He's back to start a war on brexit

crunchman

@marantz1300 the country is always bankrupt when the Tories get in.  They have no alternative but to make cuts.

If we had carried on spending like Bliar and Brown then we would be in a similar state to Greece now.

The problem is that the Tories cut too much, and often cut the wrong things.

Labour then get in and try to rectify the underinvestment of the Tory years and spend more than we have and the cycle starts again.

I've got more time for old school Labour though than Bliar and Brown.  Rather than be honest about what they were spending and fund it properly, which would have shown up in the official PSBR figures for government debt, they did it by taking out PFI contracts, which weren't counted in the debt figures so they could claim that we were living within our means.  We are now paying billions in PFI payments each year.  That's why there is no money now.  It's actually worse than borrowing the money up front because a lot of the contracts were badly written and the companies that carried out the PFI contracts are raking in big profits for a poor service.

There has to be some middle ground where there is an understanding that some things need investment, but that there is not unlimited money, so we get rid of the cycle of overspend and then cut to pay off the debt.

Brize

digitalscream said:

Brize said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

 If it had been two percent the other way, and remain had "won" I don't think our current situation would be any better - the country has no idea (still) what brexit means.

I think I can say with near certainty that, barring Farage and a few other fringe loonies, had the vote gone the other way, the Leave voters would have just shut about it and got on with their lives.

HAHAHhahahhAHAHhaHHAhahHAHAHAHhAHHAHAhAHA

Just like Labour supporters have shut up and gone about their lives when the Conservatives are in power? Or like Conservative supporters shut up and gone about their lives when Labour were in power?

After the last general election, did Labour supporters decry the result because the Tories only won 36.1% of the vote?

Did you hear Labour supporters suggesting that the result should be ignored because only 20% of the electorate voted Conservative?

There was much about the aftermath of the referendum that was predicable, but I don't think anyone anticipated that the Remainers would act with such petulance and bad grace.

digitalscream

Brize said:

After the last general election, did Labour supporters decry the result because the Tories only won 36.1% of the vote?

Yes.

Brize said:

Did you hear Labour supporters suggesting that the result should be ignored because only 20% of the electorate voted Conservative?

Yes.

Brize

digitalscream said:

Brize said:

After the last general election, did Labour supporters decry the result because the Tories only won 36.1% of the vote?

Yes.

Brize said:

Did you hear Labour supporters suggesting that the result should be ignored because only 20% of the electorate voted Conservative?

Yes.

Well, that's the left for you.

Cirrus

Brize, i see, has carefully ignored my point about lumping all leavers and remainers into homogeneous masses. And also the idea that we can have a discussion without casting aspersions at the other side - that, to me, is a greater illustration of bad grace.



The referendum question was simple. Great.

The question of Britain's political, economic and social interactions with Europe is complicated. Oh no!

Claiming a clear mandate to do lots of complicated stuff on the back of an overly simplistic question posed after months of confusing narratives and lies to the population, when the result was so close, is stupid.

Or, to put it another way...

"Tea?"
"OK, go on."
"There's no kettle so I'm burning the house down to heat water."
"Now wait a…"
"Shut up, I've a clear mandate for tea."

— Louise Johnson (@LouiseJJohnson)

February 9, 2017

Bridgehouse

Brize said:

digitalscream said:

Brize said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

 If it had been two percent the other way, and remain had "won" I don't think our current situation would be any better - the country has no idea (still) what brexit means.

I think I can say with near certainty that, barring Farage and a few other fringe loonies, had the vote gone the other way, the Leave voters would have just shut about it and got on with their lives.

HAHAHhahahhAHAHhaHHAhahHAHAHAHhAHHAHAhAHA

Just like Labour supporters have shut up and gone about their lives when the Conservatives are in power? Or like Conservative supporters shut up and gone about their lives when Labour were in power?

After the last general election, did Labour supporters decry the result because the Tories only won 36.1% of the vote?

Did you hear Labour supporters suggesting that the result should be ignored because only 20% of the electorate voted Conservative?

There was much about the aftermath of the referendum that was predicable, but I don't think anyone anticipated that the Remainers would act with such petulance and bad grace.

You mean like the SNP in Scotland?

It's not petulance and bad grace - it's just some people think it's an utterly suicidal move to leave. 

Similarly some Leavers think staying in would be suicidal.

