Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[dynamark]

First topic message reminder :

I think its a done deal -no doubt he will be sat with the owner tonight
Villa should be a big big club remember going to cup semis there but probably need an owner willing to throw in some quick money .
No messing around in football these days from any of the owners.

[navyblueshorts]

Hammond seemingly throwing his hat into the referendum camp. Would a confirmatory referendum include remain, I’d imagine so. It’s certainly creeping back up the possible outcomes table.

I think that would be difficult, especially if it's a binary choice between a soft Brexit deal and Remain. That's dividing the 'Leave' vote and would be hard to justify I think.

[Diggers]

Hammond seemingly throwing his hat into the referendum camp. Would a confirmatory referendum include remain, I’d imagine so. It’s certainly creeping back up the possible outcomes table.

I think that would be difficult, especially if it's a binary choice between a soft Brexit deal and Remain. That's dividing the 'Leave' vote and would be hard to justify I think.

Why would that divide the leave vote? Leave voters can make a choice not to vote, that's not dividing them, it's them making a a choice to abstain. More fool them if they take that path.

[navyblueshorts]

Hammond seemingly throwing his hat into the referendum camp. Would a confirmatory referendum include remain, I’d imagine so. It’s certainly creeping back up the possible outcomes table.

I think that would be difficult, especially if it's a binary choice between a soft Brexit deal and Remain. That's dividing the 'Leave' vote and would be hard to justify I think.

Why would that divide the leave vote? Leave voters can make a choice not to vote, that's not dividing them, it's them making a a choice to abstain. More fool them if they take that path.

You don't see the issue? The suggestions you make for a ballot won't happen. Or, if they do, there'll be Hell to pay. I suppose you could make a case that those wanting to leave would be best advised to vote for the soft leave option if that's all that's available, but it's not equitable to have a ballot as you suggest.

[Diggers]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

Based on his questioning and the lack of coherent responses.

You're not a scientist then?

No, but I am in the middle of an MsC block on Economics. Does that allow me to join in?

Should probably point out it's an MSc. Got a bit of the "Macitis" I think.

Sadcase. I'm assuming you're implying I'm lying. I'm not the person on here claiming a virtually scratch handicap and running super fast marathon times. I'm not the person incapable of any kind of self depreciation. Though you did say you work in the oil industry and aren't well paid, that's a massive career fail I suppose.

I'm a 1 handicapper Diggers, and I'm aiming for 3 hours in the London Marathon, nothing Walter Mitty or unbelievable about that. As for self deprecation, I did just that the other day when I said Kevin Kisner made me (and you) look like Kriss Akabusi, as for working in the oil industry, that's true, but I didn't say I wasn't well paid, I said I didn't earn fortunes (which I expected you to take as not being in the 45% tax bracket), although compared to a primary teacher, I certainly do earn a fortune.

Sure, of course, completely reasonable claims. Lots of people are 1 handicappers. Lots of 40 year olds run sub 3 hours, especially when they don't have to prove it with actual, you know, proof. I've just gone to scratch after a bit of hard practise. Ran a park run in 17 minutes as well. And my school pays triple normal salaries.

I'd say you were confusing single mindedness with some weird bitterness against the world. He's never single minded enough to research anything, all his statements are very generic. He can never admit that his opinion isn't completely informed, even though he clearly lacks knowledge (which we all do, difference is others can see it). Sorry, don't buy it.

[Diggers]

Hammond seemingly throwing his hat into the referendum camp. Would a confirmatory referendum include remain, I’d imagine so. It’s certainly creeping back up the possible outcomes table.

I think that would be difficult, especially if it's a binary choice between a soft Brexit deal and Remain. That's dividing the 'Leave' vote and would be hard to justify I think.

Why would that divide the leave vote? Leave voters can make a choice not to vote, that's not dividing them, it's them making a a choice to abstain. More fool them if they take that path.

You don't see the issue? The suggestions you make for a ballot won't happen. Or, if they do, there'll be Hell to pay. I suppose you could make a case that those wanting to leave would be best advised to vote for the soft leave option if that's all that's available, but it's not equitable to have a ballot as you suggest.

I didn't say there wouldn't be issues. I said it shouldn't split the leave vote.

[dynamark]

To me a referendum can only have two items on the paper.And we have had one(a referendum) already with a result.After that the responsibility went back to HOP which has let us down to say the least after both manifestos and several votes to carry through out the instruction.
Another referendum and there will be serious consequence.I dread to think how messy that will get.

[Diggers]

To me a referendum can only have two items on the paper.And we have had one(a referendum) already with a result.After that the responsibility went back to HOP which has let us down to say the least after both manifestos and several votes to carry through out the instruction.
Another referendum and there will be serious consequence.I dread to think how messy that will get.

I'd say it was largely the fact we had a binary referendum that has led us to to where we are (that plus the way May has handled the whole process)...limbo. Remain was a clear choice, Leave was more complex. We know that now, it's an indisputable fact. Of people who voted leave leavers I personally know people who say Leave means no deal, people who say they support May'd deal, people who want a softer Brexit and people who have changed their minds. The ones who don't want no deal tell me they didn't think it was a possibility. So what instruction does the HOP carry out to fulfill Brexit? The ERG won't compromise so they are willing to spite the nose of the faces who voted for Brexit.
Why not have a more informed Brexit which contains the choices that are are possible. I'd take that that over the self inflicted pain of a no deal.

