RugbyRebels

canta_brian wrote:It's odd that in this day and age we still seem to want to vote to be ruled by the exact same classes as have ruled the country for generations. A place in parliament used to be based on who your family was. Now it seems based in doing the right course at the right university, which seems based on going to the right school, which is based on cost, which is based to a large extent in who your family is.

It's no wonder we end up with daft pricks like Mr Johnson.

The education of leaders is interesting. There was a map I saw on reddit showing the education of all the world's leaders. Fascinating.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-the ... ed-2013-12

Saw this, just lol.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/go ... ction-says

"In a surprise admission, the Prime Minister said the Tories were were caught off-guard by the early vote which led to an overly-centralised campaign and a disconnect with local constituency campaigners."

Is May quickly becoming the UK's worst PM ever? Perfect timing really. It's not like there is anything of note occurring in world politics right now.

canta_brian wrote:Saw this, just lol.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/go ... ction-says

"In a surprise admission, the Prime Minister said the Tories were were caught off-guard by the early vote which led to an overly-centralised campaign and a disconnect with local constituency campaigners."

Is May quickly becoming the UK's worst PM ever? Perfect timing really. It's not like there is anything of note occurring in world politics right now.

She's also recently said that there wasn't enough debate during the election...

Yet she still won the election. She's certainly no worse than Brown and can certainly claim a bigger mandate.

By debate she meant general debate rather than specifically the leaders' debates The consensus within the Conservatives is that Corbyn was so underestimated that not enough time was spent on attacking his/Labour's policies during the campaign and forcing a debate in the media/public domain. They thought most would not take him seriously. That he started backing away from promises made when challenged after the election would show that it's a valid point.

Mellsblue wrote:Yet she still won the election. She's certainly no worse than Brown and can certainly claim a bigger mandate.

By debate she meant general debate rather than specifically the leaders' debates The consensus within the Conservatives is that Corbyn was so underestimated that not enough time was spent on attacking his/Labour's policies during the campaign and forcing a debate in the media/public domain. They thought most would not take him seriously. That he started backing away from promises made when challenged after the election would show that it's a valid point.

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Yet she still won the election. She's certainly no worse than Brown and can certainly claim a bigger mandate.

By debate she meant general debate rather than specifically the leaders' debates The consensus within the Conservatives is that Corbyn was so underestimated that not enough time was spent on attacking his/Labour's policies during the campaign and forcing a debate in the media/public domain. They thought most would not take him seriously. That he started backing away from promises made when challenged after the election would show that it's a valid point.

Yeah, that's not what she meant by debate, either.

Zhivago wrote:

canta_brian wrote:It's odd that in this day and age we still seem to want to vote to be ruled by the exact same classes as have ruled the country for generations. A place in parliament used to be based on who your family was. Now it seems based in doing the right course at the right university, which seems based on going to the right school, which is based on cost, which is based to a large extent in who your family is.

It's no wonder we end up with daft pricks like Mr Johnson.

The education of leaders is interesting. There was a map I saw on reddit showing the education of all the world's leaders. Fascinating.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-the ... ed-2013-12

Changed from a significant period in the 20th century where children from poorer backgrounds did well in politics, thanks to good education.

And if you think that May is bad, the n the favourite amongst the Conservative party membership for a new leader is Boris.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Some food for thought.


http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 30120.html

Not particularly insightful.

"The government is also running out of cash. According to the Central Bank of Venezuela, the country has $10.4bn in foreign reserves left, and it is estimated to have a debt of $7.2bn. "

This doesn't make sense. So, it has debts of $7.2bn and $10.4bn in savings? It's bullshit. The debt is obviously a lot more than that, and foreign reserves aren't for settling debt.

It does have a tricky situation regarding its debt. Because the US has cut it off from US money markets with stringent sanctions. It's so obvious that US is targetting regime change, and is doing so because the oil price drop makes it an opportune time to do so. US is the enemy of left wing countries.

So after a decade of slagging off the US, the Venezuelan government expects Washington to play nicely? That’s some anti American policies and sound bytes coming back to hurt them, together with some terrible economic policies (should we mention the attempts at price control and huge inflation) and a surge towards totalitarianism in dealing with dissent.

The only bit that doesn’t make sense is the belief held by some that we should emulate Venezuela in some way.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Some food for thought.


http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 30120.html

Not particularly insightful.

"The government is also running out of cash. According to the Central Bank of Venezuela, the country has $10.4bn in foreign reserves left, and it is estimated to have a debt of $7.2bn. "

This doesn't make sense. So, it has debts of $7.2bn and $10.4bn in savings? It's bullshit. The debt is obviously a lot more than that, and foreign reserves aren't for settling debt.

