|
|
Post by happyjack on May 20, 2024 6:31:53 GMT
Of course it is evidence. It is basic academic modelling applied to historically accepted published data. Just because you don’t like it or because it undermines your prejudices does not make it any less credible. Its total bullshit...I see you never answered my questions. Why am I not surprised? But then anyone who supports the SNATS have a mentality of a gnat. No, it is a credible report based upon historically accepted published data and basic academic modelling. I didn’t answer your questions because I assumed that they were rhetorical given that the answers are obvious if you actually read the links. However, the answer is yes, in as far as they impact upon GDP - just like every other single event since the end of WWII. And you clearly have not been paying attention if you think that I am a ScotNat. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 20, 2024 6:42:18 GMT
But that research doesn't actually say that Labour are much better at running the economy. It admits that growth has been higher under the Tories but that the growth is more volatile than under Labour. So its up to the individual what they prioritise - total growth or stability. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on May 20, 2024 6:49:08 GMT
Its total bullshit...I see you never answered my questions. Why am I not surprised? But then anyone who supports the SNATS have a mentality of a gnat. No, it is a credible report based upon historically accepted published data and basic academic modelling. I didn’t answer your questions because I assumed that they were rhetorical given that the answers are obvious if you actually read the links. However, the answer is yes, in as far as they impact upon GDP - just like every other single event since the end of WWII. And you clearly have not been paying attention if you think that I am a ScotNat. Did ANY labour government have to deal with a global pandemic or the wrath of the EUSSR or an illegal invasion of the Ukrain? |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on May 20, 2024 6:58:07 GMT
I think that you should actually read the links rather than demonstrate that you haven’t by asking questions that are answered in the links.
However, the answer is no, no Labour Government has had to deal with any of those things but those things are not included in the period of the study, so in terms of the results, neither has a Tory Government. (Any issues with the economy resulting from our leaving the EU are the fault of the Tories, of course, as they took us out of the EU and they “managed” the settlement, the arrangements and the relationships that ensued).
However, the period of the study does include the global crash of 2008 which a Labour Government did have to deal with, which is something that a Tory Government has never had to deal with. The report makes the point that if this was dialled out of the Labour figures - or, alternatively, if covid was added into the figures, then the results would be even more favourable in terms of Labour’s historic performance in managing the economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on May 20, 2024 7:07:11 GMT
But that research doesn't actually say that Labour are much better at running the economy. It admits that growth has been higher under the Tories but that the growth is more volatile than under Labour. So it’s up to the individual what they prioritise - total growth or stability. Here’s how the article sums it up I.e. “In short, the economy grows at a very similar pace under Labour and the Conservatives, but Labour governments seem to do better at tackling recessions and achieve a more consistent performance. And if we discount the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Labour’s (slight) superiority becomes more pronounced.” In other words therehas been statistically insignificant more growth under the Tories but considerably more economic stability under Labour. The latter is much more desirable for our well-being than the former. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 20, 2024 7:12:48 GMT
However, the period of the study does include the global crash of 2008 which a Labour Government did have to deal with, which is something that a Tory Government has never had to deal with. The report makes the point that if this was dialled out of the Labour figures - or, alternatively, if covid was added into the figures, then the results would be even more favourable in terms of Labour’s historic performance in managing the economy. So if you remove a worldwide economic crisis from the Labour figures and add one to the Tory figures, Labour do better.. ..is this supposed to be serious economic research?. One of the reasons that Tory growth figures may show more volatility is that they have had to deal with more global recessions - for example since 1970 we have seen 1974–75 [Labour], 1984–85[Tory], 1990–93 [Tory], 1996[Tory], 2008–09 [Labour], and 2018–19 [Tory]. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 20, 2024 7:17:36 GMT