[McLaren]

Am I to assume that other than Roller's minor concern about repayments being met none of the people who were criticising higher borrowing rates have a good reason for that position?

[Roller_Coaster]

May has been utterly f**king rubbish from the get go But taking her out of it, Digs has it in a nutshell it was always a vote between something that's clear and something that has a multitude of options.

For out to be out, out has to be completely out. No Deal. Then you at least have a base line to build up a future relationship based on democratically chosen relationship policies over the coming decades.

Or in is the in we had on a plate. Put up and shut up.

We are in a stupid limbo and if I was the EU I would say and mean that now. Let's face it, whilst the EU doesn't want a no deal brexit I guess it would take 5-10 years to get over it and arrange to produce the goods and services that they would currently use the UK for. Short term pain discomfort for a bigger and better future.

The UK on the other hand would have to face up to a longer period of pain with low likelihood of returning to the current levels of prosperity. (This I base on the opinion that whilst we could trade around the globe, in 5-10 years the EU would be able to offer exactly what we happen to offer but with a much, much bigger marketplace for any reciprocal trade).

Interesting that no-one has proposed a better "in" ie an improvement on Cameron's deal pre original referendum. That could be a win win (in the UK) with the only losers (relatively) being the EU.

[Roller_Coaster]

Am I to assume that other than Roller's minor concern about repayments being met none of the people who were criticising higher borrowing rates have a good reason for that position?

[Diggers]

May has been utterly f**king rubbish from the get go But taking her out of it, Digs has it in a nutshell it was always a vote between something that's clear and something that has a multitude of options.

For out to be out, out has to be completely out. No Deal. Then you at least have a base line to build up a future relationship based on democratically chosen relationship policies over the coming decades.

Or in is the in we had on a plate. Put up and shut up.

We are in a stupid limbo and if I was the EU I would say and mean that now. Let's face it, whilst the EU doesn't want a no deal brexit I guess it would take 5-10 years to get over it and arrange to produce the goods and services that they would currently use the UK for. Short term pain discomfort for a bigger and better future.

The UK on the other hand would have to face up to a longer period of pain with low likelihood of returning to the current levels of prosperity. (This I base on the opinion that whilst we could trade around the globe, in 5-10 years the EU would be able to offer exactly what we happen to offer but with a much, much bigger marketplace for any reciprocal trade).

Interesting that no-one has proposed a better "in" ie an improvement on Cameron's deal pre original referendum. That could be a win win (in the UK) with the only losers (relatively) being the EU.

Maybe if we actually looked at prior membership in terms of that having been a deal, people would realise what a great deal it actually was. Every single country in the EU has their own particular version of membership, no two are identical. I'm sure that the EU wish they had been a little more bending with Cameron, might have saved a whole world of pain for everyone.

[McLaren]

Am I to assume that other than Roller's minor concern about repayments being met none of the people who were criticising higher borrowing rates have a good reason for that position?

:picard:

You thought the discussion went differently to that?

[Roller_Coaster]

Am I to assume that other than Roller's minor concern about repayments being met none of the people who were criticising higher borrowing rates have a good reason for that position?

You thought the discussion went differently to that?

You didn't?

[McLaren]

No, I asked people for their reasoning and only you provided any.

[dynamark]

Mac its simples we need to keep borrowing in check and have a balanced economy.Taxation and redistribution is enormous already.Days work days pay and contribute to pensions welfare etc.
The concept of leaving no deal is a misnomer .Its the failure of our HOP/govt to reach and agree an agreement with the 27 which is the issue they are the problem .We leave next week and things will be put into place vey quickly.Theres plenty of EU companies and consumers who will be very pleased to do a no tariff arrangement likewise the legal and residential/healthcare rights all the other technical stuff but enough of our HOP plus the EU establishment are anti brexit and gradually pushing towards another vote which they obviously feel they would get their preferred result.
In that scene I could see our entire party system splitting up,election,massive UKIP support,another hung parliament .No progress.

[JAS]

No, I asked people for their reasoning and only you provided any.

I do believe I gave my tuppenceworth, however I suppose I don’t count because I’m fine with Keynesian borrowing to rebuild an economy.

[McLaren]

Jas I enjoyed your post but as you say it is not for you to defend other peoples positions. At present Dyna doesn't know what counts as high borrowing and if he did, why it would be problematic.

[JAS]

Another question(s) you could have asked Mac...

Is it ok for the 5th richest economy in the world to have such high levels (indeed ANY level) of child poverty and high growth in the number of foodbanks? ...is that a source of pride, shame or embarrassment?
You’re given the keys to number 10 and eradicating child poverty is one of your top priorities....What’s your plan/approach?

[superflyweight]

Mac its simples we need to keep borrowing in check and have a balanced economy.Taxation and redistribution is enormous already.Days work days pay and contribute to pensions welfare etc.
The concept of leaving no deal is a misnomer .Its the failure of our HOP/govt to reach and agree an agreement with the 27 which is the issue they are the problem .We leave next week and things will be put into place vey quickly.Theres plenty of EU companies and consumers who will be very pleased to do a no tariff arrangement likewise the legal and residential/healthcare rights all the other technical stuff but enough of our  HOP plus the EU establishment are anti brexit and gradually pushing towards another vote which they obviously feel they would get their preferred result.
In that scene I could see our entire party system splitting up,election,massive UKIP support,another hung parliament .No progress.

It's very much a failure of government and not parliament.  

