The great TP election thread

Inflation is not a bad thing. My parents bought their house in 1965 then had many years of high inflation. As long as wages keep up, your mortgage payments effectively go down.


Steve.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Look at it critically then, and show me where you get your figures.
I can only see one site to back up your figures.......all others appear to show inflation was less when The conservatives left power
Click to expand...

I was refering directly to Maggie about inflation.. Hence the references to 'she'

Purely from an economic view point

Growth was higher in the '50s & 60s then the 80s. And it lasted for more sustained periods. The alleged economic miricle was somewhat below par.

The poor got poorer. They poorest 20% of the popultation accounted for 10% of the national income when the Tories cam to power but only 7% when they left. At the same time the rich got richer. The top 20% saw their share rise from 37 to 43%

They did try and control inflation though 12-15% interest rates, 3m unemployed...none of which really worked...

Tax burden (as a whole) was about 39% in 1979. While its true they did reduce the top rate from 83% to a much more sensible 40% the overall burden rose to 43% whilst they were in office. Not really tax cutting then.

So debunked or shall I continue?
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
I was refering directly to Maggie about inflation.. Hence the references to 'she'

Purely from an economic view point

Growth was high in the '50s & 60s then the 80s. And it lasted for more sustained periods. The alleged economic miricle was somewhat below par.

The poor got poorer. They poorest 20% of the popultation accounted for 10% of the national income when the Tories cam to powere but only 7% when they left. At the same time the rich got richer. The top 20% saw theirr share rise from 37 to 43%

They did try and control inflation though 12-15% interest rates, 3m unemployed...no of which really worked...

Tax burden (as a whole) was about 39% in 1979. While its true they did reduce the top rate from 83% to a much more sensible 40% the overall burden rose to 43% whilst they were in office. Not really tax cutting then.

So debunked tes
Click to expand...
You haven't answered my query regarding your response to my curbing inflation statement though.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Only to curb the out of control inflation caused by previous governments.
Click to expand...
Really? Thirteen years after the previous government, no the tories got us into that mess all by themselves.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Look at it critically then, and show me where you get your figures.
I can only see one site to back up your figures.......all others appear to show inflation was less when The conservatives left power
Click to expand...
Try the Bank of England;
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/Repo.asp
Official Bank Rates;
June 1979: 14% (nearest to election in May)
October 1990: 13.875% (nearest to resignation in November)

Wooooo a whole 0.125% reduction in interest rates. Get in!

Edit: I think you're looking at inflation rates, whereas he was quoting interest rates. Inflation was about 4% when the Tories lost in 1992 IIRC.
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
Edit: I think you're looking at inflation rates, whereas he was quoting interest rates. Inflation was about 4% when the Tories lost in 1992 IIRC.
Click to expand...

No I did mean inflation. But I onlty looked at the period Magarat Thatcher was in power. I mean, she only had 11 years to curb inflaton after all
 
OldCarlos said:
Phil, stop twisting things round to score points! (n) (which you seem good at)

I posted # 693

you quoted & replied to my post in # 696 but added a comment about something I never mentioned. Hence my question to you in # 702

You then replied with in # 702




Why the need for; ` Simples. Read it again... There you go ? :rolleyes:

I suggest YOU read the sequence inc your words `...Hugh mentioned Steve, you quoted Hugh, I quoted you referring back to Steve....` to see why I was confused :confused:

There you go. :D Not simples at all. ;)
Click to expand...
You see, followed in order, to me it was simple. However____________ I'll____________ remember____________to____________speak____________more____________slowly____________to______________________you____________in____________future____________as____________you ____________ clearly____________ have____________problems____________ understanding.:p
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
You see, followed in order, to me it was simple. However____________ I'll____________ remember____________to____________speak____________more____________slowly____________to______________________you____________in____________future____________as____________you ____________ clearly____________ have____________problems____________ understanding.:p
Click to expand...
Well done Phil. Patronising, ignorant and downright rude all in one post.
 
fracster said:
Well done Phil. Patronising, ignorant and downright rude all in one post.
Click to expand...
Well. I do try (although to be honest I can't see the ignorant) ;)


Whereas Carlos was obviously full of grace and being a complete gentleman when accusing me of twisting stuff and making stuff up to attack him, when I'd done neither:thinking:
 
Phil V said:
Well. I do try (although to be honest I can't see the ignorant) ;)


Whereas Carlos was obviously full of grace and being a complete gentleman when accusing me of twisting stuff and making stuff up to attack him, when I'd done neither:thinking:
Click to expand...
I`m not interested in your tit for tat battle with Carl, your post above is childish and is extremely asinine, in my opinion.

