RSS Feed Share on Facebook Send this to Twitter | Login Login | Register
City Independent
The Hull City Fanzine
 
Hull City Forum

Hull City Forum

Deails Post
11 posts. All posts shown

New Back To Top

exiled CITY AFC

User Image

11466 posts
First used 11/01/17

#1
03/07/2017 at 01:37

Measure of the depth of shit we are in

What's to be done now the 'spend spend spend' chorus is singing?  

Let it never be said that I was silent when they needed me - William Wilberforce 

New Back To Top

candw

User Image

26501 posts
First used 09/01/17

#2
03/07/2017 at 07:54

What's to be done if it doesn't sing? Cue: Mr Exiled steps in to make everywhere efficient and saves the nation.

New Back To Top

exiled CITY AFC

User Image

11466 posts
First used 11/01/17

#3
03/07/2017 at 08:56

It is singing.

Public sector pay cap removal.

Gove making a populist bid for PM by saying 'more of everything for everyone'.

Idiot polticians starting to steer us back towards the icebergs  

Let it never be said that I was silent when they needed me - William Wilberforce 

New Back To Top

essexgull

8980 posts
First used 12/01/17

#4
03/07/2017 at 10:15

Quote Quote by exiled CITY AFC on 03/07/2017 at 08:56
It is singing.

Public sector pay cap removal.

Gove making a populist bid for PM by saying 'more of everything for everyone'.

Idiot polticians starting to steer us back towards the icebergs


Those promises swept Macron to power in France, so UK politicians have watched and learned. The public generally don't want cuts and are happy to pass on the burden to future generations. There's both a huge selfishness and also burying head in the sand tendencies about debts. Many just don't like looking ten years plus into the future.

The majority of pensioners could survive on less - they did from 1950s to the early 2000s, but they will vote against anyone who suggests cutting their pensions or removing the triple lock or their fuel and TV subsidies... Even if it means saving £18 billion per annum for the country. Likewise those earning over £80k a year won't vote for anyone suggesting tax increases on high earners.

Very few are prepared to give up what they have/what little they have, so it either depends which government gets a narrow victory to force it or you vote for extending the fantasy, as France did.


EG 

New Back To Top

imperishablehcfc

User Image

11397 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#5
03/07/2017 at 10:29

Genuine question

So with the net debt finally stabilised at circa 90% of GDP ( a crazy number) and the deficit falling but still at £50 bn a year or 2.2% of GDP (another crazy number) apart from spend spend spend, what are Labour actually saying they plan to deliver in terms of these numbers.

A quick calculation, and correct me if I'm wrong, but if spending is frozen at todays level (perecentage of GDP) we need circa 90 years of 1% surplus or 45 years of 2 % etc to clear the National Debt, thus avoiding trillions in interest payments that would ultimately increase spending powers.

As this is to say highly unlikely, do Labour actually aim to move us into surplus or just hope to go for growth (would have to be a big number) and continue to run a deficit of £X bn but still slowly reduce National Debt as a % of GDP over a few millennium.

I assume debt interest payments are significant and included in the deficit calculation

Fuck the short term we will build a 1000 year Hull City Reich 

New Back To Top

imperishablehcfc

User Image

11397 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#6
03/07/2017 at 10:38

Quote Quote by essexgull on 03/07/2017 at 10:15


Those promises swept Macron to power in France, so UK politicians have watched and learned. The public generally don't want cuts and are happy to pass on the burden to future generations. There's both a huge selfishness and also burying head in the sand tendencies about debts. Many just don't like looking ten years plus into the future.

The majority of pensioners could survive on less - they did from 1950s to the early 2000s, but they will vote against anyone who suggests cutting their pensions or removing the triple lock or their fuel and TV subsidies... Even if it means saving £18 billion per annum for the country. Likewise those earning over £80k a year won't vote for anyone suggesting tax increases on high earners.

Very few are prepared to give up what they have/what little they have, so it either depends which government gets a narrow victory to force it or you vote for extending the fantasy, as France did.


EG


Your targeting of pensioners is not an effective bait any longer, give up.

The fact is that the majority of the population could survive on less, especially if you compare with the 1950's to year 2000, so it's a bit silly suggesting one age group over another. This however does not begin to ask the right question as it shouldn't be a case of one generation group or another giving something up, we should all be doing better year on year. 

