Islamic education plot in UK

[fj1200]

^You do understand the difference between short term and long term don't you? And FWIW I hope that the UK does not go the way of Greece but I can only imagine what would have been without the ridiculous austerity policy.

It is the first time since April 2008 that UK annual growth is predicted to be higher than the US and Germany...

When "natural tax cutters" don't, I'm not filled with confidence.

[Drummond]

^You do understand the difference between short term and long term don't you? And FWIW I hope that the UK does not go the way of Greece but I can only imagine what would have been without the ridiculous austerity policy.



When "natural tax cutters" don't, I'm not filled with confidence.

Our Conservatives, in adopting a policy designed to make us pay our way, to live within our means, ARE planning for the long term. 'Get rich quick' games played by the Left, with OTHER PEOPLES' MONEY', are at best 'fools gold'. And they are the mess which Labour's successors have had to clear up as best they can, and as soberly as they can.

Austerity policies aren't ideal. But it's far less ridiculous than the Leftie alternative of willful bankruptcy !

Fact is, FJ, that your prediction for the UK's future is far removed from the truth .. that of GROWING, INCREASINGLY EVIDENT, PROSPERITY.

I really must hand it to you. FJ, when you bungle, you do it in style !!

[fj1200]

Our Conservatives, in adopting a policy designed to make us pay our way, to live within our means, ARE planning for the long term. 'Get rich quick' games played by the Left, with OTHER PEOPLES' MONEY', are at best 'fools gold'. And they are the mess which Labour's successors have had to clear up as best they can, and as soberly as they can.

Austerity policies aren't ideal. But it's far less ridiculous than the Leftie alternative of willful bankruptcy !

Fact is, FJ, that your prediction for the UK's future is far removed from the truth .. that of GROWING, INCREASINGLY EVIDENT, PROSPERITY.

I really must hand it to you. FJ, when you bungle, you do it in style !!

I still readily see your problem. You think "leftie bankruptcy" is the opposite of austerity, it's not as I've shown you repeatedly but of course you choose to ignore that. Austerity sucks, it produces lower economic output, keeps unemployment higher than it should be, and is a government-centric viewpoint which is the opposite of basic conservative a people-centric viewpoint.

The fact is your own link shows "conservative" austerity resulted in an under-performing economy since 2008; how you claim some sort of awesome success for 5 years of mediocrity is simply confusing to the rational mind.






You have a strange definition of success.

[Drummond]

I still readily see your problem. You think "leftie bankruptcy" is the opposite of austerity, it's not as I've shown you repeatedly but of course you choose to ignore that.

The British experience has been one of a straight choice between the two. One, courtesy of Labour, nearly ruined us. The other, applied by Labour's opposition, is slowly mending our economy.

Austerity sucks, it produces lower economic output, keeps unemployment higher than it should be, and is a government-centric viewpoint which is the opposite of basic conservative a people-centric viewpoint.

AND YET IT'S WORKING. You've been sent a link already to show how the UK is set to outperform all other G7 economies !!

The fact is your own link shows "conservative" austerity resulted in an under-performing economy since 2008; how you claim some sort of awesome success for 5 years of mediocrity is simply confusing to the rational mind.

The confusion is YOURS. You seem not to grasp how difficult world economic realities have been since 2008. You seem to imagine that - despite reality !! - the UK should perform as though none of that existed ???

As for your charts ...
[quote]

... you fail to post a link for them, I see.

I also note that two of them seem not to clearly report beyond 2012 (at least, they don't show 2013 as a stated statistical parameter, do they ?). Could that be because any suggestion of a graphically depicted statistical trend is mere extrapolation ??

It certainly DOES explain your last graph ... claiming 'REAL' average earnings ... which somehow manages to show us a flatlining performance going as far ahead as 2019 !!!

So ... to what extent do these show, ahem, 'REAL' data ..... ??

It's as I've pointed out once before .. a 'strange' absence of clear data covering 2013. Which just HAPPENS to be the very year of far stronger fiscal performance from the UK !!

What a coincidence ... eh ?

