Urgent warning!!!

[IC1967]

I'm afraid I've got some very bad news. I've done a detailed economic analysis of the economy and I'm afraid to tell you all the results are very grim. How did we get here? Labour have to take the vast bulk of the blame. Here are the figures for spending when they took power in 1997 and left in 2010.

In 1997 total public spending was ££308billion. By 2010 it had increased to £673billion!!! Thats an increase of 118.5%!!! This huge increase wasn't paid for out of tax receipts. No. We had to borrow money to cover the shortfall.

For the financial year 1996/1997 our national debt was £350billion. By the financial year 2010/2011 it had increased to £902billion!!! Thats an increase of 157.7%!!! So during their time in office, Labour added £552 billion to the national debt!!!

Unfortunately due to Labour totally trashing the economy our national debt has spiralled remorselessly out of control despite the so called austerity of the coalition government. For the year 2014/2015 our national debt is predicted to be £1,360billion.

This debt therefore amounts to a little over £17,000 for each individual Briton, or around £38,000 per person in employment. Each household in Britain pays an average of around £2,000 per year in taxes to finance the interest on the debt. These figures are only going to increase over the coming years.

Now, both Labour and the Tories are promising to stop increasing the national debt by the end of the next parliament. They are both telling bare faced lies. They have no chance of achieving this goal. We are drowning in too much debt and payback time isn't too far away. When it comes, the financial crash will look like a picnic in the park.

What to do about the impending doom? Get as much of your debts paid down. Buy your own house, under no circumstances should you be renting (I'm talking about people living in Doncaster because here house prices are so cheap). Get some savings to tide you over through the very bad times. Under no circumstances trust Labour or Tory politicians.

You have been warned.

[RedRover45]

Shut up you tit

[grayx]

cock

[RoversDave]

So after 18 years of Thatcher and Major selling off everything but the Queen we were still £350bn in debt. Bless'em.

[IC1967]

I'd be quite happy for her and all the other royal scroungers to be sold off as well.

[not on facebook]

I'd be quite happy for her and all the other royal scroungers to be sold off as well.

Knobhead on that one

[bpoolrover]

Out of interest I no you don't like mick but are his points wrong? Genuine question

[not on facebook]

Out of interest I no you don't like mick but are his points wrong? Genuine question

I have no issues with Mick or any other poster ,just he is a knob on the royal family slur

[bpoolrover]

Was not really at you that Oslo

[BillyStubbsTears]

bpool

Mick is a strange case. He scours the internet for data and opinions that back up what he believes and he steadfastly refuses to listen to anything else. He occasionally finds data that is plain wrong, but, because it backs up what he thinks, he believes it to be right and he argues like mad that it is, until it is shown unequivocally to be wrong - then he either vanishes or says it doesn't matter anyway. In a previous incarnation, he copied and pasted an entire piece from a website claiming that because our national debt was as high as that of Weimar Germany, we were bound to follow their economic collapse. When I challenged him on the numbers, showing him that they were £6TRILLION higher than any other published figures for our debt, he manically insisted that he had found the numbers through his own research and gave us a detailed breakdown of them. The detailed breakdown of his own research was copied and pasted from another website. He insisted that was just done because of his photographic memory, which, in that case, had photographically remembered formatting mistakes from the original website, because his post here had exactly the same mistakes. Eventually, he agreed that the data might be wrong and perhaps he HAD overstated the debt by £6trillion. But he then insisted that his original conclusion was right all along.

Another time, he insisted that because or debt was so high, we were going to have hyperinflation. Within one month, he had decided that instead we were going to have deflation. He said that he had found some "astonishing evidence" that changed his mind. But he refused to tell us what it was. It turns out, he had found another right-wing website that told him what he wanted to hear. We found that out because, again, he copied and pasted an entire argument and claimed it was his own ideas.

Back in 2012, because inflation was such a threat (apparently) he told us to sell everything we could and buy gold. He'd read that advice on another right-wing website and passed it off as his own idea. In fact the price of gold fell by 40% over the next 6 months and remained low.