Regarding your point on tariffs, it completely ignores the huge number of complicating factors that would prevent the UK from having frictionless, tariff-free trade under the WTO rules and the time that this would take.  There's more than 5,000 product lines covered in the WTO agreement and the UK's schedule detailing these and also services offered by UK companies would need to be approved by all the 163 WTO states (there has already been objections).  The UK has been blocked by WTO members from relying on the EU’s schedule including its existing tariffs and tariff-free trade quotas.

We'd also need to put in place a huge amount of domestic legislation before being able to trade under WTO rules.

So what's the solution until that's been resolved?

[McLaren]

Superflyweight

You bring up valid points about the UK not being able to go tariff free due to WTO rules but I assume Dyna and the leavers are either unaware of this or think it won't apply to the UK.

But lets face it, what leavers really want is the resurrection of the east India trading company and the retaking of Hong Kong and Singapore, returning us to the days of glory.

[Roller_Coaster]

Superflyweight

You bring up valid points about the UK not being able to go tariff free due to WTO rules but I assume Dyna and the leavers are either unaware of this or think it won't apply to the UK.

But lets face it, what leavers really want is the resurrection of the east India trading company and the retaking of Hong Kong and Singapore, returning us to the days of glory.

Go on then, name one.

Sorry for doing a Mac and ignoring relevant points of the prior posts, some of which I find really interesting, but I've missed any and all mention of these people in any media at all. I clearly don't have the "Private Members of Privilege Whig Club of 1790" access pass that you do. Do they tip you in tulip bulbs?

Yes - I'm aware the date of the club and the tulip reference don't marry in history.

[McLaren]

Name one what?

[Roller_Coaster]

A leaver that really wants the resurrection of the east India trading company and the retaking of Hong Kong and Singapore, returning us to the days of glory

[Diggers]

A leaver that really wants the resurrection of the east India trading company and the retaking of Hong Kong and Singapore, returning us to the days of glory

Jacob Rees Mogg

[navyblueshorts]

Mac

Hypothesis: excessive State borrowing and living on credit is bad.
Please explain, in terms a lay person can understand, why that's an incorrect position to hold. Please also base your explanation on evidence-based data, rather than just opinion/political beliefs.

[superflyweight]

A leaver that really wants the resurrection of the east India trading company and the retaking of Hong Kong and Singapore, returning us to the days of glory

Jacob Rees Mogg

Mark Francois, Godfrey Bloom...

[Diggers]

A leaver that really wants the resurrection of the east India trading company and the retaking of Hong Kong and Singapore, returning us to the days of glory

Jacob Rees Mogg

Mark Francois, Godfrey Bloom...

Tommy Robinson

[JAS]

A leaver that really wants the resurrection of the east India trading company and the retaking of Hong Kong and Singapore, returning us to the days of glory

Jacob Rees Mogg

Mark Francois, Godfrey Bloom...

Tommy Robinson

I’d imagine Tommy ten names would be more interested in establishing trading with South American, particularly Colombian “trading organisations”

[Diggers]

A leaver that really wants the resurrection of the east India trading company and the retaking of Hong Kong and Singapore, returning us to the days of glory

Jacob Rees Mogg

Mark Francois, Godfrey Bloom...

Tommy Robinson

I’d imagine Tommy ten names would be more interested in establishing trading with South American, particularly Colombian “trading organisations”

I love seeing him (one of the UK's most despised people, about as charming as Super on one of his more cheerful days) campaign alongside UKIP. Should make anyone who has ever voted UKIP have a good, hard look at themselves (it won't) and is a guaranteed floating vote winner, should we get to another referendum.

[Roller_Coaster]

A leaver that really wants the resurrection of the east India trading company and the retaking of Hong Kong and Singapore, returning us to the days of glory

Jacob Rees Mogg

Mark Francois, Godfrey Bloom...

Tommy Robinson

Really? They've really stated they want to re-take Singapore and Hong Kong? I'll have to bow to your greater knowledge and research and not just assume you're throwing names of ardent leavers out there. Did they stop at those small enclaves or did they come out and say that they want everything including America "back" too?

[McLaren]

Mac

Hypothesis: excessive State borrowing and living on credit is bad.
Please explain, in terms a lay person can understand, why that's an incorrect position to hold. Please also base your explanation on evidence-based data, rather than just opinion/political beliefs.

I hate to be a douche but "bad" in that hypothesis probably leaves it unanswerable.

It might have to be something like "excessive State borrowing or (not "and") living on credit cause higher inflation/reduction in GDP/increased interest rates for debt/increased unemployment etc".  But phrased as the null hypothesis.  You sort of have to pick what "bad" you are measuring.

I mean these will all be available if you pop the phrase into a google scholar search.

Also I am not looking for anyone to provide an academic piece on why excessive borrowing is bad, I just want to hear why they think it is bad and maybe a pointer to some sources (nothing too serious).  Maybe just say at what level they would consider government debt to be problematic and what issues they have heard this causes.



Anyway here is what I think about in the simplest of terms, if the average interest rate on the debt is lower than the growth of the economy why worry about it? Especially if the governments borrowing is helping put in place the infrastructure that is driving some of that growth.

[Diggers]

A leaver that really wants the resurrection of the east India trading company and the retaking of Hong Kong and Singapore, returning us to the days of glory

Jacob Rees Mogg

Mark Francois, Godfrey Bloom...

