myriad other countries have found, you can’t create growth when both the private sector and the public sector are cutting spending. The mathematics simply do not work.

Why do you think Greece got into the financial mess they are in in the first place?

Where to even start? That's a doctoral thesis project

Here's Here's decent summary:
https://toptal.com/finance/financial-consultants/greek-debt-crisis

Quote from the link:
"The root cause of Greece’s economic crisis can be found in the profound structural economic inefficiencies that were borne out of the 1980s depression the country suffered through. As the country came out of brutal fascist military rule, the country embarked on a public sector-led economic boom that sowed the seeds of the crisis the country faces today."

Basically, too much debt caused mainly by public sector spending (over and above governsment revenues) - the same thing that Rick and others seem to think is the solution to the problem. So when the markets moved against Greece their debt became very expensive and lenders unwilling to refinance.

Your summary ignores the first part of your quote. It's clearly more complicated than just 'borrowing too much' even if inability to pay off those debts was the final manifestation of the structural economic inefficiencies. Also, does others include the current government? The latest figures indicate more borrowing will be increasing. And legislating to remove time for a comprehensive trade deal is locking in low growth for at least a couple of years.

You're ignoring the elephant in the room in the Greek tragedy, which was too much debt. Which was caused by excess of spending over income.

I'm not ignoring it I'm saying that was just the end result, not the cause. Our own government has spent more than it receives since forever with just a few brief exceptions, so it's obviously more complicated than that.

It's a question of degree. Greece overspent/ overborrowed far more in relation to the size of their economy. Just look at the debt/GDP ratios for the relevant periods.

It was the main underlying cause. An inconvenient truth for the debt deniers.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Column in the FT today by Rana Foroohaar.

First line I thought was striking given the usual discourse on here.


https://www.ft.com/content/d1d012ac-1cf5-11ea-97df-cc63de1d73f4

One of the major economic lessons of the past decade is that austerity doesn’t work. As Greece and myriad other countries have found, you can’t create growth when both the private sector and the public sector are cutting spending. The mathematics simply do not work.

Why do you think Greece got into the financial mess they are in in the first place?

Where to even start? That's a doctoral thesis project

Here's Here's decent summary:
https://toptal.com/finance/financial-consultants/greek-debt-crisis

Quote from the link:
"The root cause of Greece’s economic crisis can be found in the profound structural economic inefficiencies that were borne out of the 1980s depression the country suffered through. As the country came out of brutal fascist military rule, the country embarked on a public sector-led economic boom that sowed the seeds of the crisis the country faces today."

Basically, too much debt caused mainly by public sector spending (over and above governsment revenues) - the same thing that Rick and others seem to think is the solution to the problem. So when the markets moved against Greece their debt became very expensive and lenders unwilling to refinance.

Your summary ignores the first part of your quote. It's clearly more complicated than just 'borrowing too much' even if inability to pay off those debts was the final manifestation of the structural economic inefficiencies. Also, does others include the current government? The latest figures indicate more borrowing will be increasing. And legislating to remove time for a comprehensive trade deal is locking in low growth for at least a couple of years.

You're ignoring the elephant in the room in the Greek tragedy, which was too much debt. Which was caused by excess of spending over income.

I'm not ignoring it I'm saying that was just the end result, not the cause. Our own government has spent more than it receives since forever with just a few brief exceptions, so it's obviously more complicated than that.

It's a question of degree. Greece overspent/ overborrowed far more in relation to the size of their economy. Just look at the debt/GDP ratios for the relevant periods.

It was the main underlying cause. An inconvenient truth for the debt deniers.

Yes, I know their borrowing was out of control. Just the debts of the national railways were up at €13billion before it was taken over by Ferrovie. I'm talking about how they got into that situation in the first place.

As discussed in this article from around the time things really started to go wrong for Greece (and Ireland), there were underlying structural problems which meant that Government receipts were falling even when the economy was growing by 4% a year in the early '00s.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/structural-weakness-behind-woes-in-greece-1.620922?mode=amp

It's maybe worth noting that of the European countries that struggled with debt after the GFC, most have been governed by a far right dictatorship within living memory.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Column in the FT today by Rana Foroohaar.

First line I thought was striking given the usual discourse on here.


https://www.ft.com/content/d1d012ac-1cf5-11ea-97df-cc63de1d73f4

One of the major economic lessons of the past decade is that austerity doesn’t work. As Greece and myriad other countries have found, you can’t create growth when both the private sector and the public sector are cutting spending. The mathematics simply do not work.

Why do you think Greece got into the financial mess they are in in the first place?

Where to even start? That's a doctoral thesis project

Here's Here's decent summary:
https://toptal.com/finance/financial-consultants/greek-debt-crisis

Quote from the link:
"The root cause of Greece’s economic crisis can be found in the profound structural economic inefficiencies that were borne out of the 1980s depression the country suffered through. As the country came out of brutal fascist military rule, the country embarked on a public sector-led economic boom that sowed the seeds of the crisis the country faces today."

Basically, too much debt caused mainly by public sector spending (over and above governsment revenues) - the same thing that Rick and others seem to think is the solution to the problem. So when the markets moved against Greece their debt became very expensive and lenders unwilling to refinance.

Your summary ignores the first part of your quote. It's clearly more complicated than just 'borrowing too much' even if inability to pay off those debts was the final manifestation of the structural economic inefficiencies. Also, does others include the current government? The latest figures indicate more borrowing will be increasing. And legislating to remove time for a comprehensive trade deal is locking in low growth for at least a couple of years.

