Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson . . .

[sumdumbloke]

They're not 'figures taken randomly from the internet', Ken. They're the civil services own figures, taken from government websites.

They are not highly selective. They are real, objective data taken over sufficiently long a period to allow conclusions to be drawn. I could understand your argument if it were the other way round - too brief a snapshot - but this isn't that. And the reason I didn't cover 2007 to 2010 is precisely for the reasons I mentioned about the crisis. If, as you say, you approve of the bail out, then the rest is just cant. You can't will the means and disown the ends. I've no idea about the contracts you refer to, but if you quote them in sufficient detail for them to be checked (as I do above) then I'd be happy to be informed. But I have to say at present it looks a bit like another slogan.

QB, you're right. Apologies. I did mention growth (highest of the G8 in 2007). But now you're saying growth is bad? We only had it because of too many immigrants? I've never seen that case put by a serious economist. As for the idea it was fuelled by borrowed money, look again at the figures. Before the crisis labour's record on debt and borrowing was substantially lower than the conservatives. And yes, Labour did have to pour a lot of money into public services, largely at the behest of a baby-boomer generation - the only group guaranteed to vote - demanding better services. I think that was/is the right thing to do.

And, finally, Alan. I suppose I should be kind and say that if you find creationism convincing I shouldn't be surprised at you falling for other fairy tales such as 'Labour doing it's best to ruin the country'.

[Kendhni]

Ever since I've been able to vote until recent years, it has always been the case that Labour does its best to ruin this country while the Tory party used to work for the nation.

I see it differently ... to me what the Tory party tries to do is empower individuals and give them the ability to make the most of their lives; they reward entrepreneurialism and achievement and provide a basic welfare onto which people can fall back in times of need. On the other hand Labour tries to keep people dependent on them and the state; they reward laziness and mediocrity and provide a welfare state that makes more-and-more people dependent on the state (and therefore them).

I am not convinced that the present Government has the nation's best interests at heart either, though.

As I said before the last election, whoever got power during this period would be inheriting a poisoned chalice. It is likely they would be unpopular because coming after a government that pandered to the people they would have to make the important decisions that the previous government did not have the guts to do.

I almost felt sorry for Gordon Brown during the 2009-2010 period when it was obvious many in his party were stabbing him in the back and trying to distance themselves from him because they thouoght there was going to be a leadership race ... but nobody wanted the job so nobody had the guts to take him pon, they accepted that the mess Labour created would cost them the next election so they did not want to be in the leadership role at that time ... note however after the last election they came crawling out of their gutters.

The second point of interest is that we could have had a rainbow coalition involving Labour, LibDems and one or two other parties ... but as Clegg made it clear Labour cowered away from that totally ... it is obvious they had totally run out of ideas, had no idea what to do or how to sort out their mess.

Overall I think we probably got the best government for this a tory/libdem coalition that could drive policy forward but they would curtail each others excesses. I would have preferred to see a government of national unity, but instead Labour have chosen the option to cower and snipe from the sidelines and have yet to stand up and take the full blame for their part in the current economic mess (as a party. although various individuals, inc. GB, have accepted they got many things wrong).

I think that any government does have the best interests of the country at heart but, in the case of the previous government, they just had no political ability and, in the case of this government, they have no room to manouvre.

We are trying to "buy" our way out of this crisis by printing more drinking vouchers which have nothing to back them up. The gold standard has gone and I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese adopt it for their currency in the near future, making them the world's economic powerhouse. They will be calling the shots soon.

The attempt to buy our way out of debt stopped in 2010 when we finally started making decisions to resolve the crisis instead of riding along with it hoping it would fix itself ... unfortunately we do still have to borrow large (but reducing ... slowly) sums of money to fund our public sector. Once that is under control we then have to tackle the two big issues
- the debt we have built up
- the pension time bomb

We are witnessing the shift of power from the west to the east (you only have to look at who is buying up all the bonds). When you look back at the last 20 (or so years) it is stereotypical of the fall of other great civilisations .. massive growth in the public sector as the government tries to find way of keeping its population busy and entertained. I just hope that the east will be as generous as the west was in their charity donations when we need them [TIC]

Sadly between this, the debt and the pensions, that will be a significant part of our legacy to the next generation. I am optimistic about the second half of this decade and the first half of the 20's ... but fear that the second half of the 20's could be much more rambunctious.