None of it matters to Mick, because he is immune to evidence.

And when he can't find evidence, he lies. Regularly and blatantly. About his identity. About his "original" ideas which are invariably copied and pasted from some right-wing website. Even about whether he picked the Grand National winner. It'd be quite amusing if he fessed up about it. The fact that he doesn't suggests some form of mental disorder.

On this particular topic, remarkably, he is correct about the actual debt figures. But Mick, being Mick, ignores the wider picture. He insists that debt is a peculiarly British problem and one entirely due to the behaviour of the last Labour Govt. He ignores the fact that debt went up across the developed world as a result of the catastrophic world collapse in 2008. That is what happens after a massive recession. It happened in America, Germany, France, Japan...anywhere you look. He ignores the fact that before the recession, the UK's debt as a ratio of it's income (debt-to-GDP) which is all that matters (because its an indication of whether you can afford your debt) was lower than at almost any time since WWI, and certainly lower than it was when Labour came to power. None of that matters to Mick, because evidence is used by him to confirm what he already believes.

I answer him solely because it worries me that people like you might be convinced by him. He is like the very worst kind of politician. He selects data that supports what he believes and ignored everything else. And when he can't find evidence, or when he is confronted by his contradictions, he lies shamefacedly.

As for the current debt problem, of COURSE we've got a problem.. The whole Western world has a problem. But our problem is a pinprick compared to what it was in 1945. Then, our debt-to-GDP ratio was 3 times higher than it is at the moment, and 6 times what it was before the wheels came off worldwide in the great 2008 recession. According to Mickonomics, the current level of debt is a catastrophe which means that we have no option but to cut the State drastically. But from 1945-65, with FAR higher debt, we built the Welfare State and had an almost unbroken 20 years of economic growth.

Debt is used as an argument by right wingers to scare people into believing that the only solution is to shrink the State. They want you to believe that the NHS, pensions, decent schools and transport are unaffordable. That's not just my opinion by the way. It was stated baldly by the (very right-wing) Assistant Editor of the Telegraph is a moment when he was being tied up in knots by an Oxford prof of economics, and momentarily dropped his guard:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100025496/oh-god-i-cannot-take-any-more-of-the-austerity-debate/

He said, "Let's be frank about this; the austerity debate is as much about ideology as economics...In the end, you are either a big-state person, or a small-state person...The bottom line is that you can only really make serious inroads into the size of the state during an economic crisis."

Not "We must cut the state because this is essential to get debt down." No. "We must use debt as the reason to cut the state."

It's as simple as that. If you viscerally hate the Welfare State, the NHS, the whole concept of a collective approach to societies problems, you will use debt as the big bogeyman to justify massive cuts in what the state does.

THAT is what UKIP want to do. Their long term plan is to replace the Tory party on the right of UK politics and drive through that sort of revolution. If you agree with that, you should vote for them. If you don't, then approach anything that people like Mick says with an attitude that says "what are they trying to do here?"

[IC1967]

What a load of old waffle. Billy has shown himself up to be in denial over anything that is not left wing. He has also shown himself up to be a liar and misrepresents what people say to suit his own hard left agenda. His most recent example of this behaviour was when he misrepresented what Freud said about the severely disabled. He put making political capital before the needs of the severely disabled. You can't sink any lower than that in my opinion.

What Billy wants everyone to believe is that it's OK for us to keep on racking up debt and living beyond our means. In silly Billy land you just keep borrowing to fund your extravagant lifestyle.

What he needs to explain is why Labour have also promised to eliminate the deficit by the end of the next parliament. If racking up more and more debt isn't a problem then surely they wouldn't do it would they?

[LongbridgeMGRover]

I agree with Billy.

[IC1967]

I agree with Billy.

What you both have to explain is why, despite the national debt doubling during this period of so called austerity the extra massive borrowing hasn't solved our economic problems. Why if borrowing is the solution do Labour want to cut back on it nearly as much as the Tories? Surely they wouldn't do this if borrowing was so affordable and good for the economy?