You're ignoring the elephant in the room in the Greek tragedy, which was too much debt. Which was caused by excess of spending over income.

I'm not ignoring it I'm saying that was just the end result, not the cause. Our own government has spent more than it receives since forever with just a few brief exceptions, so it's obviously more complicated than that.

It's a question of degree. Greece overspent/ overborrowed far more in relation to the size of their economy. Just look at the debt/GDP ratios for the relevant periods.

It was the main underlying cause. An inconvenient truth for the debt deniers.

What's most amazing about that is how little tax revenues dropped during the depression of '08-09.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Column in the FT today by Rana Foroohaar.

First line I thought was striking given the usual discourse on here.


https://www.ft.com/content/d1d012ac-1cf5-11ea-97df-cc63de1d73f4

One of the major economic lessons of the past decade is that austerity doesn’t work. As Greece and myriad other countries have found, you can’t create growth when both the private sector and the public sector are cutting spending. The mathematics simply do not work.

Why do you think Greece got into the financial mess they are in in the first place?

Where to even start? That's a doctoral thesis project

Here's Here's decent summary:
https://toptal.com/finance/financial-consultants/greek-debt-crisis

Quote from the link:
"The root cause of Greece’s economic crisis can be found in the profound structural economic inefficiencies that were borne out of the 1980s depression the country suffered through. As the country came out of brutal fascist military rule, the country embarked on a public sector-led economic boom that sowed the seeds of the crisis the country faces today."

Basically, too much debt caused mainly by public sector spending (over and above governsment revenues) - the same thing that Rick and others seem to think is the solution to the problem. So when the markets moved against Greece their debt became very expensive and lenders unwilling to refinance.

Your summary ignores the first part of your quote. It's clearly more complicated than just 'borrowing too much' even if inability to pay off those debts was the final manifestation of the structural economic inefficiencies. Also, does others include the current government? The latest figures indicate more borrowing will be increasing. And legislating to remove time for a comprehensive trade deal is locking in low growth for at least a couple of years.

You're ignoring the elephant in the room in the Greek tragedy, which was too much debt. Which was caused by excess of spending over income.

I'm not ignoring it I'm saying that was just the end result, not the cause. Our own government has spent more than it receives since forever with just a few brief exceptions, so it's obviously more complicated than that.

It's a question of degree. Greece overspent/ overborrowed far more in relation to the size of their economy. Just look at the debt/GDP ratios for the relevant periods.

It was the main underlying cause. An inconvenient truth for the debt deniers.

What's most amazing about that is how little tax revenues dropped during the depression of '08-09.

Interesting. Not sure why that was - wonder whether it was connected partly to the size of the black economy in Greece?

rick_chasey

That chart is UK receipts, no?

rjsterry

It is. And it is surprising. The dip for the early '90s recession is much bigger.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

It is. And it is surprising. The dip for the early '90s recession is much bigger.

Perhaps that massive stimulus helped stem the tide, eh?

mr_goo

Thornberry to stand for leader. If she wins that will be Labour consigned to the history books... thankfully.
I read that she used to be a barrister. Clearly the standards for the bar have plummeted, as from what I've seen of her in interviews she's on a par with that moron Abbott.

tangled_metal

Iirc I read somewhere that cherie and Tony Blair passed the bar exams at the same time. Cherie near the top of the class, Tony at the bottom. Remind me why the quality of leading politicians isn't of the highest standards?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

That chart is UK receipts, no?

I only looked at your statement but I thought we were discussing Greece. Will reconsider.

rjsterry

Here's the equivalent graph for Greece.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

Here's the equivalent graph for Greece.

Interesting that they never ran a surplus in 34 years. From peering at the earlier graph we re over halfway there with a promise of none for at least five years.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Here's the equivalent graph for Greece.

Interesting that they never ran a surplus in 34 years. From peering at the earlier graph we re over halfway there with a promise of none for at least five years.

Depends on how quickly the overall pie is growing wouldn't you say?

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Here's the equivalent graph for Greece.

Interesting that they never ran a surplus in 34 years. From peering at the earlier graph we re over halfway there with a promise of none for at least five years.

While there is a lot more fluctuation in the UK chart, the trend is downward. The Greek trend is very definitely upwards. Also see the previous point about pre-existing structural problems in the Greek economy. We are a long way from being like Greece.

kingstongraham

Is there a chart in the same format for the USA?

rjsterry

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Here's the equivalent graph for Greece.

Interesting that they never ran a surplus in 34 years. From peering at the earlier graph we re over halfway there with a promise of none for at least five years.

Depends on how quickly the overall pie is growing wouldn't you say?

All the charts are as a percentage of the pie.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Here's the equivalent graph for Greece.

No surprise that Greece ran into trouble if they always spent more than they earned. Public debt is essence is just a running total of your net deficits (of revenues vs spending) in each year. The Greeks ran up a very large debt pile and then the market turned against them.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Here's the equivalent graph for Greece.

Interesting that they never ran a surplus in 34 years. From peering at the earlier graph we re over halfway there with a promise of none for at least five years.

While there is a lot more fluctuation in the UK chart, the trend is downward. The Greek trend is very definitely upwards. Also see the previous point about pre-existing structural problems in the Greek economy. We are a long way from being like Greece.

But headed in the same direction if we keep running annual deficits (same for other countries). It's a matter of degree and timing.

rjsterry

One could argue that the lenders didn't do their due diligence as not only were they overspending, but there were underlying issues preventing them from raising receipts even before things went pear-shaped.