Tommy Robinson

Really? They've really stated they want to re-take Singapore and Hong Kong? I'll have to bow to your greater knowledge and research and not just assume you're throwing names of ardent leavers out there. Did they stop at those small enclaves or did they come out and say that they want everything including America "back" too?

Sorry, I'll make a note that conjecture, irony and hyberbole are forbidden.

[Diggers]

A leaver that really wants the resurrection of the east India trading company and the retaking of Hong Kong and Singapore, returning us to the days of glory

Jacob Rees Mogg

Mark Francois, Godfrey Bloom...

Tommy Robinson

Really? They've really stated they want to re-take Singapore and Hong Kong? I'll have to bow to your greater knowledge and research and not just assume you're throwing names of ardent leavers out there. Did they stop at those small enclaves or did they come out and say that they want everything including America "back" too?

Sorry, I'll make a note that conjecture, irony and hyberbole are forbidden.

How about Bozza reciting Kipling in a Myanmar temple? Does that give us an insight into one of our prominent Brexiteers?

[dynamark]

There has never been anything fundamentally wrong with leaving the EU in a so called orderly fashion we just have not had a HOP willing to get on with it and also an EU who doesn't want to loose us.

[navyblueshorts]

Mac

Hypothesis: excessive State borrowing and living on credit is bad.
Please explain, in terms a lay person can understand, why that's an incorrect position to hold. Please also base your explanation on evidence-based data, rather than just opinion/political beliefs.

I hate to be a douche but "bad" in that hypothesis probably leaves it unanswerable.

It might have to be something like "excessive State borrowing or (not "and") living on credit cause higher inflation/reduction in GDP/increased interest rates for debt/increased unemployment etc".  But phrased as the null hypothesis.  You sort of have to pick what "bad" you are measuring.

I mean these will all be available if you pop the phrase into a google scholar search.

Also I am not looking for anyone to provide an academic piece on why excessive borrowing is bad, I just want to hear why they think it is bad and maybe a pointer to some sources (nothing too serious).  Maybe just say at what level they would consider government debt to be problematic and what issues they have heard this causes.



Anyway here is what I think about in the simplest of terms, if the average interest rate on the debt is lower than the growth of the economy why worry about it? Especially if the governments borrowing is helping put in place the infrastructure that is driving some of that growth.

Forget it. I asked you to explain. You can't/don't want to. Never mind.

[Diggers]

There has never been anything fundamentally wrong with leaving the EU  in a so called orderly fashion  we just have not had a HOP willing to get on with it and also an EU who doesn't want to loose us.

Dyna, you can't seriously be blaming the EU for sticking to their guns and actually being able to negotiate. The EU have made it clear they want the withdrawal agreement signed,  they've stated that over and over and are clearly frustrated that we can't get it through. They have accepted us leaving far more than we've got our head around the idea.

[NedB-H]

You should borrow to generate revenue through investment. That’s what a bank looks for, what they would want alongside that is done firm of mid-long term business plan (I’ve been there on that one).
This is where govt hits a stumbling block, can’t guarantee anything for more than 5 years.
Turning the north into a powerhouse could have been an example of borrowing to regenerate, but the Tories were only willing to spend £7.35...Then there’s HS2, I think that was a Blair initiative, carried forward by the Conservatives. The one big investment plan they agree on is one the rest of the country thinks is pointless!

More flannel. What does "turning the North into a powerhouse" even mean? The only way you can get companies to invest in rubbish areas is to give them incentives such as tax breaks, then the likes of you turn around and hound them out for not paying their fair share of tax.

What do you think the North of England should specialise in?

Northern Powerhouse is/was a Tory policy. Not mine.

It doesn't matter whose idea it was. You reiterated it but didn't explain (just like the  magic Labour 500bn) how it would be achieved. You'd be a good politician Diggers, because like them you don't back it up with any reasoning.
What is a Northern Powerhouse, why would it be a good thing, and more importantly, how would you achieve it.


Mac, plenty posts above show why excessive government borrowing isn't a good thing.

Surprised no one had a bite at this one.

“Northern Powerhouse” is a stupid name, of course it is, because like most names politicians have come up with in ththeir last twenty years it doesn’t actually mean anything beyond being flashy and catchy. My pet hate is Governments appointing head civil servants for particular issues and calling them “tsars”, as if 19th century Russian emperors have anything to do with food bank usage or bullying in schools.

But get beyond the silly name and Northern Powerhouse is clearly borne or good intentions. There’s a massive problem within the UK right now, and particularly England, where the economy has become overly Londoncentric. Which is a problem in the Southeast, where housing is becoming ridiculously expensive and whole areas are being socially cleansed as poor people are shipped out to social housing miles away. And a problem outside the Southeast where employment prospects are down. It’s patently obvious that London is taking up a disproportionate amount of the national economic activity right now and it needs geographically balancing back out.

[Roller_Coaster]

A leaver that really wants the resurrection of the east India trading company and the retaking of Hong Kong and Singapore, returning us to the days of glory

Jacob Rees Mogg

Mark Francois, Godfrey Bloom...

Tommy Robinson

Really? They've really stated they want to re-take Singapore and Hong Kong? I'll have to bow to your greater knowledge and research and not just assume you're throwing names of ardent leavers out there. Did they stop at those small enclaves or did they come out and say that they want everything including America "back" too?

Sorry, I'll make a note that conjecture, irony and hyberbole are forbidden.

Thanks very much. That will help, especially if something that actually is ironic pops up. Perhaps Alanis Morisette's song, "Ironic" which, ironically, isn't.