[bpoolrover]

Thank you both for your replies,are you a ukip voter Mick if you don't mind me asking or have I misread that?

[Dagenham Rover]

Mick votes for whoever suits his argument at the time unless its labour, if I could be bothered it would be worth trawling his posts before the last election although you would need to know about twenty different usernames 

[bpoolrover]

Oh lol

[Sammy Chung was King]

On another subject looked at a Norah Jones CD,One of the singers she collaborated with was Brian Blade,surely it can't be true?

[IC1967]

Thank you both for your replies,are you a ukip voter Mick if you don't mind me asking or have I misread that?

It's not quite that simple. I'm a tactical voter. I feel it is my duty to do whatever I can to keep Labour out of power. I believe passionately in getting out of the EU so in the European elections voted UKIP. As this vote was on proportional representation I felt my vote would count. Under first past the post at the general election I will also vote UKIP because in Doncaster that is the only possible chance of keeping Labour out. If I thought that the Tories or LibDems had the best chance of keeping Labour out I would vote for them. In an ideal world I'd like to vote UKIP all the time but because of first past the post that it not always the best use of a vote if you want to keep Labour out. That should be the overriding concern of anyone at the general election. The economy is in a very fragile state and the return of Labour to power would totally finish the country off.

They did a brilliant job last time of trashing the economy and I don't think we are going to recover from it. However there is always a little bit of hope that things might improve under the Tories but it is a very long shot. I do know this though. The Tories have bought us  a little bit of time  to prepare for the impending doom. The return of Labour would hasten our demise. I am hoping against hope that I am wrong and that The Tories and UKIP form a coalition next time and by some miracle rescue the future of the country. However I don't think I'm wrong. The damage Labour wreaked on the economy last time is far too severe to recover from.

[IC1967]

Mick votes for whoever suits his argument at the time unless its labour, if I could be bothered it would be worth trawling his posts before the last election although you would need to know about twenty different usernames 

I'm quite capable of answering questions myself thank you very much. I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm the only one that answers everything thrown at me. My questions however go unanswered for the most part. All you lefties out there would do better to answer my questions rather than always attacking me. Anyone can see that this tactic is used because you can't answer my questions or argue against my implacable logic.

[IC1967]

Lets examine the facts in more detail to prove conclusively that I am right. I have considered all the evidence out there before deciding I was right all along.

Here is what public spending was in 1996/1997 just before Labour came to power and what it was when they left office and what it is projected to be in 2014/2015. Bear in mind that when Labour came to power they said they were going to be wise spenders not big spenders like the Tories. Unbelievable but true.

                                    2014/2015   2009/2010    1996/1997
Public Pensions             £150 billion    £116 billion    £49 billion
National Health Care     £133 billion    £117 billion    £41 billion
State Education            £90 billion      £88 billion      £37 billion
Defence                        £46 billion      £43 billion      £25 billion   
Social Security              £110 billion    £111 billion    £64 billion
State Protection           £30 billion       £34 billion     £15 billion   
Transport                     £20 billion       £23 billion     £5 billion   
General Government    £14 billion       £16 billion     £5 billion    
Other Public Services    £86 billion       £94 billion     £35 billion
Public Sector Interest   £52 billion       £31 billion     £32 billion    
Total Spending             ££731 billion   £673 billion   £308 billion

This is where all our money has gone. Labour systematically increased spending to unsustainable levels by borrowing and spending like a drunken sailor. Both Labour and the Tories claim they will cut spending back to sustainable levels. Don't believe them. We are too far gone. If either party told the public what was really necessary they'd never win an election. Lets look at the largest area of spending, Public Pensions. Spending on this is  going to grow by at least 2.5% a year (bear in mind inflation is only 1.2% and falling). More and more people are living longer so this is going to keep this bill rising. This is the area where we spend the most money and it is an area that is going to keep on rising exponentially so no savings there. In fact its an area thats just going to give us a bigger bill every year. Both parties try to keep the old sweet. They know they are most likely to vote so won't do anything to piss them off. 

