Godwin's Second Law

[danumdon]

We can see what the graph is demonstrating but we don't have categorical evidence that this happened due to the current incumbents or could have also happened under any political party.

Your quote about state pension provision being the worst in the OECD is selective again because they all have different provisions, most of Euorpe pay a far greater percentage of their income into the state pensions compared with our pitiful effort, but then our occupations pension are different again to theirs, so not a good comparison. I agree that those who don't have private provision can be very stretched.

Your last paragraph could also be aimed at any government who basically trashed the economy, who's to say that the previous Labour party manifesto would not of had a greater bearing on the lives and long term health of the young today, if i remember rightly the last Labour incumbent trashed the pension industry to within an inch of its life, for some never to be recovered. I'm sure that's doing a great job on the health of the current population, who's to say that episode did not also add to the downfall in life expectancy on the graph?

[SydneyRover]

Maybe you should have a look and compare how labour governments performed on an economic basis especially immediately following the GFC.

''These differences are not statistically significant, but the discrepancy between mean and median hints at the presence of outliers of particularly strong or weak quarters in the data that are skewing the mean averages. In fact, Labour have achieved a higher concentration of quarters of positive growth than the Conservatives. Indeed, despite the 2008-09 recession taking place on Labour’s watch, the party has only overseen seven quarters of recession in the past 100 years compared to 17 under the Conservatives''

https://theconversation.com/labour-are-much-better-at-running-the-economy-than-voters-think-new-research-162368

[SydneyRover]

''Results Spending constraints between 2010 and 2014 were associated with an estimated 45 368 (95% CI 34 530 to 56 206) higher than expected number of deaths compared with pre-2010 trends. Deaths in those aged ≥60 and in care homes accounted for the majority. PES was more strongly linked with care home and home mortality than PEH, with each £10 per capita decline in real PES associated with an increase of 5.10 (3.65–6.54) (p<0.001) care home deaths per 100 000. These associations persisted in lag analyses and after adjustment for macroeconomic factors. Furthermore, we found that changes in real PES per capita may be linked to mortality mostly via changes in nurse numbers. Projections to 2020 based on 2009-2014 trend was cumulatively linked to an estimated 152 141 (95% CI 134 597 and 169 685) additional deaths.

Conclusions Spending constraints, especially PES, are associated with a substantial mortality gap. We suggest that spending should be targeted on improving care delivered in care homes and at home; and maintaining or increasing nurse numbers.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

[phil old leake]

Sydney your facts might be correct re recession but I do feel that love him or hate him BJ and the government have to be cut a little slack due to the events of the past 5 yrs
Things like the adjustment to the economy and Brexit negotiations didn’t make things easy and then COVID on top. 
Forget party allegiance and look at things logically all the spending and support during COVID has to be paid for at some time
The chancellor is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. I can’t imagine any other government could have come out of this mess in any better position.
Apart from a spend spend spend policy by Starmer which is very easy to advocate when you’re not spending it or justifying it I have heard nothing of consequence from Starmer (underwhelming to say the least)
One thing I  would say is it was nice to hear a Labour mp The Shadow Chancellor on Sunday morning quoting a Labour policy of a windfall tax instead of the usual Starmer rhetoric of having no policy but whatever you do it’s Sxxt
This government has made mistakes for definite but overall we appear to be in a better place than our close neighbours who are also suffering

[SydneyRover]

Sydney your facts might be correct re recession but I do feel that love him or hate him BJ and the government have to be cut a little slack due to the events of the past 5 yrs
Things like the adjustment to the economy and Brexit negotiations didn’t make things easy and then COVID on top. 
Forget party allegiance and look at things logically all the spending and support during COVID has to be paid for at some time
The chancellor is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. I can’t imagine any other government could have come out of this mess in any better position.
Apart from a spend spend spend policy by Starmer which is very easy to advocate when you’re not spending it or justifying it I have heard nothing of consequence from Starmer (underwhelming to say the least)
One thing I  would say is it was nice to hear a Labour mp The Shadow Chancellor on Sunday morning quoting a Labour policy of a windfall tax instead of the usual Starmer rhetoric of having no policy but whatever you do it’s Sxxt
This government has made mistakes for definite but overall we appear to be in a better place than our close neighbours who are also suffering

phil, If you could explain what outcomes you would expect from the government over the next two to five years, regarding wages, inflation, gdp, employment and any other factors you think important it may help me to help you. You could also remind me in what context I mentioned a recession.