Still, it's Friday, golf tomorrow hopefully.

[super_realist]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

Based on his questioning and the lack of coherent responses.

You're not a scientist then?

No, but I am in the middle of an MsC block on Economics. Does that allow me to join in?

Should probably point out it's an MSc. Got a bit of the "Macitis" I think.

Sadcase. I'm assuming you're implying I'm lying. I'm not the person on here claiming a virtually scratch handicap and running super fast marathon times. I'm not the person incapable of any kind of self depreciation. Though you did say you work in the oil industry and aren't well paid, that's a massive career fail I suppose.

I'm a 1 handicapper Diggers, and I'm aiming for 3 hours in the London Marathon, nothing Walter Mitty or unbelievable about that. As for self deprecation, I did just that the other day when I said Kevin Kisner made me (and you) look like Kriss Akabusi, as for working in the oil industry, that's true, but I didn't say I wasn't well paid, I said I didn't earn fortunes (which I expected you to take as not being in the 45% tax bracket), although compared to a primary teacher, I certainly do earn a fortune.

Sure, of course, completely reasonable claims. Lots of people are 1 handicappers. Lots of 40 year olds run sub 3 hours, especially when they don't have to prove it with actual, you know, proof. I've just gone to scratch after a bit of hard practise. Ran a park run in 17 minutes as well. And my school pays triple normal salaries.

Seems the only politics you are good at is the politics of envy Diggers. There's nothing remarkable about being off 1 at golf (I've been playing twice a week for the last 15 years, what would you expect me to play off?) There's about 50 people at my club with a better than 1 handicap.
It's perfectly normal to be off 1 when you grew up with golf at every turn.

I've been running all my life, and I've run scores of half marathons and marathons, why wouldn't I be able to run 3 hours? Why is that even something which would raise an eyebrow? After all, wasn't it you that said that all you had to do to be good at running/rowing/cycling was just to do it a lot? Distance runners are often at their best at this age.


If I was a Walter Mitty, why wouldn't I say I earned 150k, played off +4 and ran a marathon in 2.5 hours? Why would I use figures that were perfectly attainable and highly realistic for anyone who could be bothered to put in a bit of effort? Why is it surprising for you that someone could be competent at a number of pursuits? Surely there is something which you are better than your average person at. I remember you giving me a story about a fat knacker who lost a ton of weight and went on to run something like 2:40 in his 40's, you were adamant it was a true story.

If you think those are unreasonable claims, then you don't know anything like as much about sport as you'd like to think. Being good at one "sporting" event usually means your skills can be transferred to others. I'm sorry you don't have any level in sport, but that's not my problem. If you think that is something which is rare, then it simply shows you haven't put in the effort in sport, because I know tons of people who play lots of sports to a high level.

As for evidence, you're right, I could claim anything I wanted couldn't I, but why would I lie about ordinary things like golf and running?  What would happen if I gave evidence?  Whenever I do, you  take the Trump line and just claim it's fake news, except you claim it's "Daily Mail crap". Quite sad really.

[super_realist]

You should borrow to generate revenue through investment. That’s what a bank looks for, what they would want alongside that is done firm of mid-long term business plan (I’ve been there on that one).
This is where govt hits a stumbling block, can’t guarantee anything for more than 5 years.
Turning the north into a powerhouse could have been an example of borrowing to regenerate, but the Tories were only willing to spend £7.35...Then there’s HS2, I think that was a Blair initiative, carried forward by the Conservatives. The one big investment plan they agree on is one the rest of the country thinks is pointless!

More flannel. What does "turning the North into a powerhouse" even mean? The only way you can get companies to invest in rubbish areas is to give them incentives such as tax breaks, then the likes of you turn around and hound them out for not paying their fair share of tax.

What do you think the North of England should specialise in?

Northern Powerhouse is/was a Tory policy. Not mine.

It doesn't matter whose idea it was. You reiterated it but didn't explain (just like the  magic Labour 500bn) how it would be achieved. You'd be a good politician Diggers, because like them you don't back it up with any reasoning.
What is a Northern Powerhouse, why would it be a good thing, and more importantly, how would you achieve it.


Mac, plenty posts above show why excessive government borrowing isn't a good thing.

Surprised no one had a bite at this one.

“Northern Powerhouse” is a stupid name, of course it is, because like most names politicians have come up with in ththeir last twenty years it doesn’t actually mean anything beyond being flashy and catchy. My pet hate is Governments appointing head civil servants for particular issues and calling them “tsars”, as if 19th century Russian emperors have anything to do with food bank usage or bullying in schools.

But get beyond the silly name and Northern Powerhouse is clearly borne or good intentions. There’s a massive problem within the UK right now, and particularly England, where the economy has become overly Londoncentric. Which is a problem in the Southeast, where housing is becoming ridiculously expensive and whole areas are being socially cleansed as poor people are shipped out to social housing miles away. And a problem outside the Southeast where employment prospects are down. It’s patently obvious that London is taking up a disproportionate amount of the national economic activity right now and it needs geographically balancing back out.

Name any country in the world where wealth, industry, investment, wealth etc isn't skewed around a small number of regions or particular cities. Paris, London, New York, Oslo, Moscow, Sydney Copenhagen, Munich, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Rome, Zurich, Madrid etc etc etc. Are they after their own equivalent of the "Northern Powerhouse"? I don't think so.