I believe the recent double-dip recession is nothing compared to what is coming. I would love to be proved wrong.

Technically speaking there never was a double dip recession. The revised/final figures showed that we actually had a period of stagnation (0% growth) ... although we all know how the government loves to play with numbers

[Kendhni]

They're not 'figures taken randomly from the internet', Ken. They're the civil services own figures, taken from government websites.

I am not disputing the figures, I am disputing their relevance ... the fact that they do not compare like-for-like in the context of this discussion and the fact that they are selective about the period they cover .. because to extend them to the full term would change the view totally. They also portray one set of numbers out of a whole shopping basket of other numbers that collectively go to provide a proper analysis of the financial situation.

There is a saying that a foolish man looks at numbers and a wise man looks at trends.
If you like numbers though you can always go onto the national statistics site and it will show you just about every number you want to see and selectively pick and interpret them as you choose.

As I have continually said you can not (seriously) compare such numbers unless you are also trying to tell me that the economic situation was exactly the same in 1979, 1997 and (the selectively chosen) 2007. However I somehow think you would agree they they were very different ... as I pointed out earlier, in 1979 the country was on the verge of bankruptcy (all parties) ... in 1997 the coffers were bulging and just about every economic trend was positive (conservative) ... in (the conveniently picked) 2007 there was a facade of wealth but that was mostly built on credit and borrowed money but (despite all the warnings) the trends looked positive ... however the consequences of the facade showed themselves in the period 2007-2010 (the bit you are trying to airbrush out of history) ... and the trends were generally negative (although there was some highly manipulated positive trends built on reckless squandering of money in an attempt to fool the gullible public for the election).

Looking forward, this country is still in one hell of a mess and will be for quite a few years more .. but the coalition government has reversed the trends and without doubt the country they put up for election in 2015 will be in a much better state than the one they inherited. I have no idea which government will be next but the general path for their tenure has already been set



BTW, the point I do concede is that under the Conservatives more could have spent on some public services .. instead of stashing the money away for a rainy day. However as the period of 1997-(selectively chosen)2007 shows ... even when you flood the public services with money we do not always see the return we would expect ... they become bottomless pits of masses of faceless paper pushers whose sole purpose seems to be to generate work for each other.

[sumdumbloke]

There is a saying that a foolish man looks at numbers and a wise man looks at trends.
If you like numbers though you can always go onto the national statistics site and it will show you just about every number you want to see and selectively pick and interpret them as you choose.


Looking forward, this country is still in one hell of a mess and will be for quite a few years more .. but the coalition government has reversed the trends and without doubt the country they put up for election in 2015 will be in a much better state than the one they inherited. I have no idea which government will be next but the general path for their tenure has already been set

Sorry, Ken, but if I had used one or two figures plucked for their effect you would have a point. I haven't. I've used one decade's record against a 2-decade period in 2 or 3 key areas, measured the same way, by the same people. In any economic textbook that's a fair period and therefore a valid comparison (in fact it's at the level of metadata, the most reliable of all, since it captures lots of other data in it's results because of the extended period). I can well understand why you find it inconvenient, but you have no warrant to call it irrelevant.

And which trends have been reversed by the current incumbents? Debt is higher. The structural deficit will be with us for years longer than would have been the case had a sensible economic (not political) plan been in place, and unemployment is higher.

As I said, it seems that when the facts don't fit the theory you rubbish the facts. Its the theory: conservative good/labour bad that is simplistic and wrong.

[Kaziebelle]

There has been several interesting Radio/TV progs recently outlining the life and times of this flamboyant gentleman

Could he ever become a UK Prime Minister having been a great success as the London mayor

Bridge too far perhaps

I like Boris and agree with a earlier post that he's certainly no thickie but who could he attract to his table,who would have guts to join and risk the borisettes

[towny44]

I do enjoy occasional political banter between divergent viewpoints but have long since accepted that I will never convince someone of the opposite political viewpoint that my views are correct and his are wrong. Possibly its an age thing and when like me, you recognise that you are well past midlife and fast approaching the terminus, then you realise that such argument/discussion is rather pointless.
Perhaps some of our younger contributors could recognise this futility and maybe get back to some cruise related threads; just checked the active topics and only 5 out of the first 25 are cruise threads, and a number of those are a bit nebulous.

