Joey Barton

[Protheroe]

A kinder, gentler style of politics.  One for grown ups.

Anybody on here ever suggested that we represent politics. Hard to see what most people want these days - we didn't want the populist type of politician or the ones that crashed the economy with stupid giveaways, but when we get that we actually want someone with a bit more razzamatazz or someone that wants to crash the economy. 

As said above, tried to be reasonable and got slapped down, I'll live.

Our politics might improve when we actually have some grown ups in the House of Commons. 

Personally I've lost all faith that will ever happen.

We all inhabit a nation careering towards a demographic and debt crisis that no politician seems to want to talk about. There are several on here who completely ignore that reality too.

[Derek Hardballs]

A kinder, gentler style of politics.  One for grown ups.

Anybody on here ever suggested that we represent politics. Hard to see what most people want these days - we didn't want the populist type of politician or the ones that crashed the economy with stupid giveaways, but when we get that we actually want someone with a bit more razzamatazz or someone that wants to crash the economy. 

As said above, tried to be reasonable and got slapped down, I'll live.

Our politics might improve when we actually have some grown ups in the House of Commons. 

Personally I've lost all faith that will ever happen.

We all inhabit a nation careering towards a demographic and debt crisis that no politician seems to want to talk about. There are several on here who completely ignore that reality too.

There are a few on here that offer no solutions to the problems that cutting billions from public services will do to society. Victorian levels of inequality? Increased crime? The disabled and sick just living and dying miserable lives with no help but for the crumbs of charity? 

You never give an honest answer to what happens to those that need the support of public services if you cut them and what that looks like in reality for those at the sharp end of those decisions.

Paint us a picture, so to speak of a society that cuts spending to levels you deem acceptable.

[CarlosCorbewrong]

I'll offer a solution: Just default on the debt. Instead of the GFC it'll be the GFL - Great Fucking Leveller

[baggy1]

I'll offer a solution:  Just default on the debt.  Instead of the GFC it'll be the GFL - Great Fucking Leveller

This is something I've heard mentioned a few times now and even by Zack Polanski if I'm correct. Is this a serious policy that people think will work? 

The reasons why our borrowing costs have gone up so much over the last few years is two fold; our borrowing has shot up comparatively to similar economies which is seen by the lenders as a red flag (imagine after years of being sensible with borrowing you then max out your credit cards and then ask for a loan, the bank would see that as something amiss and either decline or charge you a rate that builds in the higher likelihood of you defaulting); and the actual amount has increased incurring higher interest amounts.

If we decided to default and not pay back what we have borrowed how do you think we will borrow in the future. Would a bank lend you money if you'd stopped paying the last loan?

---

A kinder, gentler style of politics.  One for grown ups.

Anybody on here ever suggested that we represent politics. Hard to see what most people want these days - we didn't want the populist type of politician or the ones that crashed the economy with stupid giveaways, but when we get that we actually want someone with a bit more razzamatazz or someone that wants to crash the economy. 

As said above, tried to be reasonable and got slapped down, I'll live.

Our politics might improve when we actually have some grown ups in the House of Commons. 

Personally I've lost all faith that will ever happen.

We all inhabit a nation careering towards a demographic and debt crisis that no politician seems to want to talk about. There are several on here who completely ignore that reality too.

There are a few on here that offer no solutions to the problems that cutting billions from public services will do to society. Victorian levels of inequality? Increased crime? The disabled and sick just living and dying miserable lives with no help but for the crumbs of charity? 

You never give an honest answer to what happens to those that need the support of public services if you cut them and what that looks like in reality for those at the sharp end of those decisions.

Paint us a picture, so to speak of a society that cuts spending to levels you deem acceptable.

There appears to be a view that the 'cuts' are to current expenditure, any 'cuts' that have been referred to are to reduce the future cost of PIP or DLA. Between 2009 and 2019 the increase in people claiming PIP or DLA went from 2.7m to 3.4m (an increase of 700k in 10 years). From that point to August 2024 the number increased to 4.7M (twice the number of extra claimants in half of the time). 