Yes, it would be nice if every region was able to contribute the same amount per capita and be more self sufficient in wealth generation, but it just doesn't happen, and governments spouting soundbites like "Northern Powerhouse" does nothing to address this. There's reasons of logistics, population and infrastructure that makes these areas highly attractive for business. You can't just chuck money at the North East and easily replicate that.

Even when governments attempt to make a difference in these areas (HS2 for example) people just claim it's a waste of money. You can't win.

[dynamark]

Super HS2 is very expensive project to gain a few minutes off a trip and some extra capacity.
I sense a growing feeling with Brexit that because its difficult we should therefore call it off .Theres going to be another 2 years or so of detail even if we can get a withdrawal agreement done. get the politiicians out of the way and I am confident that our businesses will get the job doen .
a labour Mp this morning likened leaving to jumping out of a plane without a parachute and that's the day after all involved were asked to keep things civil !

[NedB-H]

You should borrow to generate revenue through investment. That’s what a bank looks for, what they would want alongside that is done firm of mid-long term business plan (I’ve been there on that one).
This is where govt hits a stumbling block, can’t guarantee anything for more than 5 years.
Turning the north into a powerhouse could have been an example of borrowing to regenerate, but the Tories were only willing to spend £7.35...Then there’s HS2, I think that was a Blair initiative, carried forward by the Conservatives. The one big investment plan they agree on is one the rest of the country thinks is pointless!

More flannel. What does "turning the North into a powerhouse" even mean? The only way you can get companies to invest in rubbish areas is to give them incentives such as tax breaks, then the likes of you turn around and hound them out for not paying their fair share of tax.

What do you think the North of England should specialise in?

Northern Powerhouse is/was a Tory policy. Not mine.

It doesn't matter whose idea it was. You reiterated it but didn't explain (just like the  magic Labour 500bn) how it would be achieved. You'd be a good politician Diggers, because like them you don't back it up with any reasoning.
What is a Northern Powerhouse, why would it be a good thing, and more importantly, how would you achieve it.


Mac, plenty posts above show why excessive government borrowing isn't a good thing.

Surprised no one had a bite at this one.

“Northern Powerhouse” is a stupid name, of course it is, because like most names politicians have come up with in ththeir last twenty years it doesn’t actually mean anything beyond being flashy and catchy. My pet hate is Governments appointing head civil servants for particular issues and calling them “tsars”, as if 19th century Russian emperors have anything to do with food bank usage or bullying in schools.

But get beyond the silly name and Northern Powerhouse is clearly borne or good intentions. There’s a massive problem within the UK right now, and particularly England, where the economy has become overly Londoncentric. Which is a problem in the Southeast, where housing is becoming ridiculously expensive and whole areas are being socially cleansed as poor people are shipped out to social housing miles away. And a problem outside the Southeast where employment prospects are down. It’s patently obvious that London is taking up a disproportionate amount of the national economic activity right now and it needs geographically balancing back out.

Name any country in the world where wealth, industry, investment, wealth etc isn't skewed around a small number of regions or particular cities. Paris, London, New York, Oslo, Moscow, Sydney Copenhagen, Munich, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Rome, Zurich, Madrid etc etc etc. Are they after their own equivalent of the "Northern Powerhouse"? I don't think so.

You’re not very good at this are you? I’ll give you Oslo and Stockholm, maybe Moscow, but the issue isn’t as serious there because they’ve not historically had a population spread across the rest of the country like the UK does, as their countries are mostly frozen wastelands. Most of the rest of your answers are countries where the economy is much more spread (Rotterdam and The Hague, Barcelona and Valencia, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane, LA, Marseille and so on) or more hilariously are patently not even the economic centres of the country (Turin, Geneva, the Ruhr). You’re making my point for me that nations’ economic activity needs to be spread across the main population centres.

[JAS]

You should borrow to generate revenue through investment. That’s what a bank looks for, what they would want alongside that is done firm of mid-long term business plan (I’ve been there on that one).
This is where govt hits a stumbling block, can’t guarantee anything for more than 5 years.
Turning the north into a powerhouse could have been an example of borrowing to regenerate, but the Tories were only willing to spend £7.35...Then there’s HS2, I think that was a Blair initiative, carried forward by the Conservatives. The one big investment plan they agree on is one the rest of the country thinks is pointless!

More flannel. What does "turning the North into a powerhouse" even mean? The only way you can get companies to invest in rubbish areas is to give them incentives such as tax breaks, then the likes of you turn around and hound them out for not paying their fair share of tax.

What do you think the North of England should specialise in?

Northern Powerhouse is/was a Tory policy. Not mine.

It doesn't matter whose idea it was. You reiterated it but didn't explain (just like the  magic Labour 500bn) how it would be achieved. You'd be a good politician Diggers, because like them you don't back it up with any reasoning.
What is a Northern Powerhouse, why would it be a good thing, and more importantly, how would you achieve it.


Mac, plenty posts above show why excessive government borrowing isn't a good thing.

Surprised no one had a bite at this one.

“Northern Powerhouse” is a stupid name, of course it is, because like most names politicians have come up with in ththeir last twenty years it doesn’t actually mean anything beyond being flashy and catchy. My pet hate is Governments appointing head civil servants for particular issues and calling them “tsars”, as if 19th century Russian emperors have anything to do with food bank usage or bullying in schools.