But that research doesn't actually say that Labour are much better at running the economy. It admits that growth has been higher under the Tories but that the growth is more volatile than under Labour. So it’s up to the individual what they prioritise - total growth or stability. Here’s how the article sums it up I.e. “In short, the economy grows at a very similar pace under Labour and the Conservatives, but Labour governments seem to do better at tackling recessions and achieve a more consistent performance. And if we discount the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Labour’s (slight) superiority becomes more pronounced.” In other words therehas been statistically insignificant more growth under the Tories but considerably more economic stability under Labour. The latter is much more desirable for our well-being than the former.Why? - that is your opinion. A difference in growth rate of 0.06% is not a lot - but compounded over decades it adds up to a significant amount. Which is why I say that it all depends on the individual whether you prefer lower growth with more stability or higher growth with more volatility. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 20, 2024 7:42:19 GMT
However, the period of the study does include the global crash of 2008 which a Labour Government did have to deal with, which is something that a Tory Government has never had to deal with. The report makes the point that if this was dialled out of the Labour figures - or, alternatively, if covid was added into the figures, then the results would be even more favourable in terms of Labour’s historic performance in managing the economy. So if you remove a worldwide economic crisis from the Labour figures and add one to the Tory figures, Labour do better.. ..is this supposed to be serious economic research?. One of the reasons that Tory growth figures may show more volatility is that they have had to deal with more global recessions - for example since 1970 we have seen 1974–75 [Labour], 1984–85[Tory], 1990–93 [Tory], 1996[Tory], 2008–09 [Labour], and 2018–19 [Tory]. The reason they are more volatile is that the Tories exaggerate boom bust in order to milk the poor. Look at the current crises. The Tory solution is to shove up interest rates (as usual) and take money from young people with loans and give it to rich people who lend. That's the Tory way. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 20, 2024 7:53:18 GMT
So if you remove a worldwide economic crisis from the Labour figures and add one to the Tory figures, Labour do better.. ..is this supposed to be serious economic research?. One of the reasons that Tory growth figures may show more volatility is that they have had to deal with more global recessions - for example since 1970 we have seen 1974–75 [Labour], 1984–85[Tory], 1990–93 [Tory], 1996[Tory], 2008–09 [Labour], and 2018–19 [Tory]. The reason they are more volatile is that the Tories exaggerate boom bust in order to milk the poor. Look at the current crises. The Tory solution is to shove up interest rates (as usual) and take money from young people with loans and give it to rich people who lend. That's the Tory way. Best not to own anything then, that way the Westminster party have to pick over somebody else's bones. On the Brightside they are being reduced to what they are daily,grave robbers. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 20, 2024 8:04:29 GMT
So if you remove a worldwide economic crisis from the Labour figures and add one to the Tory figures, Labour do better.. ..is this supposed to be serious economic research?. One of the reasons that Tory growth figures may show more volatility is that they have had to deal with more global recessions - for example since 1970 we have seen 1974–75 [Labour], 1984–85[Tory], 1990–93 [Tory], 1996[Tory], 2008–09 [Labour], and 2018–19 [Tory]. The reason they are more volatile is that the Tories exaggerate boom bust in order to milk the poor. Look at the current crises. The Tory solution is to shove up interest rates (as usual) and take money from young people with loans and give it to rich people who lend. That's the Tory way. Monetary policy and the rise of interest rates is the remit of the Bank of England, not the government. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on May 20, 2024 8:08:32 GMT
However, the period of the study does include the global crash of 2008 which a Labour Government did have to deal with, which is something that a Tory Government has never had to deal with. The report makes the point that if this was dialled out of the Labour figures - or, alternatively, if covid was added into the figures, then the results would be even more favourable in terms of Labour’s historic performance in managing the economy. So if you remove a worldwide economic crisis from the Labour figures and add one to the Tory figures, Labour do better.. ..is this supposed to be serious economic research?. One of the reasons that Tory growth figures may show more volatility is that they have had to deal with more global recessions - for example since 1970 we have seen 1974–75 [Labour], 1984–85[Tory], 1990–93 [Tory], 1996[Tory], 2008–09 [Labour], and 2018–19 [Tory]. No, Labour do better even with the world wide crisis of 2008 included and with no corresponding worldwide crisis or crises incorporated within the Tory results. If the 2008 worldwide crisis were to be removed, thereby dialling out periods of worldwide crises, or, alternatively, if the figures were to be updated to include the more recent worldwide crises, then the figures would reflect even better upon Labour that they do in the report. At the very least, this casts serious scorn upon Jonsky’s assertion that Labour governments result in a shitshow ( a view that others on here seem to agree with) and demonstrates that economic performance under Labour is at least as good as under the Tories. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on May 20, 2024 8:40:41 GMT