Your prediction of a UK meltdown comparable to that of Greece is a load of rot, FJ. Your 'statistics' are neither clear-cut, definitive, nor even properly (or at all ?) sourced .. quite possibly only mere projections which are outdated by more recent events.

Well, here's one link for you to check out --

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreyd...ts-ever-tried/

The proponents of Keynesian-style deficit spending argue against austerity by claiming that it has failed in Europe. They point to the U.K., Italy, Greece, and onward, shouting that European government spending cuts have led to slow or negative growth and sky-high unemployment rates. The only problem with these arguments is that all the purported facts are misstated.

In reality, very few countries in Europe have actually reduced government spending. There have been riots in protest of proposed or imagined cuts in spending, but not much actual cutting. For those who have reduced government spending, the results have been better than the conditions experienced in the countries that have continued to expand government spending. If we actually look at the data, rather than simply making unsupported claims, a completely different picture emerges.

The data on relative GDP growth show that only two of the eight countries that practiced austerity performed worse than the average. Those two countries are Iceland and Ireland. Iceland had a complete meltdown of their banking system, so it is clearly a special case. Ireland had a big real estate bubble that popped, which helped cause a bank crisis, and an enormous government deficit. It was definitely one of the countries in big financial trouble.

While two of the eight countries that have tried austerity had GDP growth that was worse than the EU average from 2008 to 2011, that still leaves six of the eight that performed better than average. Further, the two countries with the best relative performance in all of Europe, Poland and Lithuania, are both in the austerity group along with Bulgaria with the fourth best relative GDP growth.

Thus, this data suggests that for most of the European countries that have tried austerity, it has worked.

The lesson from this column is that austerity can indeed work if a country is willing to try it. Trying austerity means actually cutting government spending, not just spending less than the government or liberals want. Also, before people claim a policy has failed they should make sure that the examples of the supposed policy failure actually applied the policy in question.

[fj1200]

The British experience has been one of a straight choice between the two. One, courtesy of Labour, nearly ruined us. The other, applied by Labour's opposition, is slowly mending our economy.

Again, your error. I don't accept either as being the best option.

AND YET IT'S WORKING. You've been sent a link already to show how the UK is set to outperform all other G7 economies !!

It's working? Don't forget out how I defined austerity, cutting spending and raising taxes; it really doesn't work as I've demonstrated previously. And to your new-found success? It didn't take much searching to discover that a correction was necessary and apparently instituted a couple of years ago.

<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">British Budget Adheres to Austerity While It Cuts the Top Tax Rate</nyt_headline>

LONDON — The British government said Wednesday that it was sticking to its austerity program as it presented a budget of tax and benefit changes intended to spur economic growth. The opposition criticized it as benefiting higher earners.
George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, said that the government’s plan for reducing the budget deficit was on track and that it was the only way for Britain to retain relatively low interest payments on its debt. For now, he said, Britain is expected to avoid falling back into a recession.But a stalled economic recovery, rising unemployment, falling tax revenue and struggling households led Mr. Osborne to offer some concessions in the budget he presented to Parliament.
Mr. Osborne reduced the top income tax bracket to 45 percent from 50 percent, a step that was heavily criticized by the Labour Party. He also raised the income level at which people start paying taxes, cut child benefits for those making more than £60,000, cut corporate taxes and raised the tax rate on homes sold for more than £2 million, or $3.2 million.

It appears to have taken a little while but it seems your conservatives finally took my advise.

The confusion is YOURS. You seem not to grasp how difficult world economic realities have been since 2008. You seem to imagine that - despite reality !! - the UK should perform as though none of that existed ???

Oh I very well grasp how bad things were and it's mind boggling why you think that it's acceptable that your economy should have underperformed for the past 5 years like your link states.

As for your charts ...

... you fail to post a link for them, I see.

I also note that two of them seem not to clearly report beyond 2012 (at least, they don't show 2013 as a stated statistical parameter, do they ?). Could that be because any suggestion of a graphically depicted statistical trend is mere extrapolation ??

It certainly DOES explain your last graph ... claiming 'REAL' average earnings ... which somehow manages to show us a flatlining performance going as far ahead as 2019 !!!

So ... to what extent do these show, ahem, 'REAL' data ..... ??