Maybe put some context to the statement you have attached to Starmer.

Regarding brexit it's about time that those that voted for it and the government that delivered it to own it don't you think?

[phil old leake]

 Sydney
A direct lift

Indeed, despite the 2008-09 recession taking place on Labour’s watch, the party has only overseen seven quarters of recession in the past 100 years compared to 17 under the Conservatives''

I don’t need to justify my thoughts and I think I can definitely say I don’t need you to help me

Once again as usual you try to put a twist on everything

If you really think any other government could have handled the likes of COVID any better then that’s your opinion

Irrelevant of how anyone voted Brexit was basically held up by people who wouldn’t accept the result but were happy to accept the options on the ballot paper until they lost

[drfchound]

Asks all the questions but never answers any.

[SydneyRover]

Sydney
A direct lift

Indeed, despite the 2008-09 recession taking place on Labour’s watch, the party has only overseen seven quarters of recession in the past 100 years compared to 17 under the Conservatives''

I don’t need to justify my thoughts and I think I can definitely say I don’t need you to help me

Once again as usual you try to put a twist on everything

If you really think any other government could have handled the likes of COVID any better then that’s your opinion

Irrelevant of how anyone voted Brexit was basically held up by people who wouldn’t accept the result but were happy to accept the options on the ballot paper until they lost

I was only referring to 'help you' in terms of answering your question phil .............

Yes labour managed the economy in terms of response to the gfc better than most other countries in the world.

Brexit, yes the tories need help after they decided to go for the worst economic outcome possible.

National Insurance, the government has already made it's intentions quite clear I would think, don't you?

''Middle-income earners ‘to be hit hardest’ by national insurance rise. Workers on £30,000 to £50,000 will pay higher percentage of salary than those on £100,000, figures reveal''

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jan/28/middle-income-earners-hit-hardest-national-insurance-higher-percentage-uk-rishi-sunak

As far as giving them a break ffs they created their own bunch of oligarchs during the pandemic by doing the same as their sponsors the Russians, no sympathy from me along those lines.

So starting with Austerity that hamstrung the economy to brexit which has cost and will cost into the distant future and everything in between I'm not sure what you expect phil.

You didn't say where and why Starmer said spend spend spend, without context it doesn't mean anything.

[phil old leake]

Nat ins opinion re rise to support nhs

[BillyStubbsTears]

Phil.

You want us to cut Johnson a little slack because of difficulties due to Brexit?

[SydneyRover]

Nat ins opinion re rise to support nhs

NHS, ah yes please remind how underfunded it has been throughout the tory years what the waiting list was before the pandemic.

It's not just that the NHS has to be funded it is the choice that was made as to who would pay.

And you didn't say where and why Starmer said spend spend spend, without context it doesn't mean anything.

[phil old leake]

Billy
I was just making the point he had it to deal with as well as everything else such as COVID and I don’t think many would have wanted it to do.
It had to be done and the French and others made it difficult 
A lot of what has happened has been forced upon him. I am not saying he’s a god or anything. At times he’s a blithering Buffoon and I can’t believe he’s managed to ride out all the controversies  recently
It wasn’t an easy job to sort and neither was COVID. One of the points I’m making is there is not the everlasting pot of money that some think there is.  Supporting the furlough and other things have to be paid for
Everyone can say that they would have done more and given more money to everyone which would have put the country in more debt than there is now
I seem to remember that not too long ago public opinion was in favour of raising taxes to support the NHS
A large proportion of the population are still in favour

[SydneyRover]

Very few would argue the the NHS doesn't need more funds but

''Figures produced by the Tax Calculator UK website show those earning £100,000 a year will pay just 7% of their overall salary in national insurance contributions (NICs) – the same proportion of their income as someone on £20,000 a year''

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jan/28/middle-income-earners-hit-hardest-national-insurance-higher-percentage-uk-rishi-sunak

[phil old leake]