But get beyond the silly name and Northern Powerhouse is clearly borne or good intentions. There’s a massive problem within the UK right now, and particularly England, where the economy has become overly Londoncentric. Which is a problem in the Southeast, where housing is becoming ridiculously expensive and whole areas are being socially cleansed as poor people are shipped out to social housing miles away. And a problem outside the Southeast where employment prospects are down. It’s patently obvious that London is taking up a disproportionate amount of the national economic activity right now and it needs geographically balancing back out.

Name any country in the world where wealth, industry, investment, wealth etc isn't skewed around a small number of regions or particular cities. Paris, London, New York, Oslo, Moscow, Sydney Copenhagen, Munich, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Rome, Zurich, Madrid etc etc etc. Are they after their own equivalent of the "Northern Powerhouse"? I don't think so.


Yes, it would be nice if every region was able to contribute the same amount per capita and be more self sufficient in wealth generation, but it just doesn't happen, and governments spouting soundbites like "Northern Powerhouse" does nothing to address this. There's reasons of logistics, population and infrastructure that makes these areas highly attractive for business. You can't just chuck money at the North East and easily replicate that.

Even when governments attempt to make a difference in these areas (HS2 for example) people just claim it's a waste of money. You can't win.

Name one country...eh Germany? There’s a better balance there surely than our London centric economy. There are hotspots in every country, that’s not the issue because on the flip side you don’t want the whole country industrialised, rural areas and wide open spaces are also important. What the UK has never really done before now is try to address the gravitation pull toward London. I would suggest it now has to for exactly the kinds of reasons Diggers mentions. The over heating of London puts stress on housing availability and affordability, then there’s the whole congestion and pollution side of the equation. It may we’ll be a silly term but there’s a lot of sense in the principle of having a Northern powerhouse.

[McLaren]

Mac

Hypothesis: excessive State borrowing and living on credit is bad.
Please explain, in terms a lay person can understand, why that's an incorrect position to hold. Please also base your explanation on evidence-based data, rather than just opinion/political beliefs.

Anyway here is what I think about in the simplest of terms, if the average interest rate on the debt is lower than the growth of the economy why worry about it? Especially if the governments borrowing is helping put in place the infrastructure that is driving some of that growth.

:laugh: Forget it. I asked you to explain. You can't/don't want to. Never mind.

I thought the highlighted portion answered the question, minus the academic references of course, which you will find if you google it. If it hasn't just ask for clarification.

[superflyweight]

You should borrow to generate revenue through investment. That’s what a bank looks for, what they would want alongside that is done firm of mid-long term business plan (I’ve been there on that one).
This is where govt hits a stumbling block, can’t guarantee anything for more than 5 years.
Turning the north into a powerhouse could have been an example of borrowing to regenerate, but the Tories were only willing to spend £7.35...Then there’s HS2, I think that was a Blair initiative, carried forward by the Conservatives. The one big investment plan they agree on is one the rest of the country thinks is pointless!

More flannel. What does "turning the North into a powerhouse" even mean? The only way you can get companies to invest in rubbish areas is to give them incentives such as tax breaks, then the likes of you turn around and hound them out for not paying their fair share of tax.

What do you think the North of England should specialise in?

Northern Powerhouse is/was a Tory policy. Not mine.

It doesn't matter whose idea it was. You reiterated it but didn't explain (just like the  magic Labour 500bn) how it would be achieved. You'd be a good politician Diggers, because like them you don't back it up with any reasoning.
What is a Northern Powerhouse, why would it be a good thing, and more importantly, how would you achieve it.


Mac, plenty posts above show why excessive government borrowing isn't a good thing.

Surprised no one had a bite at this one.

“Northern Powerhouse” is a stupid name, of course it is, because like most names politicians have come up with in ththeir last twenty years it doesn’t actually mean anything beyond being flashy and catchy. My pet hate is Governments appointing head civil servants for particular issues and calling them “tsars”, as if 19th century Russian emperors have anything to do with food bank usage or bullying in schools.

But get beyond the silly name and Northern Powerhouse is clearly borne or good intentions. There’s a massive problem within the UK right now, and particularly England, where the economy has become overly Londoncentric. Which is a problem in the Southeast, where housing is becoming ridiculously expensive and whole areas are being socially cleansed as poor people are shipped out to social housing miles away. And a problem outside the Southeast where employment prospects are down. It’s patently obvious that London is taking up a disproportionate amount of the national economic activity right now and it needs geographically balancing back out.

Name any country in the world where wealth, industry, investment, wealth etc isn't skewed around a small number of regions or particular cities. Paris, London, New York, Oslo, Moscow, Sydney Copenhagen, Munich, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Rome, Zurich, Madrid etc etc etc. Are they after their own equivalent of the "Northern Powerhouse"? I don't think so.

You’re not very good at this are you? I’ll give you Oslo and Stockholm, maybe Moscow, but the issue isn’t as serious there because they’ve not historically had a population spread across the rest of the country like the UK does, as their countries are mostly frozen wastelands. Most of the rest of your answers are countries where the economy is much more spread (Rotterdam and The Hague, Barcelona and Valencia, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane, LA, Marseille and so on) or more hilariously are patently not even the economic centres of the country (Turin, Geneva, the Ruhr). You’re making my point for me that nations’ economic activity needs to be spread across the main population centres.

Sydney was an odd example to give. It's certainly the financial centre but there's plenty of wealth spread around Australia. Melbourne has a sizeable finance industry of its own and is considered the cultural and sporting centre of Australia. Perth is a very prosperous city and practically recession proof because of its minerals industries. Even Adelaide does pretty well because of the military ship-building industry there - as well as a massive wine trade.

