If you could, as already suggested, learn to use the quote facility, there would be a lot less confusion on every thread you join

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24149763One in three behind on rent since housing benefit changes.[/url

So, an unmitigated success.

Regarding the "old chestnut" about the banking crisis, again I ask, do you dispute it occurred?
Or did Gordon Brown pull the rug from under banks right across the Western economies?

Regarding cost of borrowing ...

Nice attempt at a wriggle but wrong again.
Even though the UK's credit rating has gone down, so have bond yields.
Monthly average bond yield percent on 10 year bonds has gone from 5% (before the crash) to 1% (today).
SOURCE : Bank of England, so any disagreement you may have, take it up with Mark Carney, although I think he probably already knows the difference between debt/gdp and bond yields and which actually reflects the cost of borrowing.
So, anyway, back to the point ... you say borrowing is not cheap ... when was borrowing cheaper than this parliamentary term?

In reply to my US example of how stimulus can lead to growth (i.e. fourteen consecutive quarters of growth), you said ...
Not bizarre at all, the US case was presented to demonstrate the validity of intervention for stimulus, which you seem to want ignore now it's been pointed out to you that Osborne could have done the same but didn't, preferring instead to rely (unsuccessfully) on cuts.

In reply to my contention that house prices are high and my factual comparisons of prices to earnings over the years, you try to shift the argument as follows ...
As you are switching the discussion to the house price boom, I take it that you accept my point that at 5.5 times average national earnings, prices are still historically high and are driven by supply and demand?
Why you mentioned the [iHelp to Buy[/i scheme, I don't know but, as you have, I'd like to ask why is it OK for HMG to subsidise private new-house purchases when you are so staunchly against social housing?
(I use the term [isubsidise[/i here to mean the interest-free first-five-years of the government loan to the buyer and the lower rate that the buyer can demand from the lender because the buyer has a larger deposit courtesy of the Chancer of the Exchequer).

After I quoted the stats about Darling's stimulus, and how the current coalition government cut back on capital investment thereby depressing GDP, you responded ...
I have quoted stats, are they tosh?
Where is your evidence?

Regarding the economy and cuts you say that Labour plans were practically the same as the Tories.
Unfortunately you are wrong again.
Both Lib Dems (before the election and before the 180 degree U-turn after) and Labour said they'd cut slower to avoid dips in GDP growth.

You failed to comment on the bit I mentioned about the effect of the earnings/house-price ratio as one of the reasons why people not on benefits remain in social housing.
Can I assume you agree?

You still maintain that private rental is cheaper because of the capital outlay on social housing.
Maybe if you look at the fact that surpluses from council housing (yes, [usurpluses[/u, which actually exceeded the maintenance grants etc paid from HMG) were paid to the Treasury during the Labour Government (and I haven't seen any mention that this changed, although I concede it may have) ... and also recall that since the time of Thatcher's "Right to buy" councils were specifically prohibited from re-investing that capital in housing ... what actual capital outlay are you talking about?

Of course, you can just say "Tosh" again in lieu of debate or evidence.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 25074.html I can't say anything except, we told you so, but no one would listen and we are fed the "its to free up larger properties" mantra when everyone knows that they know there are not the properties and the "tax" has to be paid. I'd like to think Grant Shapps will read this article and have some sort of conscious but I've more chance of flying to the moon this afternoon. Edit: See Minty beat me to it

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 25074.html I can't say anything except, we told you so, but no one would listen and we are fed the "its to free up larger properties" mantra when everyone knows that they know there are not the properties and the "tax" has to be paid. I'd like to think Grant Shapps will read this article and have some sort of conscious but I've more chance of flying to the moon this afternoon. Edit: See Minty beat me to it

I do worry a little when reading statements like this one from the DWP (taken from the above link)...




That statement is clearly drafted directly from IDS, or from Tory central office, but is attributed to a civil service department - they should not be used as a mouthpiece for any political party and should not have to repeat any political dogma as part of their own statement, a simple "We are enforcing the new rules introduced by parliament" would do rather than making it appear to be their own policy, which it clearly isn't.

"the taxpayer can no longer afford to pay for people to live in properties larger than they need"

About time the "taxpayer" started applying this logic to MPs

It would be nice, wouldn't it?

On only a slightly different note, I commented on the BBC site the other day under the story about increased prison sentences for convicted benefit fraudsters. I simply asked what increase in sentences there was going to be for any MPs who ripped off the taxpayer via their expenses.

It was deleted.

Apparently, you can't link how MPs are paid by the taxpayer etc to benefits paid by the taxpayer.

You mean when he calculated that Abbey, A&L, and B&B were completely worthless, and handed their assets and ongoing business to Santander, thanking them for helping keep those business afloat. This rendered shares in those companies worthless.

12 months later, Santander's annual accounts stated they made a E4bn profit, which consisted of an operational loss of E12bn, plus a transfer of E16b net assets from the 'acquisition' of Abbey, A&L, and B&B" ....... Worthless eh?

For those who don't know, the shareholders of all of those companies are still pressing for legal action against the then government for compensation - however, according to a government statement last month, "All files pertaining to the valuation and transfer of B&B assets to Santander were accidentally destroyed during the parliamentary changeover in 2010" .....

I don't think that was what either El Barbudo or Him were meaning.

I think that they were referring not to what happened after the onset of the financial crisis, but what caused the financial crisis in the first place – hence mentions of Lehman Brothers etc.