TBH is actually quite nice to see that the electorate actually cares about something for a change. 

mart

Evilmags said:

It was the Bank of England and Brown that encouraged the city to run riot. As soon as Labour took power in 1997 you can intermediately see the money supply loosen. ....

I love it when someone makes such bold claims and also kindly provides the evidence that proves themselves wrong.

So, in 1997 we can immediately see the money supply loosen, can we? That's why your graph shows no discernible change whatsoever in 1997 - just a steady continuation of the rise going on under the Thatcher/Major regime? 

 

And then:

Evilmags said:

... In 4 years he more than doubled the money supply ...

Interesting. Yes, there's a near doubling in 4 years from 2004 to 2008, but not 1997-2001 as you seem to insinuate. But if doubling the money supply in 4 years is such a reckless thing to have done then look to the left part of the graph. That shows pretty clearly a doubling of the money supply from 1988 to 1992. Was that also Brown's fault?

ICBM

Brize said:

After the last general election, did Labour supporters decry the result because the Tories only won 36.1% of the vote?

Did you hear Labour supporters suggesting that the result should be ignored because only 20% of the electorate voted Conservative?

There was much about the aftermath of the referendum that was predicable, but I don't think anyone anticipated that the Remainers would act with such petulance and bad grace.

No, they were expecting that from the Leavers when there was a very narrow Remain vote . And would have got it, I'm quite sure.

Also many of us have always been unhappy that British governments usually only have the support of a minority 35-45% of the vote (let alone of the whole electorate), and yet impose what they want on the majority.

These arguments can't be settled unless the outcome is so clear and unequivocal that the losers accept it in their deepest feelings, rather than the 'maths' of a vote - for that, you need a clear majority of the entire electorate, at minimum. The Leave vote wasn't remotely close to that, and nor would any possible Remain vote have been either.

For what it's worth (don't really want to hijack the thread, just mentioning for comparison) I think the Scottish independence result was close to it. The turnout was so high that No came quite close to a true majority - 47%. Although a lot of Yes voters haven't given up the idea in the long term, most regard the question as settled for a long time now and there is no great enthusiasm for another one in the foreseeable future regardless of what Sturgeon says.

Fretwired

mart said:

Evilmags said:

It was the Bank of England and Brown that encouraged the city to run riot. As soon as Labour took power in 1997 you can intermediately see the money supply loosen. ....

I love it when someone makes such bold claims and also kindly provides the evidence that proves themselves wrong.

So, in 1997 we can immediately see the money supply loosen, can we? That's why your graph shows no discernible change whatsoever in 1997 - just a steady continuation of the rise going on under the Thatcher/Major regime? 

 

And then:

Evilmags said:

... In 4 years he more than doubled the money supply ...

Interesting. Yes, there's a near doubling in 4 years from 2004 to 2008, but not 1997-2001 as you seem to insinuate. But if doubling the money supply in 4 years is such a reckless thing to have done then look to the left part of the graph. That shows pretty clearly a doubling of the money supply from 1988 to 1992. Was that also Brown's fault?

Brown removed political control over the Bank of England and set up the FSA as a watchdog which was in the City's pocket. Both moves contributed to the size of the banking disaster in 2008. At least Brown had the good grace to apologise and admit his mistake.

http://metro.co.uk/2011/04/11/gordon-brown-i-made-big-mistake-on-banks-before-financial-crisis-650630/

Brize

Cirrus said:

The referendum question was simple. Great.

The question of Britain's political, economic and social interactions with Europe is complicated. Oh no!

Claiming a clear mandate to do lots of complicated stuff on the back of an overly simplistic question posed after months of confusing narratives and lies to the population, when the result was so close, is stupid.

Or, to put it another way...

"Tea?"
"OK, go on."
"There's no kettle so I'm burning the house down to heat water."
"Now wait a…"
"Shut up, I've a clear mandate for tea."

— Louise Johnson (@LouiseJJohnson)

February 9, 2017

That's probably the worst analogy I've ever read - utter drivel.

Yes, the referendum question was simple: 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?'

Anyone that would rather that have remained in the single market etc. should have voted remain.

Evilmags

mart said:

Evilmags said:

It was the Bank of England and Brown that encouraged the city to run riot. As soon as Labour took power in 1997 you can intermediately see the money supply loosen. ....