It does have a tricky situation regarding its debt. Because the US has cut it off from US money markets with stringent sanctions. It's so obvious that US is targetting regime change, and is doing so because the oil price drop makes it an opportune time to do so. US is the enemy of left wing countries.

So after a decade of slagging off the US, the Venezuelan government expects Washington to play nicely? That’s some anti American policies and sound bytes coming back to hurt them, together with some terrible economic policies (should we mention the attempts at price control and huge inflation) and a surge towards totalitarianism in dealing with dissent.

The only bit that doesn’t make sense is the belief held by some that we should emulate Venezuela in some way.

I can't see any comparisons between us and Venezuela. Our economies are completely different.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Not particularly insightful.

"The government is also running out of cash. According to the Central Bank of Venezuela, the country has $10.4bn in foreign reserves left, and it is estimated to have a debt of $7.2bn. "

This doesn't make sense. So, it has debts of $7.2bn and $10.4bn in savings? It's bullshit. The debt is obviously a lot more than that, and foreign reserves aren't for settling debt.

It does have a tricky situation regarding its debt. Because the US has cut it off from US money markets with stringent sanctions. It's so obvious that US is targetting regime change, and is doing so because the oil price drop makes it an opportune time to do so. US is the enemy of left wing countries.

So after a decade of slagging off the US, the Venezuelan government expects Washington to play nicely? That’s some anti American policies and sound bytes coming back to hurt them, together with some terrible economic policies (should we mention the attempts at price control and huge inflation) and a surge towards totalitarianism in dealing with dissent.

The only bit that doesn’t make sense is the belief held by some that we should emulate Venezuela in some way.

I can't see any comparisons between us and Venezuela. Our economies are completely different.

Perhaps you could elucidate.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
So after a decade of slagging off the US, the Venezuelan government expects Washington to play nicely? That’s some anti American policies and sound bytes coming back to hurt them, together with some terrible economic policies (should we mention the attempts at price control and huge inflation) and a surge towards totalitarianism in dealing with dissent.

The only bit that doesn’t make sense is the belief held by some that we should emulate Venezuela in some way.

I can't see any comparisons between us and Venezuela. Our economies are completely different.

Perhaps you could elucidate.

Theirs is all oil and manufacturing, ours is much more advanced and diverse with a dominant services sector. Theirs relies on exports, ours relies on domestic consumption.

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I can't see any comparisons between us and Venezuela. Our economies are completely different.

Perhaps you could elucidate.

Theirs is all oil and manufacturing, ours is much more advanced and diverse with a dominant services sector. Theirs relies on exports, ours relies on domestic consumption.

I thought both were around 60% based on domestic consumption which is a fairly normal value, but I'd take the point they're more reliant a single product they export. I suppose there is some comparison to be drawn that they're reliant on a single product and moved to economically undermine themselves by not diversifying, and we're reliant on a single market and we're ignoring how trade actually works to undermine that

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Perhaps you could elucidate.

Theirs is all oil and manufacturing, ours is much more advanced and diverse with a dominant services sector. Theirs relies on exports, ours relies on domestic consumption.

I thought both were around 60% based on domestic consumption which is a fairly normal value, but I'd take the point they're more reliant a single product they export. I suppose there is some comparison to be drawn that they're reliant on a single product and moved to economically undermine themselves by not diversifying, and we're reliant on a single market and we're ignoring how trade actually works to undermine that

Their focus on oil exports hurt them badly. I doubt they didn't try to diversify, more likely they are suffering the 'Dutch disease' whereby the specialisation causes currency overappreciation that reduces the competitiveness of the other industries to the extent that they cannot survive. As such I see that the problems that they are facing are entirely different to the problems we face.

Their main problem is how to support other sectors of their economy while still bringing in the oil revenue. Our main problem is driving our gdp by maintaining sufficient demand for domestic consumption.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Theirs is all oil and manufacturing, ours is much more advanced and diverse with a dominant services sector. Theirs relies on exports, ours relies on domestic consumption.

I thought both were around 60% based on domestic consumption which is a fairly normal value, but I'd take the point they're more reliant a single product they export. I suppose there is some comparison to be drawn that they're reliant on a single product and moved to economically undermine themselves by not diversifying, and we're reliant on a single market and we're ignoring how trade actually works to undermine that

Their focus on oil exports hurt them badly. I doubt they didn't try to diversify, more likely they are suffering the 'Dutch disease' whereby the specialisation causes currency overappreciation that reduces the competitiveness of the other industries to the extent that they cannot survive. As such I see that the problems that they are facing are entirely different to the problems we face.

