snap general election?

rick_chasey

I didn't know you were so keen for your hard earned tax to be spent in Northern Ireland Stevo.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

I didn't know you were so keen for your hard earned tax to be spent in Northern Ireland Stevo.

£1bn on NI vs £90bn on the estimated cost of Corbyns manifesto promises? Easy decision to make.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I didn't know you were so keen for your hard earned tax to be spent in Northern Ireland Stevo.

£1bn on NI vs £90bn on the estimated cost of Corbyns manifesto promises? Easy decision to make.

What is the estimated cost of the Tory's manifesto promises?
Not that it will matter as they don't stick to them anyway.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I didn't know you were so keen for your hard earned tax to be spent in Northern Ireland Stevo.

£1bn on NI vs £90bn on the estimated cost of Corbyns manifesto promises? Easy decision to make.

I thought given the election was entirely avoidable, that £1bn was also avoidable, wouldn't you agree?

Jez mon

One things for sure, the price tag of £1bn for a load of votes which she most probably already had looks like a classic example of the public sector largess that Stevo is always parroting on about.

wallace_and_gromit

Won't the £1b "bribe" simply translate to extra public spending in NI? Not a bad thing in its own right if "austerity" is bad, notwithstanding the morality of the move. Or have I missed something and Arlene Foster is going to trouser the whole lot?

bompington

I am finding it very entertaining - in a depressing kind of way - how all the anti-austerity people are aghast at extra public spending in NI (which despite a lot of advances, remains largely poor and depressed) while, err, certain right-wing types, are rushing to defend it.
What refreshing times we live in.

coopster_the_1st

bompington wrote:

I am finding it very entertaining - in a depressing kind of way - how all the anti-austerity people are aghast at extra public spending in NI (which despite a lot of advances, remains largely poor and depressed) while, err, certain right-wing types, are rushing to defend it.
What refreshing times we live in.

Unfortunately it is the new normal.

For this parliament and the next election there will be no further attempts by the conservatives to balance the books and reduce the deficit. They will also have to promise spending to bribe the electorate for their vote.

While the Labour party have seen their route to power and the electorate bribes will be well over £100bn. I would not be surprised it being double what they promised this time.

Who and how this is paid for will be a problem left to future generations.

kingstongraham

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Won't the £1b "bribe" simply translate to extra public spending in NI? Not a bad thing in its own right if "austerity" is bad, notwithstanding the morality of the move. Or have I missed something and Arlene Foster is going to trouser the whole lot?

She might burn it, like the KLF.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

I am finding it very entertaining - in a depressing kind of way - how all the anti-austerity people are aghast at extra public spending in NI (which despite a lot of advances, remains largely poor and depressed) while, err, certain right-wing types, are rushing to defend it.
What refreshing times we live in.

I think you're missing the point.

I like seeing Tories who have supported austerity squirm, using their own logic.

That doesn't mean I agree with their logic.

Hence posts like this:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

so NI costs us over £9bn a year. Over two years this is a mere 5% increase.

With a bit of luck it will open up a proper debate about whether the £9bn is a good use of public funds

As someone who broadly agrees with Simon Wren Lewis (https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... stent.html , https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015 ... macro.html , https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... n-our.html ) It will be interesting to see if a big burst of public spending will have a positive impact.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

I am finding it very entertaining - in a depressing kind of way - how all the anti-austerity people are aghast at extra public spending in NI (which despite a lot of advances, remains largely poor and depressed) while, err, certain right-wing types, are rushing to defend it.
What refreshing times we live in.

I think you're missing the point.

I like seeing Tories who have supported austerity squirm, using their own logic.

That doesn't mean I agree with their logic.

Hence posts like this:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

so NI costs us over £9bn a year. Over two years this is a mere 5% increase.

With a bit of luck it will open up a proper debate about whether the £9bn is a good use of public funds

As someone who broadly agrees with Simon Wren Lewis (https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... stent.html , https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015 ... macro.html , https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017 ... n-our.html ) It will be interesting to see if a big burst of public spending will have a positive impact.

my refusal to use emojis and maybe some judicious editing (can't be bothered to check) means that this does not support your argument.

Not only am I against the £1bn, I am against the £9bn!!! and that if you disagree with the £1bn over 2 years why are you not looking at the £9bn per year.