I love it when someone makes such bold claims and also kindly provides the evidence that proves themselves wrong.

So, in 1997 we can immediately see the money supply loosen, can we? That's why your graph shows no discernible change whatsoever in 1997 - just a steady continuation of the rise going on under the Thatcher/Major regime? 

 

And then:

Evilmags said:

... In 4 years he more than doubled the money supply ...

Interesting. Yes, there's a near doubling in 4 years from 2004 to 2008, but not 1997-2001 as you seem to insinuate. But if doubling the money supply in 4 years is such a reckless thing to have done then look to the left part of the graph. That shows pretty clearly a doubling of the money supply from 1988 to 1992. Was that also Brown's fault?

That would have been part pf the cause of the recession we were coming out of in 1992. Ken Clarke kept both money supply and spending fairly flat post the recession, Bair term one also kept spending relatively tight. Blair term two let brown loosen fiscal policay and caused a recession. The rate of growth 2004 and 2010 was mental. Asset prices were doing 20% plus a year with no secular change driving them that fast. 

I'd also not that the graph clearly shows flat money from 1991-1996 where it starts to grow and accelerate that growth The curve starts to steepen in 1997 and continues to do so till 2010..  

Jimbro66

That condescending prat Blair lectures us on the 'true cost of Brexit'. He got us into an unnecessary war in Iraq that cost Britain vast amounts of money and, more importantly, the irreplacable loss of many young lives in our armed forces. He should crawl back into a very dark hole.

Evilmags

He is still relatively well liked and influential within the EU so Brexit will certainly have a "true financial cost" to him. 

digitalscream

Evilmags said:

He is still relatively well liked and influential within the EU so Brexit will certainly have a "true financial cost" to him. 

Well, the GBP crash from Brexit has already cost me £5k in the form of my bonus last year, so for once I'm on the same page as he is...

Evilmags

digitalscream said:

Evilmags said:

He is still relatively well liked and influential within the EU so Brexit will certainly have a "true financial cost" to him. 

Well, the GBP crash from Brexit has already cost me £5k in the form of my bonus last year, so for once I'm on the same page as he is...

I think his page might be more substantial. Why can't may find him a job where he cant harm anyone and is well out of the way. British Comissionar for Antartica sounds about right.

digitalscream

Evilmags said:

digitalscream said:

Evilmags said:

He is still relatively well liked and influential within the EU so Brexit will certainly have a "true financial cost" to him. 

Well, the GBP crash from Brexit has already cost me £5k in the form of my bonus last year, so for once I'm on the same page as he is...

I think his page might be more substantial. Why can't may find him a job where he cant harm anyone and is well out of the way. British Comissionar for Antartica sounds about right.

Well, obviously. His "page" is likely several orders of magnitude bigger, but still...I could've done with that bonus

Clarky

Evilmags said:

digitalscream said:

Evilmags said:

He is still relatively well liked and influential within the EU so Brexit will certainly have a "true financial cost" to him. 

Well, the GBP crash from Brexit has already cost me £5k in the form of my bonus last year, so for once I'm on the same page as he is...

I think his page might be more substantial. Why can't may find him a job where he cant harm anyone and is well out of the way. British Comissionar for Antartica sounds about right.

Ambassador to Svalbard could be good

Schnozz

Blair is definitely no compass of morality and I suspect this is more of job seeking venture on his part - He's a deluded man on a crusade for wealth and fame and a war mongerer that wants to go down in history.

marantz1300

Sambostar said:

marantz1300 said:

Oh it's not going to be half arsed.

It's going to be a full blown disaster.

Most of the Leavers I've met haven't a clue what they voted for and now wish they had voted remain.

They didn't think leave would win.

Idiots.

Keep telling yourself it enough times and maybe you'll believe it eh.



....Idiot.

how rude.
theres no need for name calling.
pissflap lips.

crunchman

Evilmags said:

digitalscream said:

Evilmags said:

He is still relatively well liked and influential within the EU so Brexit will certainly have a "true financial cost" to him. 

Well, the GBP crash from Brexit has already cost me £5k in the form of my bonus last year, so for once I'm on the same page as he is...

I think his page might be more substantial. Why can't may find him a job where he cant harm anyone and is well out of the way. British Comissionar for Antartica sounds about right.

Colonist to Pluto