Cameron? Anyone?

[DaveR]

I think many people who hate the Tories don't realise that they are in a minority.

[miga]

Words like Tory, grammar, socialist seem to cause strong allergic reactions in some. Thinking can sometimes become very uptight, as the Dude in Big Lebowski would have phrased it.

[????]

the left is full of hate - as any one watching QT for the last couple of weeks will have seen

[LondonMix]

I'm not even a Tory! I'd like to think I'm an independent but in reality I'm much worse. I tend like politicians associated with New Labour :/

My husband's family are the same so once David Miliband failed to become leader some still reluctantly vote labor (though I'm not sure they will under Corbyn) while others now vote Tory. I'd say we are all centrist-moderates who are very socially liberal. I feel like an endangered species watching QT...

[????]

Nor me LM - I've voted Labour in 5 GEs, (including for Foot!) ...miles away from them now . But even pretty left wing members of the PLP are now being called Tory Scum thanks to what St Jezza has unleashed.

[red devil]

Same here. Labour elected the wrong Miliband, since then it's been a slow death by a 1000 self-inflicted cuts...

[Blah Blah]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm not sure why you

> think I was.

>

> You saying there was no growth, when there was

> clearly growth is just factually incorrect.

> Growth in 2014 was 2.9% and in 2015 was 2.2%.

> That compares favourably to the global average and

> is high relative to other developed countries.

>

> My view that the record pre-Brexit wasn't bad is

> my view and I have clearly stated that I think the

> referendum was a mistake and will ultimately be

> Cameron's legacy. What exactly is your problem

> with me talking about his record pre and post

> Brexit?

>

> If you can't take people disagreeing with you

> without becoming petulant I'm not sure what you

> enjoy about debating issues on the forum...

And now you resort to accusation of petulance. I think it's you unable to allow other perspectives here. By the way I never mentioned growth. I referred to investment being at an all time low. I prefer facts that relate to production, not figures that relate to the value of things ( things like rising house prices) as growth figures do.

[LondonMix]

Okay-- I thought you accusing me of being sarcastic was petulant. I've also reread what you wrote and you 100% said growth as well as investment. The claim regarding growth is patently wrong but I am not trying to stifle your views.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> At the same

> time, investment and growth have fallen to all

> time lows,

[Blah Blah]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think many people who hate the Tories don't

> realise that they are in a minority.

Would that be the 76.5% of the electorate who didn't vote for them then 😁 Seems a daft thing to say Dave.

[DaveR]

"Would that be the 76.5% of the electorate who didn't vote for them then 😁 Seems a daft thing to say Dave."

Exhibit A

[LondonMix]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/labour-leadership-tories-conservative-party-poll-vote-intention-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-a7156381.html

Also, not voting Tory isn't the same thing as hating them. I'm not in a Tory household but neither my husband or I would say we hate them.

[Blah Blah]

I don't hate Tories Dave. I just hate policies that penalise the poorest and most vulnerable. It's a different thing.

But it is daft to pretend to know what 76.5% of the electorate think, and to assume how far within that hatred of the Tories goes. You have no way of knowing if it is a minority of that or not.

[LondonMix]

Also, Blah Blah, I've looked and investment (at least on infrastructure and major public service projects) is not at an all time low. Its been one of the few areas ring fenced within the budget to be protected from cuts according to the Guardian.

Can you provide some evidence about your views on investment or explain what you mean by investment being at an all time low.

[DaveR]

"I don't hate Tories Dave. I just hate policies that penalise the poorest and most vulnerable. It's a different thing.

But it is daft to pretend to know what 76.5% of the electorate think, and to assume how far within that hatred of the Tories goes. You have no way of knowing if it is a minority of that or not."

Exhibit B

[Blah Blah]

The ONS publish detailed figures on investment and breakdowns. It fell to ?60 billion annually after the 2008 crash and hasn't got above ?80 billion since. That gap of ?20 billion over 8 years represents a flatlining of investment. You would have to go back to 1990 to see investment flatlining, and even then it only did so for three years. Germany, France and the US have all recovered better than us on investment growth, Germany especially well (which puts to bed any idea that growth figures fuelled mainly by household consumption, really means any kind of tangible growth). I will find a chart to demonstrate that.

[Lordship 516]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Also, Blah Blah, I've looked and investment (at

> least on infrastructure and major public service

> projects) is not at an all time low. Its been one

> of the few areas ring fenced within the budget to

> be protected from cuts according to the Guardian.

>

>

> Can you provide some evidence about your views on

> investment or explain what you mean by investment

> being at an all time low.

UK Government Spending as a % of GDP 2015 43.2%

UK Government investment as a % of GDP 2015 14% - an all time low.

To get back to where it ought to be [view held by most sane economists] it would need another 5% spend on Investment in infrastructure - this would also kick in extra effect of fiscal multiplier which would be above unity during this recessive period. The fiscal multiplier that our esteemed treasury was using up to 2013 @ 0.5 was found to be incorrect & was revised by the IMF in 2012 to be @ 1.06 - the Treasury has since being using this figure. Extra spending on new productive infrastructure would actually cost the economy nothing as it would have a real locomotive effect.

[Blah Blah]

And that is the view of most same economists Lordship, as you say. This area of economics is where Osborne has been very weak and I struggle to find another chancellor in history who had less understanding of or less wllingness to act (as I'm not sure of which Osborne is guilty of) in this area. Investment is a key engine of the economy we work under. It has to be a vital measure of those who manage it for us.