My position is that debt is bad and that we not only need to eliminate the deficit but to go out the other side and pay back the debt. We have now reached a stage when we are in danger of reaching consensus that a £46bn a year deficit is acceptable

bendertherobot

Stormont indefinitely suspended then. Statement on Monday as to what happens.

Wonder if the Conservatives will see this as "working towards the formation of a new NI executive."

rick_chasey

I'm all for a bit of well placed fiscal expansion to improve productivity and growth.

So, I have no specific issue with either the £9bn or the £1bn.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I didn't know you were so keen for your hard earned tax to be spent in Northern Ireland Stevo.

£1bn on NI vs £90bn on the estimated cost of Corbyns manifesto promises? Easy decision to make.

He's not in government. He didn't win. Just because a Corbyn government would be 'worse', doesn't diminish the scale of the TM orchestrated farce. The alternative to TM agreeing a deal with the DUP was not agreeing a deal. The DUP would have voted against Corbyn's amendment to the QS anyway.

@Bompington: I think the bit that sticks in the craw is the contrast between the rhetoric of having to continue with austerity, seemingly indefinitely, for the good of the country, and that being brushed aside in a couple of days to try and patch up a self inflicted f*** up.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm all for a bit of well placed fiscal expansion to improve productivity and growth.

So, I have no specific issue with either the £9bn or the £1bn.

how much longer should they continue with fiscal expansion in NI before conceding defeat?

Lookyhere

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm all for a bit of well placed fiscal expansion to improve productivity and growth.

So, I have no specific issue with either the £9bn or the £1bn.

how much longer should they continue with fiscal expansion in NI before conceding defeat?

At a guess 2022 ?

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I'm all for a bit of well placed fiscal expansion to improve productivity and growth.

So, I have no specific issue with either the £9bn or the £1bn.

how much longer should they continue with fiscal expansion in NI before conceding defeat?

Depends what you constitute a victory and a defeat.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

My position is that debt is bad and that we not only need to eliminate the deficit but to go out the other side and pay back the debt. We have now reached a stage when we are in danger of reaching consensus that a £46bn a year deficit is acceptable

Yes we fundamentally disagree on this.


I am of the strong view that the reason the UK has never really fully recovered from the crash was because the fiscal side of stimulation was withheld and indeed reverse through austerity. I think the US is a great example of how well timed fiscal stimulation can be really beneficial to restarting an economy.

In the UK, the monetary side did its bit, but as we can see, it's run out of ammo, as per this chart:



That chart, to me anyway, shows a failure of the fiscal side to step up to the plate.

I'm also quite convinced about the impact of 'economic scaring' as a result of things like heavy austerity and recessions, that hinder future growth a long way into the future.

rjsterry

Something good to come out of this mess at least.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... -amendment

Musical chairs on the Labour front bench again. :roll: Honeymoon over already?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

My position is that debt is bad and that we not only need to eliminate the deficit but to go out the other side and pay back the debt. We have now reached a stage when we are in danger of reaching consensus that a £46bn a year deficit is acceptable

Yes we fundamentally disagree on this.


I am of the strong view that the reason the UK has never really fully recovered from the crash was because the fiscal side of stimulation was withheld and indeed reverse through austerity. I think the US is a great example of how well timed fiscal stimulation can be really beneficial to restarting an economy.

In the UK, the monetary side did its bit, but as we can see, it's run out of ammo, as per this chart:



That chart, to me anyway, shows a failure of the fiscal side to step up to the plate.

I'm also quite convinced about the impact of 'economic scaring' as a result of things like heavy austerity and recessions, that hinder future growth a long way into the future.

Not sure how that chart shows a failure on the fiscal side.
Annual growth rates were looking fine until December 2015 - not sure what kicked off then that seems to have put us ina decline
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kin ... wth-annual

How about this for a theory. Since 2011 we have had fiscal stimulation in excess of £40bn almost literally helicoptered into the hands of consumers. God bless PPI.

rick_chasey

Well quite. I think by any standard the UK recovery had been very slow; particularly in productivity. Arguably the growth of GDP has been down to an influx of, wait for it, immigranrs, a lot of whom are at working age

I think that's down to a basic lack of stimulus in the first 2-3 years post crash.