Carry on as you were gents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
fracster said:
I`m not interested in your tit for tat battle with Carl, your post above is childish and is extremely asinine, in my opinion.

Carry on as you were gents.
Click to expand...
You're as welcome to your opinion as I am....

Oh hang on a bit, you could have wandered past, instead you decided to involve yourself in something you're 'not interested in' :banghead:
 
Had to share...

celeb.jpg



Steve.
 
Phil V said:
You see, followed in order, to me it was simple. However____________ I'll____________ remember____________to____________speak____________more____________slowly____________to______________________you____________in____________future____________as____________you ____________ clearly____________ have____________problems____________ understanding.:p
Click to expand...

Pathetic. :rolleyes:

Condescending ........... & you're still wrong. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
OldCarlos said:
Pathetic. :rolleyes:

Condescending ........... & you're still wrong. :D
Click to expand...
What I'm wrong that I wasn't addressing you?:thinking:

It's good that you know more about my motives than I do.:thinking:

It's strange that, they then make no sense to you. :banana:

It'd be a bit better if you just said, 'I apologise for slagging you off Phil, I clearly had the wrong end of the stick' :D
 
Jeeeeeez, you're like a little kid! :rolleyes:

I'll do a deal & hopefully the thread can get back on topic.

You have `the last word` with your next post, if you want to be childish. (bet you can't resist?) ;)
 
Quicksnapper said:
But how would that work? The people who don't vote now are expressing a "non of the above" opinion by declining to vote, so what would be the point of making it compulsory..
Click to expand...

Are they? I think they're expressing a can't be assed opinion. Atleast going and spoiling your paper shows more then apathy

There are heaps of issues wioth the Aussie system though
 
chrism_scotland said:
Its a little hypocritical but what do you expect of Murdoch, anyone who's actually choosing which way to vote based on a newspaper probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.....
Click to expand...


The trouble is that most of us will base our opinions largely on what we read in the press.
 
boyfalldown said:
At least going and spoiling your paper shows more then apathy
Click to expand...

But it has no practical purpose and doesn't change anything.

To quote a Rush song: "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" - (Free Will - Rush).


Steve.
 
Last edited:
A week away and politicians up and down the UK be like this . . .

Aardvark20amp20Clanger_zpsz6yguohd.jpg~original
 
boyfalldown said:
No I did mean inflation. But I onlty looked at the period Magarat Thatcher was in power. I mean, she only had 11 years to curb inflaton after all
Click to expand...
Then you're wrong, I'm afraid. Inflation increased for a short while after thatcher came to office, but by the time she left was c.5% lower than when she started.
BBC News article;
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22070491
_67007112_inflation.gif
 
boyfalldown said:
Are they? I think they're expressing a can't be assed opinion. Atleast going and spoiling your paper shows more then apathy

There are heaps of issues wioth the Aussie system though
Click to expand...

Yes, I think they are. I have friends who you would think (if you knew them) might have strong reasons to vote and/or strong affiliations towards one party or another due to their opinions, profession, personal circumstances etc. However, the people I know who have said they don't or won't vote, largely chose not to because they claim than no one party offers them the potential to solve what they sees as the issues within their lives. These are people who work in health or education, run small businesses or who have specific family/personal issues which some sort of legislation or government backed support might help. As such, but actively choosing not to vote when they could, they are saying "None of the above" suits me and/or "None of the above" will make my life better in any meaningful way.

Of course, you could argue that this is a selfish attitude and people ought to vote for the greater good of the country as a whole. But when you're challenged by difficult health issues, work in a profession such as education where legislation can make a huge difference to how things function or are funded or have social issues which require some form of support from external agencies, then your opinions are going to be governed by your own/your family's needs and not by a wider, altruistic objective.

So, I stand by my view that a good number (not all, perhaps, but a lot) of non-voters are saying "None of the above" work for me, so why bother turning out.
 
Quicksnapper said:
So, I stand by my view that a good number (not all, perhaps, but a lot) of non-voters are saying "None of the above" work for me, so why bother turning out.
Click to expand...
I think that's a defensible attitude. But if course, if you choose not to vote, you give up the right to complain about the outcome.
 