Their main problem is how to support other sectors of their economy while still bringing in the oil revenue. Our main problem is driving our gdp by maintaining sufficient demand for domestic consumption.

Our main problems are our debt levels, both government and household, no matter whether one wants more spending in the public sector or not, and that we're in the process of spending a shit load of money to shrink our economy

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
I thought both were around 60% based on domestic consumption which is a fairly normal value, but I'd take the point they're more reliant a single product they export. I suppose there is some comparison to be drawn that they're reliant on a single product and moved to economically undermine themselves by not diversifying, and we're reliant on a single market and we're ignoring how trade actually works to undermine that

Their focus on oil exports hurt them badly. I doubt they didn't try to diversify, more likely they are suffering the 'Dutch disease' whereby the specialisation causes currency overappreciation that reduces the competitiveness of the other industries to the extent that they cannot survive. As such I see that the problems that they are facing are entirely different to the problems we face.

Their main problem is how to support other sectors of their economy while still bringing in the oil revenue. Our main problem is driving our gdp by maintaining sufficient demand for domestic consumption.

Our main problems are our debt levels, both government and household, no matter whether one wants more spending in the public sector or not, and that we're in the process of spending a shit load of money to shrink our economy

Government debt isn't a problem, it's 25% less than you think because the BoE owns approx that much of it because of QE.

Household debt is a problem because it dampens domestic spending, therefore it's part of that same issue I mentioned.

Regarding 'dutch disease' that I mentioned, it is interesting to note that perhaps a similar effect has been seen in the UK whereby the financial sector growth has reduced manufacturing competitiveness.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Theirs is all oil and manufacturing, ours is much more advanced and diverse with a dominant services sector. Theirs relies on exports, ours relies on domestic consumption.

I thought both were around 60% based on domestic consumption which is a fairly normal value, but I'd take the point they're more reliant a single product they export. I suppose there is some comparison to be drawn that they're reliant on a single product and moved to economically undermine themselves by not diversifying, and we're reliant on a single market and we're ignoring how trade actually works to undermine that

Their focus on oil exports hurt them badly. I doubt they didn't try to diversify, more likely they are suffering the 'Dutch disease' whereby the specialisation causes currency overappreciation that reduces the competitiveness of the other industries to the extent that they cannot survive. As such I see that the problems that they are facing are entirely different to the problems we face.

Their main problem is how to support other sectors of their economy while still bringing in the oil revenue. Our main problem is driving our gdp by maintaining sufficient demand for domestic consumption.

Venezuela has, at least three times, gone from boom to bust and back again because of their continued dependence on oil exports. Once is forgivable, but after the second time, you have to wonder what the hell they are playing at. That and the fact that 75% of their national electricity supplies comes from one single hydroelectric scheme (which has failed to produce sufficiently due to a drought) and you have to suspect that whoever did the planning in their planned economy doesn't understand the word "resilience"
No doubt the US made them fritter away their oil earnings during the boom years and prevented them from building a multi-sourced supply industry.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
I thought both were around 60% based on domestic consumption which is a fairly normal value, but I'd take the point they're more reliant a single product they export. I suppose there is some comparison to be drawn that they're reliant on a single product and moved to economically undermine themselves by not diversifying, and we're reliant on a single market and we're ignoring how trade actually works to undermine that

Their focus on oil exports hurt them badly. I doubt they didn't try to diversify, more likely they are suffering the 'Dutch disease' whereby the specialisation causes currency overappreciation that reduces the competitiveness of the other industries to the extent that they cannot survive. As such I see that the problems that they are facing are entirely different to the problems we face.

Their main problem is how to support other sectors of their economy while still bringing in the oil revenue. Our main problem is driving our gdp by maintaining sufficient demand for domestic consumption.

Venezuela has, at least three times, gone from boom to bust and back again because of their continued dependence on oil exports. Once is forgivable, but after the second time, you have to wonder what the hell they are playing at. That and the fact that 75% of their national electricity supplies comes from one single hydroelectric scheme (which has failed to produce sufficiently due to a drought) and you have to suspect that whoever did the planning in their planned economy doesn't understand the word "resilience"
No doubt the US made them fritter away their oil earnings during the boom years and prevented them from building a multi-sourced supply industry.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Unless you're trying to draw comparisons with the UK and repeated economic crises caused by financial sector price crashes?

Zhivago wrote:
Government debt isn't a problem, it's 25% less than you think because the BoE owns approx that much of it because of QE.

