Christmas Tree

CT...you've basically just posted something that demonstrates you didnt have a clue about the previous answer you gave. And you've basically stopped as soon as you got to that bit rather than reading the full article. In theory the government could take them back, however everyone knows that future governments will not want that financial burden and will instead keep paying the minimum payment. £333 to change a light switch ffs

Two of my daughters have boyfriends aged 21 and 22. They have both started collecting and swapping world cup football stickers. Apparently all their friends are doing this as well? Now to me this is a pass time for pre-puberty.... Any comments?

Heres a nice read on PFI from the Chanel four news economist correspondant, Liam Halligan

No its not, its rental / service agreement

They used to have a counter just like that in Times square New York at the tail end of the Reagan years. Iirc under Clinton, the enormous US deficit was completely wiped out following several years of unprecedented growth. So surely, the key to the problem is to hold our nerve and get the economy to grow again, rather than risk another recession? It is scarey though, but then I don't really understand macroeconomics, so it's a question of who you trust really. I could be wrong but when you write that I get the impression your mistaking debt for defecit. (understandable btw because it is all very complex) The debt is the total amount of money owed by the country, the defecit is just the difference in any particular year between what a government spends and what it has raised in that year. (income) Yes, I know the difference between debt and deficit CT thanks very much. To be fair that is probably the extent of my understanding though as it is yours. I'm leaving this for the economists in our ranks to chew over (Chez and Matt). Yes but Matts post could have been in chinese for all I understood of it......Basel 111 wtf!

The Basel III regulations have the potential to well and truly derail the attempts to pump-prime the economy via additional bank lending. No-one should be surprised that most of the additional liquidity in the system was simply used to increase capital ratios (and I'm staggered that anyone thought it would play out differently). Basel III is going to apply another layer of capital requirements on banks, forcing them to reduce lending and increase retained capital. Vince can say what he likes, if the BIS have their way it will hit businesses hard (especially as a bank will have to reserve the same capital whether a loan is drawn or not). Then you have the spectre of the Volker rules making everyone- banks and businesses-collateralise their derivative positions- that would be an economic disaster and leave huge amounts of cash sitting doing nothing- further prevent stimulus funds from actually doing their job. As for Cameron's plans, taxing expenditure is true to form. Will there be a corresponding review of ratable items to ensure that this is not simply going to make life more expensive for the less well-off? Unlikely. I fundamentally disagree with Cameron's overdraft analogy, this is a deliberate attempt to frame the nation's debt position. Long-term government debt is a permanent piece of our national capital structure. It may be high, but it's certainly not all on demand. And yes, the interest on that debt could be used on schools, but a lot of the debt raised WAS used on schools, whereas we all know the Tories would simply cut taxes and tell parents to fuck off and set one up themselves. This is simply not true. Most of the schools and hospitals have been built using private money (pfi's) and they account in total for about 5 billion of the national debt (according to that website). The truth is we have moved from owning schools and hospitals to now renting them from very rich men. wonder which way they vote? Well as its labour whose made them rich what do you think? As its labour whose reduced gapital gains tax, what do you think?

What bothers me in the light of the obvious fact that the £6bn is a drop in the ocean is that it seems to be pandering to the markets and ensuring they feel as if the right thing is being done rather than actually thinking about the best strategy. One thing that was suggested in the run up to the election by Labour was to shift the balance of the economy back to manufacturing and away from finance and though realising that would be a tough task, it would have the benefit of having more of an ability to stick two fingers up to a sector which has too much power. Honestly, if that was possible it would have done already. It simply is basic economics that we cant make stuff as cheap as third world countries. My view is that "The Markets" are simply looking back to the 80's and remembering the Tories took the hard decisions and got the public finances back under control. They know they are prepared to do it again. There will be very few winners, only losers unfortunately.

The Basel III regulations have the potential to well and truly derail the attempts to pump-prime the economy via additional bank lending. No-one should be surprised that most of the additional liquidity in the system was simply used to increase capital ratios (and I'm staggered that anyone thought it would play out differently). Basel III is going to apply another layer of capital requirements on banks, forcing them to reduce lending and increase retained capital. Vince can say what he likes, if the BIS have their way it will hit businesses hard (especially as a bank will have to reserve the same capital whether a loan is drawn or not). Then you have the spectre of the Volker rules making everyone- banks and businesses-collateralise their derivative positions- that would be an economic disaster and leave huge amounts of cash sitting doing nothing- further prevent stimulus funds from actually doing their job. As for Cameron's plans, taxing expenditure is true to form. Will there be a corresponding review of ratable items to ensure that this is not simply going to make life more expensive for the less well-off? Unlikely. I fundamentally disagree with Cameron's overdraft analogy, this is a deliberate attempt to frame the nation's debt position. Long-term government debt is a permanent piece of our national capital structure. It may be high, but it's certainly not all on demand. And yes, the interest on that debt could be used on schools, but a lot of the debt raised WAS used on schools, whereas we all know the Tories would simply cut taxes and tell parents to fuck off and set one up themselves. This is simply not true. Most of the schools and hospitals have been built using private money (pfi's) and they account in total for about 5 billion of the national debt (according to that website). The truth is we have moved from owning schools and hospitals to now renting them from very rich men.