Lets look at the next biggest area of spending, National Health Care. Again mainly due to an ageing population this is another area that is going to increase. Both parties have pledged either to not cut spending or to increase it. A report on its future has recently stated that we need to spend a lot more than is currently planned if we are to have a decent service in the future. So no savings there, just an ever expanding bill. Thanks to Labour, this area of spending is a political no go area for saving money. In fact Labour have managed to brainwash the public into thinking we should just keep on spending more and more every year regardless of whether we can afford it.

So the 2 biggest areas of spending have had more than a 3 fold increase in spending and this is only going to increase. You couldn't make it up.

Lets look at the next big area of spending, Social Security. The coalition have managed to keep this to the level they inherited but have not been able to reduce it despite creating so many jobs. So once again there is not much chance of a significant saving there. If we look at all the other areas of public spending we can see that at best some areas have fallen slightly or increased slightly but nothing that is going to make a huge difference to our borrowing year on year. One area that should ring alarm bells is the dramatic rise in Public Sector Interest. Up from £32 billion to £52 billion!!! This is only going to get worse as our national debt gets ever larger.

Now, I defy anyone given that backdrop, to explain to me how we are going to make the necessary savings so we no longer need to borrow money. I won't hold my breath because you won't be able to. This is why politicians never answer the question. They can't answer it because if they told the truth that we need to cut back severely on all areas of public spending they would be committing political suicide. So they keep telling us what they think we want to hear and put off the day of reckoning. They always talk about spending (especially if you are Labour). At least the Tories have tried to cut some things but even though they've only scratched the surface, overall spending has still increased rapidly. And then they get vilified for so called austerity!!!

Its a hard truth but you need to hear it. We are living well beyond our means and have done for a long time. Because there isn't the political will to cut back (I blame you lefties for this) we will eventually reach the point where the whole house of cards is going to collapse. I predict this will happen before 2020.

You have been warned. Get your house in order now and be prepared. Its going to get very ugly out there.
       
       
    

       
       
       

[BillyStubbsTears]

I suggest you buy gold.

[not on facebook]

I suggest you buy gold.

bad addvice is that as there is not enough gold stored away in whatever bank to  cover the gold that has been
bought

go With  silver

[IC1967]

What is the solution I hear you ask? First job is to eliminate the deficit. Once this is done, we need to pay off the national debt.

How do we eliminate the deficit i hear you ask. Its very simple. We have to shrink the state quite a lot. To get rid of the deficit we need to save aprox. £100 billion per annum.  Here are some suggestions of policies I would implement if I were the benevolent dictator of the UK.

National Health Care spending to be reduced by £40 billion. This is going to mean more people are going to die sooner than they would have done but this will also mean there will be less pensions to pay out. Unfortunately we all would like to keep people alive as long as possible (providing they have a decent quality of life) but unfortunately we can't afford it at the moment.

Public Pensions spending to be reduced by £30 billion. Anyone on a final salary pension of more than £15,000 will not receive the state pension. No more Winter Payments Supplements or free bus passes. The retirement age raised immediately to 80. More people dying early due to my National Health Care reforms and these changes should save us about £30 billion.

Social Security to be reduced by £30 billion. If you don't work you starve or rely on charity. Its that simple. We still need to look after the disabled but anyone than can work should work.

Defence should be reduced by £20 billion. Get rid of Trident and stop getting involved in other people's wars.

State Protection to be reduced by £20 billion. Not getting involved in other people's wars will make this easy to achieve.

Transport should be increased by £20 billion as this will help the economy grow.

State Education should be increased by £20 billion as we are in a competitive world and need to move up the education league tables if we are going to thrive and prosper.

General government to be cut by £10 billion. We've got far too many politicians.

Other Public services to be reduced by £40 billion. This can be achieved by efficiency savings and letting the private sector get more involved.

