LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/status/1369651155052204036?s=21

A bit of economic history

How can we rejoin the Gold Standard when it no longer exists?

Well we don't have any monetary policy left so it's all about fiscal and that above is what happens when you are tight fiscally.

If borrowing hundreds of billions a year for the forseeable future counts as tight then what level of borrowing would you count as loose?

Which year do you think the deficit will drop below £100bn? or do you think it will be before the end of this Parliament or before 2030?

Never, probably.

If growth is good, that will not be a problem.

£100bn is 5% of GDP so I can see us growing out of the debt problem.

If by some miracle these dipshit policies raised long term growth to 2% pa that only allows you £40bn deficit. And then factor in the recession every ten years to thump the debt out another 20-30% and what could possibly go wrong.

iirc you think this can not continue forever and if so when do you think the end of the road will come? and by that I mean the govt of th eday will be forced to live within it's means

Just a reminder that the British government hasn't lived within its means since 1692.

I was using a budget surplus as a yardstick, what are you using?

Jezyboy

Presumably national debt?

surrey_commuter

Jezyboy said:

Presumably national debt?

That would make no sense

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

Jezyboy said:

Presumably national debt?

That would make no sense

Is not the national debt just the net cumulative total of budget deficits and very occasional surpluses?

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Jezyboy said:

Presumably national debt?

That would make no sense

Is not the national debt just the net cumulative total of budget deficits and very occasional surpluses?

yes, but most people would take a reference to the Govt living within it's means to be it's annual spending not exceeding it's annual revenue.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Jezyboy said:

Presumably national debt?

That would make no sense

Is not the national debt just the net cumulative total of budget deficits and very occasional surpluses?

yes, but most people would take a reference to the Govt living within it's means to be it's annual spending not exceeding it's annual revenue.

The existence of a national debt since 1692 would suggest that that is a rare occurrence, so I'm not sure it makes a difference to look at it on an annual basis or overall.

I think you are looking at it back to front. The government does not need to receive revenue (or borrow) in order to spend. It needs to issue and spend before it can then receive that money back in taxes. The bit it chooses not to tax eventually rests in people's bank accounts.

Its means are whatever it decides them to be, not how much it receives.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

Jezyboy said:

Presumably national debt?

That would make no sense

Is not the national debt just the net cumulative total of budget deficits and very occasional surpluses?

yes, but most people would take a reference to the Govt living within it's means to be it's annual spending not exceeding it's annual revenue.

Come back with the proportion of GDP spent on debt servicing and come back to me.

rjsterry

Couldn't decide where to put this, but to misquote the famous credit card add:

New no.10 press studio:£2.6m
Henry left out in the corner of the proud publicity shot: priceless.

john80

Henry is a national icon worthy of attending this launch. Consider him a UK dignitary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numatic_International#:~:text=The company owns a manufacturing,the Netherlands, and South Africa.

kingstongraham

I see that we have found some more money to buy extra nuclear warheads. #priorities

rjsterry

john80 said:

Henry is a national icon worthy of attending this launch. Consider him a UK dignitary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numatic_International#:~:text=The company owns a manufacturing,the Netherlands, and South Africa.

😁

elbowloh

rjsterry said:

Couldn't decide where to put this, but to misquote the famous credit card add:

New no.10 press studio:£2.6m
Henry left out in the corner of the proud publicity shot: priceless.

Bearing in mind the Huawei debacle and Russia's known history of cyber-warfare and spying the fit out, including all the audio equipment was completed by a Russian company.

kingstongraham

I had a look to see why "Dow reet" was trending on twitter last night.

https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1371498634072719362

Pross

elbowloh said:

rjsterry said:

Couldn't decide where to put this, but to misquote the famous credit card add:

New no.10 press studio:£2.6m
Henry left out in the corner of the proud publicity shot: priceless.

Bearing in mind the Huawei debacle and Russia's known history of cyber-warfare and spying the fit out, including all the audio equipment was completed by a Russian company.

Presumably a Russian company whose owner donates to the Tories though? I think that's part (or perhaps the whole) of the PQQ on Government contracts these days.

elbowloh

Way to get your priorities right. We've decided to increase our stockpile of nuclear weapons. Apparently we need to bomb 80 more places now when push comes to shove.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56413920

Pross

elbowloh said:

Way to get your priorities right. We've decided to increase our stockpile of nuclear weapons. Apparently we need to bomb 80 more places now when push comes to shove.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56413920

I think they must read Cake Stop and saw the suggestion the other day that we ought to nuke Iran. Either that or they've realised a nuclear war could destroy the Covid virus.

rick_chasey

elbowloh said:

Way to get your priorities right. We've decided to increase our stockpile of nuclear weapons. Apparently we need to bomb 80 more places now when push comes to shove.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56413920

So I am apparently quick to criticise the gov't, and there is probably good reason to here, but things like the military are also informed by things that we the public are not privy to, so we're not able to be in a good position to properly criticise or otherwise as we don't have the full picture.