Llamaman said:
Then you're wrong, I'm afraid. Inflation increased for a short while after thatcher came to office, but by the time she left was c.5% lower than when she started.
BBC News article;
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22070491
_67007112_inflation.gif
Click to expand...

your graphic shows it pretty much the same when she left as when she started? assuming the white period is when she was in office. I had thought she left office in Oct 1990, not November and had based my figures on that, but its not widly different. Historic ionflation rates for you. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Asiju4DoCDhScFhNRlEzZTRhRlkxMW9Ra1RfN0ZoWmc#gid=0
 
Quicksnapper said:
However, the people I know who have said they don't or won't vote, largely chose not to because they claim than no one party offers them the potential to solve what they sees as the issues within their lives. These are people who work in health or education, run small businesses or who have specific family/personal issues which some sort of legislation or government backed support might help. As such, but actively choosing not to vote when they could, they are saying "None of the above" suits me and/or "None of the above" will make my life better in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...
That ignores the potential for one party to actively make things worse.

As an example, if you currently claim any sort of benefit, there will clearly be changes coming after the election - and you therefore have a vested interest in getting your arse down to the polling station.
People who whine about "no party represents me" are missing the point of representational democracy. Candidates aren't there to vote on your behalf on every issue - they're their to represent all their constituents as they see fit. Inevitably, even the party of your choosing won't act the way you would wish on every single issue. But if you can't see a difference between the parties on even a single issue, you're not trying hard enough.
 
boyfalldown said:
your graphic shows it pretty much the same when she left as when she started? assuming the white period is when she was in office. I had thought she left office in Oct 1990, not November and had based my figures on that, but its not widly different. Historic ionflation rates for you. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Asiju4DoCDhScFhNRlEzZTRhRlkxMW9Ra1RfN0ZoWmc#gid=0
Click to expand...
Hmm, it's difficult to see because of the size, but it looks like a 5% difference to me. I can't access the Google doc from work. What are the rates for 4 May 1979 and 28 November 1990?

She left office on 28th November. The challenge to her premiership was on the 14th, a day after Howe resigned.

----------------
Edit
OK, found a work-safe source of inflation data. These are CPI, annual basis;
May 1979: 10.32%
November 1990: 7.92%

So, a 2.5 difference, right in the middle of the spread of my estimate of 5% and yours of nil.

This also ignores that inflation soared in the first few months of office - it was 15% by July 1979 and 17% by November 1979. It's probably fairer to start from the July figure, since she didn't have 'her' first budget until June 12 1979.


Sources:
http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-r...flation/cpi-inflation-great-britain-1979.aspx
http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-r...flation/cpi-inflation-great-britain-1990.aspx
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
Hmm, it's difficult to see because of the size, but it looks like a 5% difference to me. I can't access the Google doc from work. What are the rates for 4 May 1979 and 28 November 1990?

She left office on 28th November. The challenge to her premiership was on the 14th, a day after Howe resigned.

----------------
Edit
OK, found a work-safe source of inflation data. These are CPI, annual basis;
May 1979: 10.32%
November 1990: 7.92%

So, a 2.5 difference, right in the middle of the spread of my estimate of 5% and yours of nil.

This also ignores that inflation soared in the first few months of office - it was 15% by July 1979 and 17% by November 1979. It's probably fairer to start from the July figure, since she didn't have 'her' first budget until June 12 1979.


Sources:
http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-r...flation/cpi-inflation-great-britain-1979.aspx
http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-r...flation/cpi-inflation-great-britain-1990.aspx
Click to expand...


RPI was 10.3% in May 19179 and 9.7 % in November (it was 10.9% for October, when I thought she'd gone). So the difference depends very much how its caclulated
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
You're as welcome to your opinion as I am....

Oh hang on a bit, you could have wandered past, instead you decided to involve yourself in something you're 'not interested in' :banghead:
Click to expand...
Phil, have you ever, ever, once stopped to consider that you are not always right, in fact, sometimes you may be wrong?

Don`t bother answering, I think we all know what the answer is.
 
fracster said:
Phil, have you ever, ever, once stopped to consider that you are not always right, in fact, sometimes you may be wrong?

Don`t bother answering, I think we all know what the answer is.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of how often I'm wrong. I'm a married bloke ;)
But seeing as you're so certain what's going off here, will you show me where I was wrong and I'll happily apologise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top