It's as I've pointed out once before .. a 'strange' absence of clear data covering 2013. Which just HAPPENS to be the very year of far stronger fiscal performance from the UK !!

What a coincidence ... eh ?

Your prediction of a UK meltdown comparable to that of Greece is a load of rot, FJ. Your 'statistics' are neither clear-cut, definitive, nor even properly (or at all ?) sourced .. quite possibly only mere projections which are outdated by more recent events.

Well, here's one link for you to check out --

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreyd...ts-ever-tried/

I didn't post a link? You don't recognize the World Bank and the Office of Budget Responsibility? The latter is your own government projections. And because they didn't actually say '2013'? Come on dude, you can do better than that can't you? If you dispute the numbers find some real ones.

As to your link... So on the one hand your stating that austerity works and on the other you're showing a link that states that the UK did not actually practice austerity.

Using data from Eurostat (the official statistics agency of the European Union), I calculated the change in government spending from 2008 to 2012. In fact, the data tell us that only eight out of the thirty countries in Europe that are listed have reduced government spending over that period. Of those eight countries, only Iceland and Ireland have been prominent austerity examples in the news. (The others are Bulgaria, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.)

I didn't notice the UK in that list. He also doesn't define austerity the same way that I have here:

Many countries in Europe have supposedly tried austerity programs to aid the recovery from the recent recession. Austerity as promoted by conservatives and the IMF and as decried and derided by Keynesians (led by Paul Krugman) is generally defined as cuts in government spending and/or reductions in government deficits. We constantly read how Greece, for example, is being forced to cut government spending as a condition of international aid.

He apparently didn't account for tax increases. Which is fine it's just a difference in defining austerity.

[Drummond]

Again, your error. I don't accept either as being the best option.

Amazing. It truly is. 'YOUR ERROR' ?? FJ ... my Government has the right to implement the precise austerity package it chooses. It's not obliged to check with you first !!

It's working?

YES, IT IS. Experts far better at judging any of this than you are, say it is ! This thread proves the point.

Don't forget out how I defined austerity, cutting spending and raising taxes

Same comment as before. Our Government has committed our economy to the austerity measures it has chosen. They are not obliged to conform to any definition YOU dream up ... our Government does things its own way.

AND IT'S WORKING. So far from your previous prediction that we'd end up like Greece .. IT'S WORKING.

And to your new-found success? It didn't take much searching to discover that a correction was necessary and apparently instituted a couple of years ago.

In that case, what was your gloom and doom prediction based on, if you have now had to - hurriedly, in view of how well we're now doing - rethink your position ?

It appears to have taken a little while but it seems your conservatives finally took my advise.

This is priceless !! Our Government isn't answerable to YOU ... I'm sure they've never heard of you !!

Our Conservatives do things their own way. Consequently, a success story is emerging.
Try facing up to your own mistakes.

Oh I very well grasp how bad things were and it's mind boggling why you think that it's acceptable that your economy should have underperformed for the past 5 years like your link states.

This is just irrational. You are aware - you say you are ? -of the state of the world economy. Our Conservatives not only inherited fallout from that, but also the effects of the enormous damage our Lefties did, by recklessly spending rather than instituting their OWN austerity measures.

In the face of that, you expect an ideal level of fiscal performance ???

I didn't post a link? You don't recognize the World Bank and the Office of Budget Responsibility?

Nope. You should supply links to your material. Otherwise, it's open to question.

The latter is your own government projections. And because they didn't actually say '2013'? Come on dude, you can do better than that can't you? If you dispute the numbers find some real ones.

So ... the graphs were what ? A mixture of hard data and projected assumption ? And you indicated that, did you, with any measure of clarity ?

Or even .. AT ALL ?

If you can't account for the material (if it qualifies as such) you offer in clear and realistic terms, by what right do you base any 'case' on any of it ??

Am I to understand that the real data ended in 2012, and anything further was mere projection ? If so, it begs the question ... WHY do you avoid giving hard data beyond 2012 ? Is it because THAT IS WHEN OUR RECOVERY REALLY GATHERED PACE ?

As to your link... So on the one hand your stating that austerity works and on the other you're showing a link that states that the UK did not actually practice austerity.