[Lordship 516]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And that is the view of most same economists

> Lordship, as you say. This area of economics is

> where Osborne has been very weak and I struggle to

> find another chancellor in history who had less

> understanding of or less wllingness to act (as I'm

> not sure of which Osborne is guilty of) in this

> area. Investment is a key engine of the economy we

> work under. It has to be a vital measure of those

> who manage it for us.

What Osborne did was to de-gear the big G element of the UK economic model. This had the opposite effect to the fiscal multiplier effect & is exponential. Big G is the most important economic driver as it is usually spent in areas that private investors will not venture; the government has to act as the waymaker & then private investors will row in behind the projects with further ancilliary investment. The effect is even more profound when the extra investment is spent on Fixed Capital formation as once it is in place it is impossible to set it to one side & the effect will be a long term gain. What must not happen is investment in pork barrell/vanity projects such as HS2 [my opinion]. Keeping up with French & Chinese high speed trainsets is a poor reason to spend money that could be better utilized elsewhere, such as schools, hospitals, care facilities, new homes etc. Projects need to be relevant for the time we live in and to the population that live now.

[LondonMix]

Wait- wasn't 2008 labour? So isn't it more correct to say infrastructure investment fell to an all time low under the labour government following the global financial crisis and has grown by a 3rd since?

I'm not debating if more spending would have been better or if this was the right approach but how on earth do the facts you've laid out support your statement that investment fell to an all time low under Cameron?

Again, I think Cameron made loads of mistakes as all leaders do but he doesn't seem guilty of what you are suggesting

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The ONS publish detailed figures on investment and

> breakdowns. It fell to ?60 billion annually after

> the 2008 crash and hasn't got above ?80 billion

> since. That gap of ?20 billion over 8 years

> represents a flatlining of investment. You would

> have to go back to 1990 to see investment

> flatlining, and even then it only did so for three

> years. Germany, France and the US have all

> recovered better than us on investment growth,

> Germany especially well (which puts to bed any

> idea that growth figures fuelled mainly by

> household consumption, really means any kind of

> tangible growth). I will find a chart to

> demonstrate that.

[Lordship 516]

Osborne was appointed Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer by Michael Howard in 2005 after William Hague and David Cameron turned the job down.

Osborne promised that his austerity experiment would eliminate the budget deficit by 2015. Actually the UK is still borrowing ?100 billion per year, meaning that he failed big time on this target.

Osbourne created more new debt than all the Labour chancellors put together.

Osborne forecast that the UK national debt would be ?1.232 trillion by 2015. In reality it rose to to ?1.489 trillion - so he borrowed ?257 billion more than he forecast.

Osbourne forecast that the UK economy would grow to ?1.916 trillion by 2015, but it ended up at ?1.822 trillion - this means that he borrowed ?257 more than he said he would in order to make the UK economy ?100 billion smaller than his forecast.

Osbourne oversaw the longest sustained decline in wages since records began. The fact is that millions of workers are significantly worse off than they were in 2008 - this is one of the main reasons why economic demand is still so weak and & the so-called recovery is so sluggish.

Cameron bigged up everything Georgie Porgie did & as The First Lord of the Treasury is more than equally culpable for the mess that they left behind them - at least Cameron has had the nous to slip out the back door so he can avoid being slagged off in Parliament about it. They also maintained the myth that they were cleaning up Labour's mess when in fact they were creating a far bigger mess than Labour ever did.

[Blah Blah]

No it is not correct LM. Investment dropped after the crash as you would expect (it did all over the world). It recovered a little (by ?10 billion annually) by 2010, and in fact, most of the recovery after the crash had come by 2010. Ths is why it is a myth that Osborne is responsible for all the recovery since 2008. Practically nothing has moved forward under his policies. Fluctuation by just ?10 billion over six years is a woefull performance by any comparison. All the charts are out there for you to look at. Even after the recessions of the 80s and 90s, there was no period of flatlining like this. And as I said, Germany, USA and France have all recovered on investment markedly. We haven't. Lordship has seconded everything I have said on that and gone further and explained how Osborne has messed it up (by degearing investment).

****crossed posts with Lordship, but agree of course.

[Lordship 516]

Most of the low inflation & "recovery" effect was mainly due to low energy/oil/gas prices.

He also claimed that low bond prices that were the result of quantitative easing were caused by his fiscal policies which demonstrates that he didn't understand the difference between fiscal and monetary policy...DOH..!

[Lordship 516]

Also, at a time of a slow economic activity this is the exact time the government should "Crowd in" in order to replace slow private investment - Osbourne did the opposite. The poor paid for it big time. He is a total illiterate - should have stuck to the paint & wallpaper business. With his degree in Modern History you might think he would realize the consequences & his place in history.

[LondonMix]

Okay but would you agree saying that investment was at an all time low isn't actually true.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No it is not correct LM. Investment dropped after

> the crash as you would expect (it did all over the

> world). It recovered a little (by ?10 billion

> annually) by 2010, and in fact, most of the

> recovery after the crash had come by 2010. Ths is

> why it is a myth that Osborne is responsible for

> all the recovery since 2008. Practically nothing

> has moved forward under his policies. Fluctuation

> by just ?10 billion over six years is a woefull

> performance by any comparison. All the charts are

> out there for you to look at. Even after the

> recessions of the 80s and 90s, there was no period

> of flatlining like this. And as I said, Germany,

> USA and France have all recovered on investment

> markedly. We haven't. Lordship has seconded

> everything I have said on that and gone further

> and explained how Osborne has messed it up (by

> degearing investment).

>

> ****crossed posts with Lordship, but agree of

> course.

[Blah Blah]

No I wouldn't for the reason Lordship gave you.

"UK Government investment as a % of GDP 2015 14% - an all time low."

That is the whole point of the discussion. It IS at an all time low.