Your view that they are talking about cutting spending is very wide of the mark, they are actually trying to slow down the increase in spending. The increase is unsustainable and any trend that changes dramatically like that indicates something is going very wrong and need investigating.

[CarlosCorbewrong]

I don’t think anyone serious is actually suggesting it but the chains of debt are strangling EVERY country to the detriment of almost EVERY person. This benefits the few and HUGELY benefits the very few who really don’t need any more money.

Given the scale of debt and the rate of interest we would have been paying even if we retained AAA status instead of the broadly scored AA status, then the choice is endless austerity, growth via innovation and vision (seeing as we’re actively discouraging population growth) or default on debt, isn’t it?

And if that default was internationally coordinated…

[Derek Hardballs]

I'll offer a solution:  Just default on the debt.  Instead of the GFC it'll be the GFL - Great Fucking Leveller

This is something I've heard mentioned a few times now and even by Zack Polanski if I'm correct. Is this a serious policy that people think will work? 

The reasons why our borrowing costs have gone up so much over the last few years is two fold; our borrowing has shot up comparatively to similar economies which is seen by the lenders as a red flag (imagine after years of being sensible with borrowing you then max out your credit cards and then ask for a loan, the bank would see that as something amiss and either decline or charge you a rate that builds in the higher likelihood of you defaulting); and the actual amount has increased incurring higher interest amounts.

If we decided to default and not pay back what we have borrowed how do you think we will borrow in the future. Would a bank lend you money if you'd stopped paying the last loan?

---

A kinder, gentler style of politics.  One for grown ups.

Anybody on here ever suggested that we represent politics. Hard to see what most people want these days - we didn't want the populist type of politician or the ones that crashed the economy with stupid giveaways, but when we get that we actually want someone with a bit more razzamatazz or someone that wants to crash the economy. 

As said above, tried to be reasonable and got slapped down, I'll live.

Our politics might improve when we actually have some grown ups in the House of Commons. 

Personally I've lost all faith that will ever happen.

We all inhabit a nation careering towards a demographic and debt crisis that no politician seems to want to talk about. There are several on here who completely ignore that reality too.

There are a few on here that offer no solutions to the problems that cutting billions from public services will do to society. Victorian levels of inequality? Increased crime? The disabled and sick just living and dying miserable lives with no help but for the crumbs of charity? 

You never give an honest answer to what happens to those that need the support of public services if you cut them and what that looks like in reality for those at the sharp end of those decisions.

Paint us a picture, so to speak of a society that cuts spending to levels you deem acceptable.

There appears to be a view that the 'cuts' are to current expenditure, any 'cuts' that have been referred to are to reduce the future cost of PIP or DLA. Between 2009 and 2019 the increase in people claiming PIP or DLA went from 2.7m to 3.4m (an increase of 700k in 10 years). From that point to August 2024 the number increased to 4.7M (twice the number of extra claimants in half of the time). 

Your view that they are talking about cutting spending is very wide of the mark, they are actually trying to slow down the increase in spending. The increase is unsustainable and any trend that changes dramatically like that indicates something is going very wrong and need investigating.

My point wasn’t aimed at Labour, it was more to those like Proth who want to slash public spending by billions and asking how he would address societal problems that would create and what that would look like for those at the sharp end of those decisions. How much will it cost a country when the state ‘just put the bins’. What levels of deprivation, inequality and lawlessness is he and those that agree with him prepared to tolerate?

[baggy1]

I don’t think anyone serious is actually suggesting it but the chains of debt are strangling EVERY country to the detriment of almost EVERY person. This benefits the few and HUGELY benefits the very few who really don’t need any more money.

Given the scale of debt and the rate of interest we would have been paying even if we retained AAA status instead of the broadly scored AA status, then the choice is endless austerity, growth via innovation and vision (seeing as we’re actively discouraging population growth) or default on debt, isn’t it?