My own Government would not agree with you. They are practicing it to this day, and will continue to. That you cannot recognise the reality of what they're doing is your problem, not theirs.

He also doesn't define austerity the same way that I have here:

How terrible, that he should fail to see things your way. Who's the EXPERT in such matters ??

[fj1200]

Amazing. It truly is. 'YOUR ERROR' ?? FJ ... my Government has the right to implement the precise austerity package it chooses. It's not obliged to check with you first !!

What a dumb comment. Of course it's not obliged but it is wise before they go forward with anymore ill-advised austerity.

YES, IT IS. Experts far better at judging any of this than you are, say it is ! This thread proves the point.

Actually it proves the point that they adopted some pro-growth policies mid stream that equates to what I've been saying all along.

Same comment as before. Our Government has committed our economy to the austerity measures it has chosen. They are not obliged to conform to any definition YOU dream up ... our Government does things its own way.

AND IT'S WORKING. So far from your previous prediction that we'd end up like Greece .. IT'S WORKING.

Again, what a dumb comment. They are more than free to take the wrong advise if they so choose. But I've already shown you repeatedly that austerity, as I've defined it here previously, sucks and pro-growth policies that they got around to implementing is a wiser course.

In that case, what was your gloom and doom prediction based on, if you have now had to - hurriedly, in view of how well we're now doing - rethink your position ?



This is priceless !! Our Government isn't answerable to YOU ... I'm sure they've never heard of you !!

Our Conservatives do things their own way. Consequently, a success story is emerging.
Try facing up to your own mistakes.

Newsflash; They adopted what I suggested. I count that as success. As far as my position, it's been consistent, spending restraint and pro-growth policies are superior to austerity. Your position swings in the wind.

This is just irrational. You are aware - you say you are ? -of the state of the world economy. Our Conservatives not only inherited fallout from that, but also the effects of the enormous damage our Lefties did, by recklessly spending rather than instituting their OWN austerity measures.

In the face of that, you expect an ideal level of fiscal performance ???

What are you on about now? Pretty much everyone in the modern world is aware of what you're trying to claim some sort of special knowledge. I don't expect an ideal level of performance until someone makes me benevolent dictator but until that happens it's sad that you find ways of justifying underperformance.

Nope. You should supply links to your material. Otherwise, it's open to question.

You don't recognize the World Bank? The OBR is a little less obvious but I would expect a Brit like you would recognize it more readily than others especially when you're on about how it's your country and all.

So ... the graphs were what ? A mixture of hard data and projected assumption ? And you indicated that, did you, with any measure of clarity ?

Or even .. AT ALL ?

If you can't account for the material (if it qualifies as such) you offer in clear and realistic terms, by what right do you base any 'case' on any of it ??

Am I to understand that the real data ended in 2012, and anything further was mere projection ? If so, it begs the question ... WHY do you avoid giving hard data beyond 2012 ? Is it because THAT IS WHEN OUR RECOVERY REALLY GATHERED PACE ?

When you're had you don't let go do you? It's but a simple matter to find the links that the graphs came from. :hint: right click, "search google..."

My own Government would not agree with you. They are practicing it to this day, and will continue to. That you cannot recognise the reality of what they're doing is your problem, not theirs.

They're practicing what exactly? Your link states that they're not doing what you claim they're doing. Your position is that they're cutting spending correct? It seems that they only did that for one fiscal year before it's climbing again. Of course it seems that they are cutting spending on a % of GDP basis which I suggested was a good idea a few pages ago along with my suggestion that tax cuts was a good idea pages ago. It just seems that now your government is doing what I suggested pages ago.





I get the impression that you don't really know what's going on in your country. You just suck anything down that has "conservative" behind the name.

And BTW, the orange numbers are 'estimated' in the first graph and the 'e' also means estimated in the second graph. Hope that helps.

How terrible, that he should fail to see things your way. Who's the EXPERT in such matters ??

Where did I state he had to see things my way? I only said that we had different definitions which makes your pulling his article as pointless on your part.

[Drummond]

What a dumb comment. Of course it's not obliged but it is wise before they go forward with anymore ill-advised austerity.