The matter of how Brown handled the immediate aftermath is still up for debate, although some analysts have suggested that Brown's actions after the crisis hit, and the speed of them, possibly avoided the situation becoming worse – maybe even up to a full-scale depression.

No.
I was, as Mintball said, referring to the banking meltdown of 2008.

As it happens, your description doesn't appear to tie in with Abbey's [uagreement[/u to merge with Santander in an £8bn deal in 2004 or Santander's [utakeover[/u of Alliance & Leicester's for £1.3bn in 2008 or the £150m that Santander paid for B&B's savings accounts and branches after B&B went absobloodylutelytitsup.
It sounds like you would argue that the valuations that were made were less than they were worth ... but those were the deals and share values can go down as well as up.
I'd suggest that's worthy of a thread of its own if you want to debate it.

Why shouldn't we blame banks and financial institutions for a banking and financial crisis?
Will you please answer the question, do you think the Labour governments policies caused Lehmann Brothers to fail?




no it doesn't.

it really doesn't.


the yield rates ARE the cost of borrowing. All debt to GDP ratios and credit ratings are are indicators for those willing to lend.


I didnt avoid it at all. In fact I specifically mentioned that rates had risen. Talking about not suiting your argument, when was the last time before 2012 that rates were at or lower than 3%?


Ok. From Q2 2010 to Q2 2013 public sector employment fell by roughly 650,000.
The percentage of people in employment who work in the public sector is at the lowest since records began.


In the regard that the economy grew significantly, retail sales went through the roof. As did industrial production, business confidence, exports, balance of trade, and wages. Whilst unemployment has fallen by around a third.



The demand gap in, partly, consumer spending. Post crash consumer spending fell by around $200bn. It is now $700bn higher. It also helps bridge the gap for businesses. Post crash capacity utilisation fell by 15%.


Why? Because it doesn't back up your argument?
It's similarity to the UK is that it's a first world, developed, democratic, capitalist country with an economy that suffered from the financial crash and is largely dependent on consumer spending that took a radically different approach to the crisis.


If the net effect was zero how did it cost £12bn in receipts?


A tax on consumption in a consumer economy? A VAT rise during a recession is economic madness.


It's not brilliant. It's basic economics in a recession. Ask FDR.
It's also exactly what the US did.

Brown got it badly wrong all round. His dismantling of the regulatory framework & taking away control of interest rate from Bof E created the disaster. He doubled public spending on the back of tax receipts from the banks he cut loose. He then spent our money trying to cover his mess up when the crash hit.

No actual facts in there. Just a survey from the TUC.

The housing benefit bill is £24bn a year & costs each & every taxpayer £700 a year.

The spare room subsidy exists in private rented accommodation. There is a fixed amount of housing stock that needs to be allocated according need & to ensure taxpayers money isn't spent unnecessarily.

No it doesn't.

Which framework? We were talking about Lehmann Brothers. If you mean the UK then it was successive UK governments of both parties.
Can you answer the question please? This is the third time of asking. Which Labour government policy or decision caused Lehmann Brothers to fail?


No-one. The Bank of England sets the interest rate. They had no need to rise. The economy wasn't out of control. The financial sector was.


Not necessarily. As I said, they are indicators for investors nothing more. Plus you're not taking into account the relative effect compared to other countries. The UK had warnings and negative outlooks from credit rating agencies in 2009 and 2010. The UK's debt to GDP ratio and borrowing to GDP ratio both increased over this time. Yet the yield rates went down.


So you don't know then? If you don't know why do you think a rate of 3% is bad? If you do know then just tell us.


Why do you say that? Do you dispute the figures? What do you think the official figures actually are then? Because those figures come from what I would describe as a reputable source.


What are you on about? You really are getting confused aren't you? We were talking about the US economy.


Why do you say it's garbage? Do you dispute the figures? Or do you not understand them?




Well I know that debt to GDP isn't the cost of borrowing. So that's something eh

I also know that you're frantically stumbling your way around this like a wasted Stevie Wonder in the middle of an earthquake.
If those points aren't relevant, then what points would be in determining relative similarity between nations economies?
Try answering a question for a change.


You didn't say that. You said the net effect was zero. Which it can't have been if it cost £12bn in receipts. Which is it? Or did you mess that up too?
Either way the IFS, CEBR, CRR and plenty of businesses and directors disagree with you about the effects of VAT reductions and rises.


Consumer spending decreased. It depressed growth by around 0.3% and cost jobs.


Excuse me? I didn't compare the USA with any other nation in that quote. You were saying expansionary fiscal policy in a time of recession wasn't a good idea. I was saying it is but backing it up with 2 examples.

As predicted.




You deny official stats, don't know that yield rate is the cost of borrowing, refuse to accept that stimulus pulled the US out of the mire, think that the entire Western banking crisis was Brown's fault, deny the reductions in public sector staffing, don't accept that supply versus demand affects price, cover your lack of insight with irrelevant questions but ignore questions asked of you ... etc etc ... and, when proved utterly wrong, you respond with "Absolute tosh".




It's over, give it up.

So Brown was to blame for Lehman Brothers etc? And the financial crisis in the UK was completely isolated and unconnected from the global financial crisis?



Yerr ... 'cos that there TUC only got data from them there councils, and them there councils all told porkies so those aren't facts ...

Yerr ...

If you try harder, you might manage to avoid looking like such a complete twerp.

No, no: that's wrong. He never ever dodges questions. And he asserts this, so it must be true.

Is he Iain Duncan Smith?

If he believes it to be true ...