And if that default was internationally coordinated…

I did see a clip where Polanski is actually suggesting that, however I don't trust clips that may be taken out of context so I'll see if there is any truth in that. However it's pie in the sky that we would get an internationally co-ordinated debt default. And when you talk about the scale of debt that we have the rating is very important, especially when you get to our position of 10% of our spend is repaying debt then the rating can make a massive difference.

---

I'll offer a solution:  Just default on the debt.  Instead of the GFC it'll be the GFL - Great Fucking Leveller

This is something I've heard mentioned a few times now and even by Zack Polanski if I'm correct. Is this a serious policy that people think will work? 

The reasons why our borrowing costs have gone up so much over the last few years is two fold; our borrowing has shot up comparatively to similar economies which is seen by the lenders as a red flag (imagine after years of being sensible with borrowing you then max out your credit cards and then ask for a loan, the bank would see that as something amiss and either decline or charge you a rate that builds in the higher likelihood of you defaulting); and the actual amount has increased incurring higher interest amounts.

If we decided to default and not pay back what we have borrowed how do you think we will borrow in the future. Would a bank lend you money if you'd stopped paying the last loan?

---

Anybody on here ever suggested that we represent politics. Hard to see what most people want these days - we didn't want the populist type of politician or the ones that crashed the economy with stupid giveaways, but when we get that we actually want someone with a bit more razzamatazz or someone that wants to crash the economy. 

As said above, tried to be reasonable and got slapped down, I'll live.

Our politics might improve when we actually have some grown ups in the House of Commons. 

Personally I've lost all faith that will ever happen.

We all inhabit a nation careering towards a demographic and debt crisis that no politician seems to want to talk about. There are several on here who completely ignore that reality too.

There are a few on here that offer no solutions to the problems that cutting billions from public services will do to society. Victorian levels of inequality? Increased crime? The disabled and sick just living and dying miserable lives with no help but for the crumbs of charity? 

You never give an honest answer to what happens to those that need the support of public services if you cut them and what that looks like in reality for those at the sharp end of those decisions.

Paint us a picture, so to speak of a society that cuts spending to levels you deem acceptable.

There appears to be a view that the 'cuts' are to current expenditure, any 'cuts' that have been referred to are to reduce the future cost of PIP or DLA. Between 2009 and 2019 the increase in people claiming PIP or DLA went from 2.7m to 3.4m (an increase of 700k in 10 years). From that point to August 2024 the number increased to 4.7M (twice the number of extra claimants in half of the time). 

Your view that they are talking about cutting spending is very wide of the mark, they are actually trying to slow down the increase in spending. The increase is unsustainable and any trend that changes dramatically like that indicates something is going very wrong and need investigating.

My point wasn’t aimed at Labour, it was more to those like Proth who want to slash public spending by billions and asking how he would address societal problems that would create and what that would look like for those at the sharp end of those decisions. How much will it cost a country when the state ‘just put the bins’. What levels of deprivation, inequality and lawlessness is he and those that agree with him prepared to tolerate?

The austerity costs of 2010 onwards are being paid for now in spades so I agree with the point, but we are now boxed in to a point where we can't spend in the way that is needed. There does need to be a hand-in-hand approach with business to create more opportunities which I believe is the angle Proth comes from. The policies around taxation of business are strangling a fair amount of progress especially in the 'introduction to work' sectors of retail and hospitality and need to be addressed.

Labour are making small adjustments to address the problems, lifting the 2-child cap and minimum wage along with extra funding for apprenticeships, however without the partnership of business they will always struggle.

[CarlosCorbewrong]

People said it was pie in the sky to get £30bn of African debt wiped out but Saint Gordon managed it.

Everything is possible with vision and will.

[Protheroe]

My point wasn’t aimed at Labour, it was more to those like Proth who want to slash public spending by billions and asking how he would address societal problems that would create and what that would look like for those at the sharp end of those decisions. How much will it cost a country when the state ‘just put the bins’. What levels of deprivation, inequality and lawlessness is he and those that agree with him prepared to tolerate?

If you will admit what everyone else on this board knows - that the current trajectory of the State will be entirely unsustainable within my lifetime, then I will happily tell you - again - what I'd do about it.