Good grief. What an ego !

Actually it proves the point that they adopted some pro-growth policies mid stream that equates to what I've been saying all along.

So, we can agree that monetary strategies can be, and ARE, adapted to ongoing situations ?

Trouble is, that was not your original position. Yours was to say that our Government's whole approach was wrong. Well, from 'wrongness', so-called, a success story is emerging. Live with it.

Again, what a dumb comment. They are more than free to take the wrong advise if they so choose. But I've already shown you repeatedly that austerity, as I've defined it here previously, sucks and pro-growth policies that they got around to implementing is a wiser course.

This misses the wider point. The object of the exercise is to CONTINUE with austerity. It is adapted according to evolving circumstances, but, austerity IS the name of the game until the mess being tackled is finally cleared up. And at minimum that's years away.

Newsflash; They adopted what I suggested. I count that as success.

BUT THEY'VE NEVER HEARD OF YOU !

Are you a fantasist ? Why .. next, you'll be telling me you're a Thatcherite ...

As far as my position, it's been consistent, spending restraint and pro-growth policies are superior to austerity. Your position swings in the wind.

As is true of Conservative thinking, mine adapts to reality.

As is true of your more Leftie brand of thinking, yours is fossilised, constrained within a propagandist straitjacket ... with fantasy chucked in for good measure ..

What are you on about now? Pretty much everyone in the modern world is aware of what you're trying to claim some sort of special knowledge. I don't expect an ideal level of performance until someone makes me benevolent dictator but until that happens it's sad that you find ways of justifying underperformance.

What are YOU talking about ?? If conditions, circumstances, are just too bad, then underperformance will occur. What matters is that medicine, once administered, is given time to achieve its remedial effect.

This is now occurring. With the proper medicine having been given enough of a chance to work.

You don't recognize the World Bank? The OBR is a little less obvious but I would expect a Brit like you would recognize it more readily than others especially when you're on about how it's your country and all.

You're just blustering to excuse your own shortcomings. You failed to offer a supportive link. That's the truth of this. That you'd expect me to somehow compensate for your failing, then to apportion blame when I fail to ... is really YOUR problem.

When you're had you don't let go do you? It's but a simple matter to find the links that the graphs came from. :hint: right click, "search google..."

Why not take your own advice, FJ ?

They're practicing what exactly? Your link states that they're not doing what you claim they're doing. Your position is that they're cutting spending correct? It seems that they only did that for one fiscal year before it's climbing again. Of course it seems that they are cutting spending on a % of GDP basis which I suggested was a good idea a few pages ago along with my suggestion that tax cuts was a good idea pages ago. It just seems that now your government is doing what I suggested pages ago.

Your first bar chart goes all the way back to 1994 ?? To prove WHAT, about the conditions of 2008 ??

Consider this, though. Factored into all of this is the commitment to not only get spending under control, but to do this with the handicap of paying interest on money borrowed previously. So disgustingly terrible was Labour's recklessness that, regardless of present-day prudence, it's all we can do to cope with the interest payments racked up !!

THIS is the reality our present Government inherited, and is still stuck with !! And on top of that, YOU have wanted them to afford tax incentives ???

And BTW, the orange numbers are 'estimated' in the first graph and the 'e' also means estimated in the second graph. Hope that helps.

Thank you kindly. Better to have explanations, whether obvious or not, than to have the expectation of cloud-cuckooland guesswork.

Mind you ... AGAIN, in the first chart, the hard data AGAIN CUTS OFF AT 2012 !! Why do you refuse to look at 2013, the year of first significant progress ??

There's a clue in that somewhere, FJ ....

At least the second chart is showing an encouraging trend, though. Very ... well, un-Greece-like, it seems ...

Where did I state he had to see things my way? I only said that we had different definitions which makes your pulling his article as pointless on your part.

[fj1200]

Good grief. What an ego !

So, we can agree that monetary strategies can be, and ARE, adapted to ongoing situations ?

Trouble is, that was not your original position. Yours was to say that our Government's whole approach was wrong. Well, from 'wrongness', so-called, a success story is emerging. Live with it.