They used to have a counter just like that in Times square New York at the tail end of the Reagan years. Iirc under Clinton, the enormous US deficit was completely wiped out following several years of unprecedented growth. So surely, the key to the problem is to hold our nerve and get the economy to grow again, rather than risk another recession? It is scarey though, but then I don't really understand macroeconomics, so it's a question of who you trust really. I could be wrong but when you write that I get the impression your mistaking debt for defecit. (understandable btw because it is all very complex) The debt is the total amount of money owed by the country, the defecit is just the difference in any particular year between what a government spends and what it has raised in that year. (income)

So objectively you will acknowledge that your lot are cunts for reducing it to 18% 2 years ago. Joking aside I think Cameron is more towards Labour as Blair was towards Tory. It will be interesting to see how far he gets before his own lot reel him in.

The solution proposed across the G20 is to cut spending. This could give us a second recession which would further push down tax receipts and increase benefits. The recession didnt cause the defecit only make it worse. It was a well known policy to hope that growth will shrink the defecit but you can not just wait and hope while the oustanding debt continues to increase. You get to a tipping point where the interest payments along are such a huge burden that you can no longer do all the good things that governments should be doing with that money (as is the case now). Labour predicted 3% growth for next year prior to the election however it now looks that those figures where way to optimistic so once again the debt rises. The other problem to this plan is that you hope during the good years when the defecit is good, governments would use that money to reduce the overall debt. But what happens, tax cuts and massive public spending.

Apparently that place has been spoiled by tourism now. Aye , looks like it

The Beach http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0163978/ Hadnt seen this for a while and enjoyed it again. Hats off to those who go off to all these far flung places on their todd. Not sure I could do it.

Cameron "Years of pain ahead" Sunday Times

Aye. Same could be said for the entire rag mind. Isn't Stokesly where all the Smog players live? Most of 'em are in Yarm. Stokesley and Great Ayton are nice too though. If fact there are a few lovely villages with decent pubs on the road between Stokesley and Northallerton. Carlton-in-Cleveland, Swainby, places like that. Swainsby's lovely. Sister used to live their for a while and I bought my border collie from a farm their

The financial meltdown has certainly made matters worse, but when you look at the data, this has been out of control for a long, long time. You do have to wonder how these supposedly very clever, very moral people at the top could justify spending these vast sums that we didnt have, whilst knowing there was little chance of getting to grip with it in their lifetime. With regard to your second point, I dont think anyone is going "all out to pay off the debts". Consider the 1000 billion of debt outstanding an interest only payment this year of 43 billion on that debt And spending plans already left in place by Labour that commit us to borrowing another 250 billion for next year..... You then see that these 6 billion cuts so far are nowt. Even if the emergency budget reduced Labours spending plans so we didnt have to borrow 250 billion next year, that still hasnt eaten one pound into the oustanding debt of 1000 billion. Can you imagine what they would have to cut to save that 250 billion? Health budget 104 billion Education budget 69 billion Defence budget 37 billion It really is frightening because there is no way they can cut 250 billion so the debt next year will be 1250 billion approx. Im looking at this from the debt view and not the party political view and am just mystified how they got it so wrong and where its all heading.... cue Parky

Dont know if anyone has depressed themselves on this website.... http://www.debtbombshell.com/ If not, have a quick peep. Its horrific how much our country has got itself in the shit by spending money we havent got. Just last year the government raised 491 billion through tax, yet decided to spend 671 billion!!! Thats nearly 200 billion that we didnt have taking our "overdraft" upto nearly 1000 billion. This should put in perspective the 6 billion cuts already announced by the Conservatives as chickenfeed compared to what is still to come. The interest on this debt this year is a staggering 45 billion!!!!! Theres no point in playing party politics on this because I think it is a given that we all know Labour governments like to spend, spend, spend. The 80's tories also gave us their fair share of boom and bust. The shocking thing for me is that Governments can get away with fucking things up like this. Why hasnt the media been screaming about this for years? How can MP's sell us down the swanny so easily? How can they ethically or morally do this? This highlights for me that most of us have no idea how deep and savage the cuts will be. We will curse and swear and the current lot but we wre happy to take the new schools, hospitals, Tax credits.......

christ man, pipe down! you're making a fool of yourself! the point is Renton, you are deluded. you try and convince yourself that just because someone asked a question to which the questionee didnt know the answer is in some way a 'victory' or a 'meritous occasion' for the party of the questioner. believe me it isnt a big deal or even an unusual occurance at PMQ. Well no actually. Firstly, I was defending myself from one of your typically unfounded comments, which I see you haven't bothered responded to. Hardly see how that means I am making a fool of myself, I am deluded, or that I need to pipe down. As for the second, part, you have completely missed the point. I'm not saying it is unusual for the PM to duck questions. What I am saying though is that it means that the session did not show Cameron to be exceptional in this particular PMQ, as has been suggested by CT. Would you agree with that? Come on Renty stick to the facts I didnt say he was exceptional or a genius or the messiah..... I said I thought it was a damn good performance, which I still think it was, particularly bearing in mind it was his first go and his decision to rely only a few notes. The fact you dont agree with that assessment is fine, but as Craig has pointed out to you, you do seem to come from a very bias viewpoint. Ive had a quick google to see what others made of it. Here are a few comments.