So all in all I'd have reduced public spending by £150 billion. This would allow us to pay £50 billion off the national debt. Sorted.

[IC1967]

I suggest you buy gold.

Good advice. I've been drip feeding money into gold for a long time now. Luckily for me the price of gold dropped 40% shortly after I started investing. This means that as a long term investor I am buying at the bottom of the market. I suggest you all do the same as the price of gold can only go up. I reckon its going to go up a lot once people realise just how bad things are in the UK and the rest of the world economy.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bpool

You call mate. If you reckon that we should slash the NHS, allow/encourage people to die earlier to save pensions and allow those who slip through the bottom of society to starve, then you have met your spiritual friend in Mick.

[IC1967]

Bpool

You call mate. If you reckon that we should slash the NHS, allow/encourage people to die earlier to save pensions and allow those who slip through the bottom of society to starve, then you have met your spiritual friend in Mick.

Twisting my words again. If we doubled spending on the NHS there would still be people dying that could have been saved if only we'd spent more money. You are not prepared to face reality. We can't just keep spending and spending. Eventually we'd go bust (I think we are already well on the way) and even more people would die because the NHS would have to shrink by a lot more than I'm proposing. Under my proposals the NHS would still be a lot bigger than when Labour took power.

Anyone that can work should work. Nothing wrong with that statement. I think you'd find that rather than starve, people would find work and stop turning their noses up at certain jobs. If they still want to not work then they would still have the safety net of charity. Their choice.

I notice that you have no solutions to our economic woes. Typical leftie. Just wants to borrow and borrow to continue our unaffordable lifestyle.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

"National Health Care spending to be reduced by £40 billion. This is going to mean more people are going to die sooner than they would have done but this will also mean there will be less pensions to pay out."

I'm not sure which part of this requires any twisting. It is the ranting of an insane sociopath. If you actually believed any of this, you'd be sectionable. As it is, you're just in WUM mode and I haven't got time for that, so toddle off.

[IC1967]

Mick

"National Health Care spending to be reduced by £40 billion. This is going to mean more people are going to die sooner than they would have done but this will also mean there will be less pensions to pay out."

I'm not sure which part of this requires any twisting. It is the ranting of an insane sociopath. If you actually believed any of this, you'd be sectionable. As it is, you're just in WUM mode and I haven't got time for that, so toddle off.

For you the NHS should be a bottomless pit of money. Unfortunately some of us have to live in the real world. Look, its a fact that we spend enormous amounts on keeping the old alive for as long as possible. I suggest you visit a geriatric ward where you will hear the plaintiff scream of 'please just let me die' ringing out on a regular basis. It is heartbreaking to hear. But because of religious nutjobs we are not allowed to put them out of their misery. Only God can decide when it is time for them to go and join him.

Let me ask you a question. Would you rather spend £1million on a bed bound geriatric that wants to die that has a very poor quality of life (this £1million will prolong their agony by six months). Or would this money be better spent on improving the life chances through education of 10 primary school children from deprived backgrounds? Bear in mind we have to live in the real world and not silly Billy land and there isn't a bottomless pit of money and the nation's credit card has already been maxed out by Labour.

[BillyStubbsTears]

There is a balance to be struck you f**king cretin. As ever with you, it's black-white, yes-no, 1-0.

You are utterly incapable of dealing with nuanced issues where there are balanced to be struck. You are like a 7 year old. Utterly certain in the correctness of his own opinions. Utterly oblivious to the balanced that adults have to strike.

[IC1967]

There is a balance to be struck you f***ing cretin. As ever with you, it's black-white, yes-no, 1-0.

You are utterly incapable of dealing with nuanced issues where there are balanced to be struck. You are like a 7 year old. Utterly certain in the correctness of his own opinions. Utterly oblivious to the balanced that adults have to strike.

Of course there is a balance to be struck. At last I'm getting somewhere with you. I have struck the balance at spending being more than double what it was when Labour came to power. More than reasonable. Where do you strike the balance?