I suspect, FWIW, that the gov't is more concerned with China and Russia than they are letting on.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

elbowloh said:

Way to get your priorities right. We've decided to increase our stockpile of nuclear weapons. Apparently we need to bomb 80 more places now when push comes to shove.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56413920

So I am apparently quick to criticise the gov't, and there is probably good reason to here, but things like the military are also informed by things that we the public are not privy to, so we're not able to be in a good position to properly criticise or otherwise as we don't have the full picture.

I suspect, FWIW, that the gov't is more concerned with China and Russia than they are letting on.

You think it's possible they've just checked wikipedia and found out how many large cities in China they'd need to wipe out?

elbowloh

rick_chasey said:

elbowloh said:

Way to get your priorities right. We've decided to increase our stockpile of nuclear weapons. Apparently we need to bomb 80 more places now when push comes to shove.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56413920

So I am apparently quick to criticise the gov't, and there is probably good reason to here, but things like the military are also informed by things that we the public are not privy to, so we're not able to be in a good position to properly criticise or otherwise as we don't have the full picture.

I suspect, FWIW, that the gov't is more concerned with China and Russia than they are letting on.

Having a nuclear deterrent is a key defense policy. What difference does it make if we have 180 or 260?

rick_chasey

elbowloh said:

rick_chasey said:

elbowloh said:

Way to get your priorities right. We've decided to increase our stockpile of nuclear weapons. Apparently we need to bomb 80 more places now when push comes to shove.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56413920

So I am apparently quick to criticise the gov't, and there is probably good reason to here, but things like the military are also informed by things that we the public are not privy to, so we're not able to be in a good position to properly criticise or otherwise as we don't have the full picture.

I suspect, FWIW, that the gov't is more concerned with China and Russia than they are letting on.

Having a nuclear deterrent is a key defense policy. What difference does it make if we have 180 or 260?

So in the context of me not knowing an answer, a guess would be that the warheads come in clusters, so the actual number of missiles are more limited and so more missiles allows for you to have better 'quick strike' capability across the world.

It is fair to say there are a number of new nations who are close to nuclear capabilities, so to adhere to the "MAD" deterrence doctrine, presumably you would need more warheads to cover those new nations off.

elbowloh

rick_chasey said:

elbowloh said:

rick_chasey said:

elbowloh said:

Way to get your priorities right. We've decided to increase our stockpile of nuclear weapons. Apparently we need to bomb 80 more places now when push comes to shove.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56413920

So I am apparently quick to criticise the gov't, and there is probably good reason to here, but things like the military are also informed by things that we the public are not privy to, so we're not able to be in a good position to properly criticise or otherwise as we don't have the full picture.

I suspect, FWIW, that the gov't is more concerned with China and Russia than they are letting on.

Having a nuclear deterrent is a key defense policy. What difference does it make if we have 180 or 260?

So in the context of me not knowing an answer, a guess would be that the warheads come in clusters, so the actual number of missiles are more limited and so more missiles allows for you to have better 'quick strike' capability across the world.

It is fair to say there are a number of new nations who are close to nuclear capabilities, so to adhere to the "MAD" deterrence doctrine, presumably you would need more warheads to cover those new nations off.

How many countries at a time are we looking to bomb?

I don't buy it.

rick_chasey

Sure, you don't have to. Like I said, we won't ever really know whether it's sensible or not.

The real problem is that compared to the US and Russia, the UK could quadruple its nuclear arsenal and it wouldn't really matter, so you wonder why bother with the extra however many.

ballysmate

My world has caved in.
I have read this page re the nukes and I agree with Rick!!

surrey_commuter

ballysmate said:

My world has caved in.
I have read this page re the nukes and I agree with Rick!!

I disagree with both of you which is par for the course but finding out that Rick wants to buy more nukes from the Yanks that we can't use without their permission has completely discombobulated me

kingstongraham

Are they going to have more submarines, or more missiles per submarine, or just more destructive capability in each missile?

If the latter, seems deranged.

ballysmate

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

My world has caved in.
I have read this page re the nukes and I agree with Rick!!

I disagree with both of you which is par for the course but finding out that Rick wants to buy more nukes from the Yanks that we can't use without their permission has completely discombobulated me

I'm glad you disagree with me so often and it gladdens me that you usually disagree with Rick.
No point in a forum where the most repeated post is "You are so right! I couldn't agree more."

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

My world has caved in.
I have read this page re the nukes and I agree with Rick!!

I disagree with both of you which is par for the course but finding out that Rick wants to buy more nukes from the Yanks that we can't use without their permission has completely discombobulated me

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

My world has caved in.
I have read this page re the nukes and I agree with Rick!!

I disagree with both of you which is par for the course but finding out that Rick wants to buy more nukes from the Yanks that we can't use without their permission has completely discombobulated me

I will own up to spending far too much of my teenage years immersing myself in cold war literature and history, especially in the '50s and '60s so I am likely to have serious biases towards the value of deterrence

rick_chasey

There's also the issue of perhaps reduced co-operation with EU nations (namely France, in this instance), who currently has a bigger arsenal than the UK, so there might also be a strategic shortfall there too.

Jezyboy

Meh. Nuclear arsenals are passe.

Why focus on whether you can flatten 13 or 16 far away cities using weapons that you'll never use when some guy with a laptop can set up a troll farm and gradually undermine any confidence in democracy!