I agree that the way it is apparently calculated is strange. Why there isn’t a straight percentage of income I can’t see
Please explain how a Labour government would support the NHS in a better way and how Labour supported the NHS when they were last in government. We could all create millions if not billions by proper spending.
The civil service for one spend fortunes using agencies to book travel and to buy equipment. It would be far cheaper to buy things independently and to book travel and other items and equipment directly
This will be the same throughout government including the NHS. If a private company handled their budgets like national departments they’d go bust

[SydneyRover]

I guess if you increase taxes instead of the NI those earning less pay less phil

[phil old leake]

I’m assuming it’s being done this way so the money can be red circled

[BillyStubbsTears]

No tax income can be red circled.

It's being done this way because the key Tory constituency (well off people who don't work) contribute precisely f**k all to NI.

[phil old leake]

Do I detect a little bit of bitterness Billy

[BillyStubbsTears]

You detect a very large amount of anger at the unfairness of this.

But this is entirely secondary. The real reason why our health funding has flatlined over the past decade compared to where it needed to go is that we are a very great deal poorer as a nation than we should have been, because of the boneheaded stupidity of Austerity. Our economic growth in the 2010s was the worst of any decade since the 18th century. We have lost hundreds of billions of pounds of economic output, for precisely zero benefit, other than giving the Tories something to campaign on. Absolutely criminal.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Sydney your facts might be correct re recession but I do feel that love him or hate him BJ and the government have to be cut a little slack due to the events of the past 5 yrs
Things like the adjustment to the economy and Brexit negotiations didn’t make things easy and then COVID on top. 
Forget party allegiance and look at things logically all the spending and support during COVID has to be paid for at some time
The chancellor is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. I can’t imagine any other government could have come out of this mess in any better position.
Apart from a spend spend spend policy by Starmer which is very easy to advocate when you’re not spending it or justifying it I have heard nothing of consequence from Starmer (underwhelming to say the least)
One thing I  would say is it was nice to hear a Labour mp The Shadow Chancellor on Sunday morning quoting a Labour policy of a windfall tax instead of the usual Starmer rhetoric of having no policy but whatever you do it’s Sxxt
This government has made mistakes for definite but overall we appear to be in a better place than our close neighbours who are also suffering

If we'd had a government that didn't cripple the economy so much for the ten years between 2010 and 2020, we'd have gone INTO it in a much better position!

[drfchound]

No tax income can be red circled.

It's being done this way because the key Tory constituency (well off people who don't work) contribute precisely f**k all to NI.

Do I detect a little bit of bitterness Billy

Yes you do detect bitterness by bst Phil.
He has consistently told us how much he resents pensioners.
He has said that we get too much state pension, too much of a rise each April and that we should be grateful for the younger people who pay for our pensions.
Forgetting of course that we paid for the pensions of people who were retired before we ourselves were.
He would have us all shot if he had the choice.

[phil old leake]

So it has nothing to do with the last Labour government building the economy on mass borrowing and leaving the UK in a financially vulnerable position that had to be reversed after they lost
I know that this argument is a fruitless one because you will not change your view and I’m highly unlikely to change mine

There is also some research that suggests the last period of Labour government benefitted from the previous  policies of the tories freeing up the labour market allowing the Labour Party a bit of a free ride. This is also disputed by some. It can be written up any way someone wants
What I would say is I am no lover of thatcher she was in my opinion a vindictive nasty person and the way  she treated the working man was an absolute disgrace. I lived through that era and saw first hand the consequences of her policies and the way they devastated areas and families
It has taken years to recover. But let’s not be blinkered you cannot borrow your way to growth with no way of paying it back.  Something has to give.  That is one of the major problems at the moment. This government and it could easily have been a Labour government has had to borrow money to support the country through this crisis. That’s not the governments fault that is a result of the crisis. 
As I wrote earlier better accounting within government services would save billions. The NHS would also save billions if they paid staff what they deserved to retain them and stopped paying agency staff on more money

[BillyStubbsTears]

Phil.

It is the biggest myth in politics that the last Labour Govt had its good times based on unsustainable borrowing. It's absolutely and demonstrably untrue. Before the Global Financial Crisis hit, Govt debt under Labour was less than it had been under Thatcher and Major. It was only when the global crisis hit that debt went up. As it should.