Fuck the short term we will build a 1000 year Hull City Reich 

New Back To Top

candw

User Image

26501 posts
First used 09/01/17

#7
03/07/2017 at 10:42

Here's another figure. 14% of the people - 1 in 7 - spend half of their income on rent. This is what 7 years of austerity has done. And let's not mention foodbanks and homelessness. And no, people don't go to food banks to scam food and they don't live on the street as a lifestyle choice. And Sir Philip "Nick Your Pension" Greene still has 3 yachts and yes, Jacob Rees-Mogg's home is getting a gift of £7 million to 'do it up'. We're all in it together.

Meanwhile, the nurse whose latest paycheck was the same as her 2009 paycheck was told there was not a Magic Money Tree. Which is, of course, a lie. There was for the Gambling Banks.

New Back To Top

essexgull

8980 posts
First used 12/01/17

#8
03/07/2017 at 10:48

Quote Quote by imperishablehcfc on 03/07/2017 at 10:38


Your targeting of pensioners is not an effective bait any longer, give up.

The fact is that the majority of the population could survive on less, especially if you compare with the 1950's to year 2000, so it's a bit silly suggesting one age group over another. This however does not begin to ask the right question as it shouldn't be a case of one generation group or another giving something up, we should all be doing better year on year.


Over-65s were the age group who had a significantly high percentage of their numbers who voted for Theresa May, Peri old bean... hence why the mention and hence why she u-turned on several fairly reasonable policies to save money.

If you fail to see the reason why she u-turned was to protect 'her' voters and so instead has moved the burden onto public service workers instead, then you don't understand politics. There's no money to increase salaries of nurses, but there is to keep pensions locked in above inflation.. which is running at 2.8%-- all about taking from Peter to give to Paul, whether it's Corbyn/Labour or May/Conservatives, which is why there is no long term structural fix.


EG 

New Back To Top

essexgull

8980 posts
First used 12/01/17

#9
03/07/2017 at 10:51

Quote Quote by imperishablehcfc on 03/07/2017 at 10:29
Genuine question

So with the net debt finally stabilised at circa 90% of GDP ( a crazy number) and the deficit falling but still at £50 bn a year or 2.2% of GDP (another crazy number) apart from spend spend spend, what are Labour actually saying they plan to deliver in terms of these numbers.

A quick calculation, and correct me if I'm wrong, but if spending is frozen at todays level (perecentage of GDP) we need circa 90 years of 1% surplus or 45 years of 2 % etc to clear the National Debt, thus avoiding trillions in interest payments that would ultimately increase spending powers.

As this is to say highly unlikely, do Labour actually aim to move us into surplus or just hope to go for growth (would have to be a big number) and continue to run a deficit of £X bn but still slowly reduce National Debt as a % of GDP over a few millennium.

I assume debt interest payments are significant and included in the deficit calculation




McDonnell says he is planning on state-funded growth, but has failed to give an in-depth explanation of exactly how this would work economically. He may be right or wrong, but has never adequately explained his method other than to say that £50-80 billion will be found to do it.

I wouldn't trust either the Conservatives or Labour to spend £80 billion of 'our' money on an infrastructure and growth project.


ESSEX GULL

New Back To Top

exiled CITY AFC

User Image

11466 posts
First used 11/01/17

#10
03/07/2017 at 12:54

Gull I honestly believe that less than 1 in 20 Brits actually understand the position we are in economically. I blame the polticians for this who are terrible communicators - especially given the advances in mediums - and I believe only 1 in 5 politicians fully appreciate the state we are in. Austerity which wasn't really much austerity (and hence why it took so long to even make a dent in the coffers) has reached its narrative course if not its intended course. We have to have an honest conversation about cutting whole services instead of shaving all of them every year. If not we will end up with none of it actually working.


Most people don't seem to give a fuck about the lies as long as they believe their gang will sort them out and fuck the other gangs followers.

Unless we can invent another mega industry like IT it's a race to the bottom for sure.

Great piece in the times today about back to the 70's and how the youth have no idea why the olds are scared silly by new-old-labour 

Let it never be said that I was silent when they needed me - William Wilberforce 

New Back To Top

candw

User Image

26501 posts
First used 09/01/17

#11
03/07/2017 at 13:11

The Times article would, of course, be carbon neutral.

Anyway, panic over, nurses etc can suck it up for at least another year. No10 has spoken, despite the Despicable Duo pushing their leadership case.

11 posts. All posts shown