It's not ego when I'm proven right. It seems I need to correct you again, 'monetary' refers to central bank actions whereas 'fiscal' refers to government policy such as spending and taxation. You're welcome. I suppose that fiscal strategies can be adapted especially when a particularly deep recession needs to be combated. It would be a matter of where to stimulate the economy to put it again on a robust path of growth. The Keynesians would typically suggest deficit spending whereas conservative like myself, as in real ones, would suggest tax cuts to stimulate. Merely saying that you're going to spend less is not a successful strategy as I've shown especially when combining that with tax increases.

And you could also point out where I've changed my position on how austerity sucks; I started by stating that tax cuts are necessary and it turns out that the Tories agree. Sounds like I'm consistent here.

This misses the wider point. The object of the exercise is to CONTINUE with austerity. It is adapted according to evolving circumstances, but, austerity IS the name of the game until the mess being tackled is finally cleared up. And at minimum that's years away.

BUT THEY'VE NEVER HEARD OF YOU !

Are you a fantasist ? Why .. next, you'll be telling me you're a Thatcherite ...

Somebody here needs to be a Thatcherite. But their loss though, I'm glad that they finally started to listen to their supply-side advisers that suggested that cutting taxes are necessary to kick start their economy that was going nowhere due to their tax increases. I could have saved them a couple of years.

But the real point here is that once they embraced tax cuts that they also moved away from austerity as I've defined it.

As is true of Conservative thinking, mine adapts to reality.

As is true of your more Leftie brand of thinking, yours is fossilised, constrained within a propagandist straitjacket ... with fantasy chucked in for good measure ..

But your "conservatism" ignores what didn't work and you don't recognize the important change that occurred. Your "conservatism" is merely to parrot what the Tories say.

You could also point out how my stated positions of cutting taxes, restraining spending, and reducing regulations is a "leftie branch of thinking"? You can't so you'll ignore as you do all the time when cornered.

What are YOU talking about ?? If conditions, circumstances, are just too bad, then underperformance will occur. What matters is that medicine, once administered, is given time to achieve its remedial effect.

This is now occurring. With the proper medicine having been given enough of a chance to work.

Huh? Why do you ignore the evidence?

You're just blustering to excuse your own shortcomings. You failed to offer a supportive link. That's the truth of this. That you'd expect me to somehow compensate for your failing, then to apportion blame when I fail to ... is really YOUR problem.

You just hate that the evidence shows you to be a mindless hack. :shrug:

Why not take your own advice, FJ ?

Because I don't need to nitpick unimportant details as do you when cornered???

Your first bar chart goes all the way back to 1994 ?? To prove WHAT, about the conditions of 2008 ??

Consider this, though. Factored into all of this is the commitment to not only get spending under control, but to do this with the handicap of paying interest on money borrowed previously. So disgustingly terrible was Labour's recklessness that, regardless of present-day prudence, it's all we can do to cope with the interest payments racked up !!

THIS is the reality our present Government inherited, and is still stuck with !! And on top of that, YOU have wanted them to afford tax incentives ???

Blah, blah, blah... Do you have anything important to say or do you just need to rant about "lefties" again? Or do you just need to rant about specifics of graphs? Either way you're adding nothing here.

Thank you kindly. Better to have explanations, whether obvious or not, than to have the expectation of cloud-cuckooland guesswork.

Mind you ... AGAIN, in the first chart, the hard data AGAIN CUTS OFF AT 2012 !! Why do you refuse to look at 2013, the year of first significant progress ??

There's a clue in that somewhere, FJ ....

At least the second chart is showing an encouraging trend, though. Very ... well, un-Greece-like, it seems ...

Uh, yeah... Your government wisely chose a very un-Greece-like course when it decided that it needed to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes. I applaud that because it's exactly what I've been suggesting for years that the US do and for the UK to do for a couple of pages now.

And FWIW, your incessant need to focus on unimportant details is quite sad. If you've got a graph that shows something different then I'd love to see it but I'm not going to wade through every graph on the internet that shows the same thing. The only clues point to you avoiding the obvious. And you do know that sometimes graphs don't put in every year all the time don't you? Some of those graphs didn't include any odd years so by your logic those years didn't exist or had unknown data.