You can and SHOULD use Government borrowing to pull yourself out of a recession. That has been textbook economic theory for 90 years. Industry is on its knees and can't invest. People get laid off. So they cut back their expenditure. So there's even less demand for products. So Industry gets even more hammered. Vicious circle. The solution is that Govt should borrow money and pour it into the economy to get the motor firing again. Govt debt incurred doing this doesn't matter. The crucial thing is to get the economy back on its feet. THEN Govt can reduce spending and get higher tax income, reducing the debt over decades.

Cameron was taught that at Cambridge. He chose to ignore it when the Global Financial Crisis occurred, because he saw beating Labour up over the debt that resulted was his path to No10.

It was truly that opportunistic.

The economics profession is pretty much unified in agreeing that the Austerity that Cameron and Osborne brought in was a catastrophe. It depressed economic growth for years. It depressed wages for over a decade. Ironically, the annoyance and bitterness it caused led directly to the rise of Farage (who did what right wing demagogues have done in every downturn - told people it was foreigners to blame). That resulted in the Brexit vote and the end of Cameron's career. But the permanent economic damage had already been done. By a man who consciously went against everything he'd been educated to do, to advance his own career. It's no exaggeration to say that we have lost something up to £1trn of economic activity, directly because of that decision.

[phil old leake]

As I said in my post. You can write anything up in any way that suits
I did say that it had been written to suit both sides as you have proven. Like me yours is just your opinion. You cannot support your figures with fact it is all speculation
How you know what Cameron was taught I don’t know.
Just because you’re taught something it doesn’t mean you have to agree with it. I’m sure he could make decisions for himself.
I have to agree it was all about him and that’s why he called the Brexit vote believing he was on a winner and then very quickly ran away leaving others to sort it out

[BillyStubbsTears]

I can support my argument with a stream of facts and the opinions of the finest economics minds in the world. But I assume I'd be wasting my time.

I know Cameron was taught that because I know what degree he studied, and what the syllabus includes. Did you think I'd made that up?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Regarding the idea that he might choose to disagree with Keynesian Demand Management, yes he was free to do so. But given the importance of the decision (the biggest one in 50 years) he would require some really compelling evidence to do so.

So he and Osborne (who had zero economic education of course) referred to a paper by a couple of Harvard academics who appeared to be justifying Austerity. That paper was hugely controversial at the time with many other academics picking holes in it.

Then it turned out that the central argument in that paper was based on an analysis in an Excel spreadsheet that had been coded wrongly. When you corrected the error, their argument fell apart.

Such was the gossamer thin support that Austerity was based on.

[Sprotyrover]

The last Labour Government wasted £Billions of the Taxpayers money, Browns Bottom, Browns raid on the Pension Funds both caused financial chaos, the Local Government offices which were totally unnecessary and ridiculously expensive, the local area Managers who got paid over £100 k per annum and did bugger all, Labour even chucked £500 at Bradford so what did they do with it? They employed a PA on £19£ for each of their underworked overpaid area managers.
You paint Labour as some sort of well run financially sound option when the opposite is clearly the case!

[Sprotyrover]

Best quote on this thread is the one re Sydders being a 'Danger to himself and Small Pets!"

[phil old leake]

Billy why do you have to start getting rude insinuating that I am a bit thick which I can assure you I’m not
You say you can support your argument with a stream of fact and opinions. I am assuming that what you would quote would be just that opinions.  You might know what syllabus he was taught that again does not mean it had to be taken on bord as the oracle.  I’m not trying to defend Cameron but you appear to be like a lot on the forum who have tunnel vision with no intention of looking sideways and considering other peoples opinions as fact. I suppose that’s why you lower yourself to insinuations about people
I can only assume that you are a graduate in economics meaning how only your opinion counts

[BillyStubbsTears]

I haven't assumed  or suggested that you are thick Phil.

But I do get annoyed when folk airly imply that I'm making something up. Your comment "How you know what Cameron was taught I don’t know" was straight from that school. You were implying that I was talking nonsense. So forgive me if I was a bit curt in the way I replied to you.