We've basically got full employment as a result of no wage increase and even decreases, rather buoyant demand.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well quite. I think by any standard the UK recovery had been very slow; particularly in productivity. Arguably the growth of GDP has been down to an influx of, wait for it, net immigration, a lot of whom are at working age

I think that's down to a basic lack of stimulus in the first 2-3 years post crash.

We've basically got full employment as a result of no wage increase and even decreases, rather buoyant demand.

As our long term natural rate of growth is 2-2.5% I don't think we could have hoped for much better. I agree the problem is that real household income is not rising.

So if we have identified productivity growth and a lack of investment as a problem how does fiscal easing solve the problem, sure that would only make demand more buoyant?

I still think we invest too much money in property in this country so would continue to clamp down on the tax advantages of BTL mortgages. Get that hot money chasing other opportunities.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Well quite. I think by any standard the UK recovery had been very slow; particularly in productivity. Arguably the growth of GDP has been down to an influx of, wait for it, net immigration, a lot of whom are at working age

I think that's down to a basic lack of stimulus in the first 2-3 years post crash.

We've basically got full employment as a result of no wage increase and even decreases, rather buoyant demand.

As our long term natural rate of growth is 2-2.5% I don't think we could have hoped for much better. I agree the problem is that real household income is not rising.

So if we have identified productivity growth and a lack of investment as a problem how does fiscal easing solve the problem, sure that would only make demand more buoyant?

I still think we invest too much money in property in this country so would continue to clamp down on the tax advantages of BTL mortgages. Get that hot money chasing other opportunities.

I don't disagree with the last point.

Usually growth is a fair bit faster after a recession as there is some catching up to do - that never happened.

I think there is definitely a level of gov't spending; on things like infrastructure (I wonder how expensive having unreliable trains are, for example?), better education (i.e. better paid teachers), more impactful attempts to reduce poverty (and so have more socially healthy people who are likely to be more productive), or simply significantly bigger tax cuts for bottom end earners.

I do genuinely think austerity has created some economic scars.

I imagine it's not that hard to get a fairly good handle on where you get the best return on your state spending/tax cutting.

rick_chasey

How very topical: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... y-a-debate

veronese68

rjsterry wrote:

The alternative to TM agreeing a deal with the DUP was not agreeing a deal. The DUP would have voted against Corbyn's amendment to the QS anyway.

A bad deal is better than no deal? Good to see more consistency from our strong and stable leader.

orraloon

Saint Theresa and the Holy Grail

https://www.facebook.com/PoliticalScrap ... 979439218/

rick_chasey

So on the state of the current economy; as we have read countless times, its consumption that's propping GDP up.

However, the savings ratio has fallen through the floor, suggesting this is unsustainable:

coopster_the_1st

Rick Chasey wrote:

Usually growth is a fair bit faster after a recession as there is some catching up to do - that never happened..

The fast growth never happened because of the fiscal policies deployed to mitigate this recession.

Normally the weakest fail quickly by having their legs chopped off, but this time is was death by a thousand cuts as the weakest businesses were facilitated( by ultra low interest rates) to continue running. These businesses then chased volume by pushing down prices meaning the stronger businesses followed to compete and reigned in spending to lower costs.

9 years later and not a huge amount has changed except the economy is even more sensitive to the debt within it. This time though, almost all the fiscal levers have already been deployed.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Usually growth is a fair bit faster after a recession as there is some catching up to do - that never happened..

The fast growth never happened because of the fiscal policies deployed to mitigate this recession.

Normally the weakest fail quickly by having their legs chopped off, but this time is was death by a thousand cuts as the weakest businesses were facilitated( by ultra low interest rates) to continue running. These businesses then chased volume by pushing down prices meaning the stronger businesses followed to compete and reigned in spending to lower costs.

9 years later and not a huge amount has changed except the economy is even more sensitive to the debt within it. This time though, almost all the fiscal levers have already been deployed.

Not sure if you are just saying that because it is the opposite of what Rick said but one of you needs to Google fiscal policy/easing

FocusZing

Turn on the taps and borrow, give public sector pay rises when the economy is weak and the future is bleak (EU). The tories are looking even more shambolic now.