Here’s how the article sums it up I.e. “In short, the economy grows at a very similar pace under Labour and the Conservatives, but Labour governments seem to do better at tackling recessions and achieve a more consistent performance. And if we discount the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Labour’s (slight) superiority becomes more pronounced.” In other words therehas been statistically insignificant more growth under the Tories but considerably more economic stability under Labour. The latter is much more desirable for our well-being than the former.Why? - that is your opinion. A difference in growth rate of 0.06% is not a lot - but compounded over decades it adds up to a significant amount. Which is why I say that it all depends on the individual whether you prefer lower growth with more stability or higher growth with more volatility. If the difference in growth was statistically significant then just maybe- but it is not so a stable economy with statistically insignificant lower growth figures is much better for the well-being of society than boom and bust with a statistically insignificant increase in growth. However, if you want to level the playing field here and make more of a like for like comparison then the links make it clear that by dialling out the 2008 global crash over which Labour had no control or by updating the figures to add in the recent global crises over which the Tories had no control, then growth figures and economic stability would both be historically better under Labour. Either way, so much for the vacuous assumptions that the Tories are better for the UK economy - which was and is my point here. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 20, 2024 10:37:58 GMT
So if you remove a worldwide economic crisis from the Labour figures and add one to the Tory figures, Labour do better.. ..is this supposed to be serious economic research?. One of the reasons that Tory growth figures may show more volatility is that they have had to deal with more global recessions - for example since 1970 we have seen 1974–75 [Labour], 1984–85[Tory], 1990–93 [Tory], 1996[Tory], 2008–09 [Labour], and 2018–19 [Tory]. No, Labour do better even with the world wide crisis of 2008 included and with no corresponding worldwide crisis or crises incorporated within the Tory results. If the 2008 worldwide crisis were to be removed, thereby dialling out periods of worldwide crises, or, alternatively, if the figures were to be updated to include the more recent worldwide crises, then the figures would reflect even better upon Labour that they do in the report. At the very least, this casts serious scorn upon Jonsky’s assertion that Labour governments result in a shitshow ( a view that others on here seem to agree with) and demonstrates that economic performance under Labour is at least as good as under the Tories. what is gained by removing financial crises that occurred under Labour but leaving in the financial crises that occurred under the Tories? Is this going to make you better informed? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 20, 2024 10:39:46 GMT
So if you remove a worldwide economic crisis from the Labour figures and add one to the Tory figures, Labour do better.. ..is this supposed to be serious economic research?. One of the reasons that Tory growth figures may show more volatility is that they have had to deal with more global recessions - for example since 1970 we have seen 1974–75 [Labour], 1984–85[Tory], 1990–93 [Tory], 1996[Tory], 2008–09 [Labour], and 2018–19 [Tory]. The reason they are more volatile is that the Tories exaggerate boom bust in order to milk the poor. Look at the current crises. The Tory solution is to shove up interest rates (as usual) and take money from young people with loans and give it to rich people who lend. That's the Tory way. arrant nonsense - inequality has fallen since the tories came to power |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 20, 2024 11:02:14 GMT
The reason they are more volatile is that the Tories exaggerate boom bust in order to milk the poor. Look at the current crises. The Tory solution is to shove up interest rates (as usual) and take money from young people with loans and give it to rich people who lend. That's the Tory way. 'The Tory way' - 'Milk the poor'! Are you serious? Currently this nasty far right Conservative government pay 22.6 million people £131 billion a year [Excluding pensions] in a plethora of out of work and other benefits. That's £11 billion a month on benefits. As for interest rates; we havent had high interest rates for 30 years. Historically 5.25% is not high. |
|