Craig yesterday This is what were discussing Renty before your card carrying speech. I tried to clarify that I, while a Tory, can appreciate good policy and good politicians regardless of what party they come from. Your bias seems unable to let you do the same, hence craigs comments.

No, off this week with the bairns being off. Back at it tomorrow.

That's funny... you was saying something remarkably similar about me in another thread I think you come a very strong second. But thats just your age.

What do you expect from a Tory voter Im still not sure what you are you seem to sway a lot with the wind Anyway, the original comment was about the program which if your interested in politics, was very good. Having only read the Eton Toff stuff about Cameron, it was interesting to hear the facts from those that new him. Just because you're a tory doesn't mean you can't be objective though. Take post 42 on here, why haven't you commented on the fact that Cameron fell on his arse after Bridget's question? It's of particular relevance to your locality after all. It's far too early to tell if Cameron will make the grade as PM yet in any case, whatever your political stance. Yet you sound like you have a crush on him. I tell you what Renton - being no fan of Cameron I'm still glad he gave the response he did rather than make something up on the spot (which we're all quick to know politicians for). I do feel that he couldn't win in this situation tbh - unrealistic to expect him to there and then know the answer to every question that was thrown at him at the first PMQ (unless he had prior knowledge of what questions they'd be which, IMO would make a mockery of the whole event), had he answered definitively and guessed, most likely getting it wrong he'd have been forever berated for it so he gave the only answer he could given and still that's no right. There's not liking the fella and what he stands for and there's the of prejudging everything he says with that sentiment. What did you expect of him in reply to Bridget? This is the problem unfortunately with Renton and others like him. So are so anti Cameron that they cant see any good and if he came out tomorrow and doubled the Nissan grant they would just move on to the next negative point. There are many things I have liked that Labour have done over the years and just because I lean towards Tory, it doesnt make me so blinkered as to appreciate things like the minimum wage and winter fuel allowances as two examples. When Renton argues the way he does, it just makes him appear like one of these sheep who would vote for anything with a red rosette....or green or whatever he is. At least I get the feeling with someone who detests the thatcher years, like NJS, is at least prepared to bring some objectivity to bare, even if it comes with a cloud of suspicion. I would compare Rentons position in these threads to punch and judy politics in the house of commons. Every now and then a good argument but very little sensible discussion on politics.

As I said, I think they do have advance knowledge - I thought it was designed to provoke debate rather than provide info. Even if they don't, someone in that position should/would have a team who think "Ah MP, for Houghton and Sunderland, I wonder what she'll be asking" and wouldn't have to go a million miles to anticipate a question on jobs or even Nissan. Of course it may be that they just haven't decided on the grant issue which would be fair enough in the timeframe and I wouldn't see anything wrong in him saying that - the fact that he averted the question suggests an answer he didn't want to give as I said. Or it could be that he just didn't know the answer. Like I said, I'm no fan of Cameron so I'm not defending him but at the same time I think he's being knocked a bit too hard on this particular subject. As for the comment re: Houghton and Sunderland MP, we both know there's a great deal that goes on within that constituency besides the Nissan factory - granted it's the biggest industry. Well like I said, his response to this particular question raised a few eyebrows on FiveLive. But whatever, it was no more than a competent performance, and certainly not worthy of the gushing of CT in #42, was my point. Well this is the report from the BBC on his first PMQ

As I said, I think they do have advance knowledge - I thought it was designed to provoke debate rather than provide info. Even if they don't, someone in that position should/would have a team who think "Ah MP, for Houghton and Sunderland, I wonder what she'll be asking" and wouldn't have to go a million miles to anticipate a question on jobs or even Nissan. Of course it may be that they just haven't decided on the grant issue which would be fair enough in the timeframe and I wouldn't see anything wrong in him saying that - the fact that he averted the question suggests an answer he didn't want to give as I said. They do not have advanced knowledge and are simply briefed by their staff on the big issues of the day. Up until now, most prime ministers have taken in reems of books to the dispatch box to rely on. Cameron has decided to take a few notes only (Soldiers names etc) and answer as best as he can. Virtually every question put to him this week he was very knowledgable on and could answer on. The truth will most likely be that they havent fully decided on where all the cuts are going to be after a couple of weeks. Having talked about the need for private industry to replace public sector jobs in the North East, I would be amazed if they cut this grant.

Gorgeous day out today at a little place called Stokesly about 7 miles outside Middlesbrough on the edge of the North York moors. Friday is market day, Saturday farmers market and its a lovely little town with some nice shops, pubs and a beautiful river running just off the main street. Highly recommend it for a nice afternoon out but make sure you set aside an hour or so for stickleback fishing. This shop amused me