[Kendhni]

Sorry, Ken, but if I had used one or two figures plucked for their effect you would have a point. I haven't. I've used one decade's record against a 2-decade period in 2 or 3 key areas, measured the same way, by the same people. In any economic textbook that's a fair period and therefore a valid comparison (in fact it's at the level of metadata, the most reliable of all, since it captures lots of other data in it's results because of the extended period). I can well understand why you find it inconvenient, but you have no warrant to call it irrelevant.

Try including fiscal lag into the figures (maybe 4-5 years) and it would significantly change them and give a fairer picture ... although yet again it is only one set of numbers out of an entire portfolio required to understand the picture. That is actually one of the downsides of the internet ... a plethora of randomly selected numbers that provide a piece to a jigsaw puzzle but rarely show the picture.

And which trends have been reversed by the current incumbents? Debt is higher. The structural deficit will be with us for years longer than would have been the case had a sensible economic (not political) plan been in place, and unemployment is higher.

A lot of people get the deficit and debt mixed up .. at the minute we are still trying to tackle the deficit .. until that is done debt will rise ... so it will probably rise for another 5+ years. However trend for unemployment is flat->down (remember between 2007 and 2010 it went from circa 1.6 million to 2.5 million ... beware those mortgage rises when it reaches 7%) ... inflation is back under (semi) control ... month-on-month public borrowing is coming down ... tax for the lowest earners is being reduced with many being taken out of the income tax system altogether ... but most importantly we are seeing some investment (although I would like to see more) and confidence is starting to return to the markets and industry.

Overall though we have to remember that Labour managed this recession for just under 3 years and the coalition government has only been managing for about 3.5 years. All the main parties, at the last election, made it clear that it would be at least one parliamentary term before real benefits would be shown and at least 10 years to deal with the debt (sadly the extent of the debt was much worse than was known at the time of the election). In fact if I recall correctly, Labours 'proposed cuts' were bigger than the conservatives proposals (£58m vs £54m I think .. but i could be wrong)

We aren't there yet but I believe we have turned the bottom of the graph and starting on the slow long slope upwards ... be happy ... despite all the whinging and gurning this recession has not been as severe as it could have been .. yes standards of living have drifted back a bit but only by about a decade (and even I can remember those dark filthy times of the early noughties when children were shoved up chimneys and slave labour existed ... or maybe my memory of that period is flawed )

As I said, it seems that when the facts don't fit the theory you rubbish the facts. Its the theory: conservative good/labour bad that is simplistic and wrong.

I have never rubbished facts that are relevant, comparable, complete ... only those that have been selectively chosen to paint a distorted picture. Averages are often a very poor representation of reality since they hide underlying trends.

BTW I have never subscribed to Labour good/Conservative bad, I judge each government on its performance (during and after the fact - and I do believe the current coalition is probably the best we could have hoped for out of the last election) ... I am totally Labour/Tory agnostic never having voted for either of them ... in fact if you look at one of my earlier posts I think I subscribed the mess of the 70's to all governments (and of them the governments of the time I quite liked many of the speeches by Jim Callagahan ... he talked sense, he just struggled to implement the arguments he talked. During the 70's we had a mish-mash of governments that never got to grips with the underlying problems.

[towny44]

I do enjoy occasional political banter between divergent viewpoints but have long since accepted that I will never convince someone of the opposite political viewpoint that my views are correct and his are wrong. Possibly its an age thing and when like me, you recognise that you are well past midlife and fast approaching the terminus, then you realise that such argument/discussion is rather pointless especially when they use Govt. statistics as the basis of their argument.
Perhaps some of our younger contributors could recognise this futility and maybe get back to some cruise related threads; just checked the active topics and only 5 out of the first 25 are cruise threads, and a number of those are a bit nebulous.

[Silver_Shiney]

SDB - I merely look at both sides of the argument with an open mind and go with the side supported by the evidence.

For this topic, the evidence is that Labour is damaging this country - don't tell me selling our gold reserves when the price was low was a good idea!