[McLaren]

Super

Your example of Sydney couldn't be worse.  Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth are all thriving economies and Canberra is the capital city. (posted simultaneously with Flyweight)

And what were you thinking with New York? LA, San Fran and silicone valley, chicago, Boston/new england, washington etc

Can we add geography and world knowledge to football, politics and economics in the list of things you try but fail to know anything about?

[Roller_Coaster]

I think it makes sense to spread economic activity out more. I personally think that it would bring a net improvement to more people's lives/wealth and the country's.

Broadly, London is what it is because of the Thames and physical proximity to trading routes and the historical seat of the entirety of government. That's oh so long ago that none are particularly relevant in a digital, service-centric economy, if there was the will of the London-o-centric people/organisations/businesses, it could quite easily happen quite quickly.

Cr@p name, good idea. And, places like the North East that Super mentions are no worse than huge swathes of London were within my lifetime. Canary Wharf and the whole dock/east London regeneration.

[dynamark]

Agree silly name but nothing wrong with trying to push on in other areas.we get it here in Midlands around the airport,Toton HS2 rail terminal big distribution hubs(that struggle to find staff incidentally)
Historically the Thames,Mersey,Bristol channel had huge influence.
I was sent to a job in Sugartown ? recently which is next to London City airport north side of the river and thinking strange name for a old Victorian style village almost and then I turned round and saw the Huge Tate and Lyle wharehouse by the river which obviously took in a serious amount of sugar.Similar building on the Humber in Hull. History/economics/geography all factors.

[kwinigolfer]

Amazing stat on the Beeb:
Only four players have scored a goal in each of the last ten Prem seasons. You'll never get them all so I'll tell you:

Sturridge, Walcott, Ramsey and, now, Henderson.

Wouldn't have guessed that foursome in a month of Sundays.

[Diggers]

Roller

You can't just say there is risk reward, I want the specific problem you would have with higher borrowing rates?  (every decision has risk/reward)

Stop fishing. What's your problem with the thesis that high Government borrowing is a problem?

I think it's pretty obvious that Mac has a good grasp of macro economics.

Based on what?

Based on his questioning and the lack of coherent responses.

You're not a scientist then?

No, but I am in the middle of an MsC block on Economics. Does that allow me to join in?

Should probably point out it's an MSc. Got a bit of the "Macitis" I think.

Sadcase. I'm assuming you're implying I'm lying. I'm not the person on here claiming a virtually scratch handicap and running super fast marathon times. I'm not the person incapable of any kind of self depreciation. Though you did say you work in the oil industry and aren't well paid, that's a massive career fail I suppose.

I'm a 1 handicapper Diggers, and I'm aiming for 3 hours in the London Marathon, nothing Walter Mitty or unbelievable about that. As for self deprecation, I did just that the other day when I said Kevin Kisner made me (and you) look like Kriss Akabusi, as for working in the oil industry, that's true, but I didn't say I wasn't well paid, I said I didn't earn fortunes (which I expected you to take as not being in the 45% tax bracket), although compared to a primary teacher, I certainly do earn a fortune.

Sure, of course, completely reasonable claims. Lots of people are 1 handicappers. Lots of 40 year olds run sub 3 hours, especially when they don't have to prove it with actual, you know, proof. I've just gone to scratch after a bit of hard practise. Ran a park run in 17 minutes as well. And my school pays triple normal salaries.

Seems the only politics you are good at is the politics of envy Diggers. There's nothing remarkable about being off 1 at golf (I've been playing twice a week for the last 15 years, what would you expect me to play off?) There's about 50 people at my club with a better than 1 handicap.
It's perfectly normal to be off 1 when you grew up with golf at every turn.

I've been running all my life, and I've run scores of half marathons and marathons, why wouldn't I be able to run 3 hours? Why is that even something which would raise an eyebrow? After all, wasn't it you that said that all you had to do to be good at running/rowing/cycling was just to do it a lot? Distance runners are often at their best at this age.


If I was a Walter Mitty, why wouldn't I say I earned 150k, played off +4 and ran a marathon in 2.5 hours? Why would I use figures that were perfectly attainable and highly realistic for anyone who could be bothered to put in a bit of effort? Why is it surprising for you that someone could be competent at a number of pursuits? Surely there is something which you are better than your average person at. I remember you giving me a story about a fat knacker who lost a ton of weight and went on to run something like 2:40 in his 40's, you were adamant it was a true story.

If you think those are unreasonable claims, then you don't know anything like as much about sport as you'd like to think. Being good at one "sporting" event usually means your skills can be transferred to others. I'm sorry you don't have any level in sport, but that's not my problem. If you think that is something which is rare, then it simply shows you haven't put in the effort in sport, because I know tons of people who play lots of sports to a high level.

As for evidence, you're right, I could claim anything I wanted couldn't I, but why would I lie about ordinary things like golf and running?  What would happen if I gave evidence?  Whenever I do, you  take the Trump line and just claim it's fake news, except you claim it's "Daily Mail crap". Quite sad really.

Because it makes you sound kind of credible, whilst still pretty great, it’s pretty simple psychology and very, very common amongst social media fantasists, like yourself.
And you rarely give any sound argument based on policy. You just say utter rubbish, such as comparing Labour policy to a Venezuelan model, which is utterly absurd on any level. Wrap that up with a smattering of bigotry and that’s about it.

[Sponsored content]