It'd be difficult to express in words just how much I disagree it's not a problem, frankly I thought it was a problem before 2008, and our aging population and possible repercussions from Brexit are set only make it worse. And beyond the many practical problems I have with the level of debt, both the total and the annual requirement, it seems morally reprehensible we've gotten into this situation and continue to make it worse.

I don't have a flat out objection to debt, it can be an enormously useful instrument, but the seemingly laissez-faire attitude many have to current and ongoing levels perplexes and frustrates in no small measure.

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Their focus on oil exports hurt them badly. I doubt they didn't try to diversify, more likely they are suffering the 'Dutch disease' whereby the specialisation causes currency overappreciation that reduces the competitiveness of the other industries to the extent that they cannot survive. As such I see that the problems that they are facing are entirely different to the problems we face.

Their main problem is how to support other sectors of their economy while still bringing in the oil revenue. Our main problem is driving our gdp by maintaining sufficient demand for domestic consumption.

Venezuela has, at least three times, gone from boom to bust and back again because of their continued dependence on oil exports. Once is forgivable, but after the second time, you have to wonder what the hell they are playing at. That and the fact that 75% of their national electricity supplies comes from one single hydroelectric scheme (which has failed to produce sufficiently due to a drought) and you have to suspect that whoever did the planning in their planned economy doesn't understand the word "resilience"
No doubt the US made them fritter away their oil earnings during the boom years and prevented them from building a multi-sourced supply industry.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Unless you're trying to draw comparisons with the UK and repeated economic crises caused by financial sector price crashes?

You're not sure what my point is? You yourself reference the fact that Venezuela is over dependant on oil exports. I was pointing out that this continued over dependence is criminally negligent given that they have experienced several cycles of boom and bust, and had plenty opportunities to broaden the focus of their economy. Instead, they stuck their paws in the honey pot, and continue to scream BAD USA! every time their lack of foresight bites them on the arse.

In an earlier post, you stated that that you had studied the Venezuelan economy and were confident that it had a bright future. Did you overlook the fact, that they have failed to plan for the cyclic nature of oil prices and the fact that their entire economy is dependant on a single hydro scheme?

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Government debt isn't a problem, it's 25% less than you think because the BoE owns approx that much of it because of QE.

It'd be difficult to express in words just how much I disagree it's not a problem, frankly I thought it was a problem before 2008, and our aging population and possible repercussions from Brexit are set only make it worse. And beyond the many practical problems I have with the level of debt, both the total and the annual requirement, it seems morally reprehensible we've gotten into this situation and continue to make it worse.

I don't have a flat out objection to debt, it can be an enormously useful instrument, but the seemingly laissez-faire attitude many have to current and ongoing levels perplexes and frustrates in no small measure.

Debt in and of itself is not a problem so long as it is serviceable. What is a problem is shrinking your economy while simultaneously increasing the debt burden...

Government debt should be used for one purpose and one purpose alone: to grow the economy, so that the debt ends up costing less than what you actually borrowed...

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Government debt isn't a problem, it's 25% less than you think because the BoE owns approx that much of it because of QE.

It'd be difficult to express in words just how much I disagree it's not a problem, frankly I thought it was a problem before 2008, and our aging population and possible repercussions from Brexit are set only make it worse. And beyond the many practical problems I have with the level of debt, both the total and the annual requirement, it seems morally reprehensible we've gotten into this situation and continue to make it worse.

I don't have a flat out objection to debt, it can be an enormously useful instrument, but the seemingly laissez-faire attitude many have to current and ongoing levels perplexes and frustrates in no small measure.

Debt in and of itself is not a problem so long as it is serviceable. What is a problem is shrinking your economy while simultaneously increasing the debt burden...

Government debt should be used for one purpose and one purpose alone: to grow the economy, so that the debt ends up costing less than what you actually borrowed...

Debt being serviceable isn't to be ignored of course, but it's hardly the only criteria and frankly debt is a problem a long time before you get to the point you can't service it

And I don't think debt should only be taken on for the purposes of investment, sometimes it is needed to manage spend on ongoing items, flexibility is a virtue at times

Poor Theresa's conference speech is being rather spoiled by a chesty cough.

kk67 wrote:Poor Theresa's conference speech is being rather spoiled by a chesty cough.

And a cheeky c**t.

Mellsblue wrote:

kk67 wrote:Poor Theresa's conference speech is being rather spoiled by a chesty cough.

And a cheeky c**t.

Lee Nelson,....I saw him live in a Camden pub supporting Harry Hill.
The door to the Ladies toilet was hard up against stage left.........none of the girls in our party enjoyed the gig.
But it was fantastic.