Theresa May

SWP's back said:
Whilst the deficit the Tories inherited has been hugely reduced. Until it’s a surplus then it obviously increases. You know that right?

If the Tories has cut spending to ensure such a surplus then you, len and fumble would have gone mental.
Click to expand...

Eh. Wouldn't it decrease on the way to being a surplus. Makes no sense that it would increase first
 
Fame Monster said:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...g-plans-show-how-british-politics-moving-left

Decent article on Theresa May. That's without mentioning her latest announcement on scrapping limits on local authorities to borrow in order to finance new housing developments. Hated by both the right and left, I'd say she's doing a better job than many before her.

The coverage of her speech yesterday just reinforces how vacuous and superficial the media and society (in general) have become when people care more about the way she looks, sounds and moves than anything to do with law, policy or even just policy announcements. I honestly think we're one generation away until the winner of Love Island is sending people to death camps with a 200 seat majority.
Click to expand...

The country is in one of it's biggest crisis periods of recent history.
Record numbers in food poverty.
Wges stagnating.
Biggest increase of people being trapped by debt with no solution.
NHS fucked.
Rail and transport infrastructure fucked and expensive.
Foriegn relations bar pandering to a sex pest loon are in tatters.
Homelessness at the highest for decades.


And she thinks prancing onto the stage to get a few laughs from members and upstage that other useless lump johnson is Prime Minister standard?
Think the press and general public had the right to ridicule her this time.

Also bar the house spending cap, the rest of the speach was just rewording present false promises and meaningless.
 
People are conflating debt and deficit.

As deficits go down, they still increase debt, until they become surplus, at which time they start to reduce debt.

Debt $100...Deficit $10
Debt $110...Deficit $8
Debt $118...Surplus $4
Debt $114...Surplus $8
Debt $106...Surplus $10
Debt $96.....

Two years of smaller deficits still increased debt, but then three yrs of increasing surplus eventually lowered debt.

Annual versus cumulative.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
People are conflating debt and deficit.

As deficits go down, they still increase debt, until they become surplus, at which time they start to reduce debt.

Debt $100...Deficit $10
Debt $110...Deficit $8
Debt $118...Surplus $4
Debt $114...Surplus $8
Debt $106...Surplus $10
Debt $96.....

Two years of smaller deficits still increased debt, but then three yrs of increasing surplus eventually lowered debt.

Annual versus cumulative.
Click to expand...
True.
And the longer you take to reduce the deficit the larger the national debt becomes. So if you promise to do it in five but it takes ten then you have a problem.
Also if you reduce the deficit by focussing your cuts on one particular section of society ( the less well off,disabled etc) whilst at the same time reducing taxes on business then you create problems in society.
So it's not quite as simple as your mathematical model.
 
journolud said:
Eh. Wouldn't it decrease on the way to being a surplus. Makes no sense that it would increase first
Click to expand...
What?

No.

Debt will ALWAYS increase whilst the country is in deficit. The rate of increase has reduced though.

Trust me, I have some experience dealing with figures.

You take over a company with debts of £100m and an annual loss of £10m per year.
You reduce the losses by 50% in your first year to £5m per year however your debt has risen to £105m,
In the second year you reduce the losses again by 50% to £2.5m per year but again your debt has increased to £107.5m.

Until you start making a profit (i.e. surplus in a national sense) then your debt will keep increasing.

The UK deficit is now 1.8% of UK GDP and is now the lowest it has been since 2002 (as a percentage of GDP). It has reduced hugely from 2010 when the Tories took over and it was 9.9% of GDP.
 
journolud said:
Eh. Wouldn't it decrease on the way to being a surplus. Makes no sense that it would increase first
Click to expand...

Youre driving a car that is going 100mph.

You brake.

During your stopping distance, you are still moving forward bit at a lesser speed than you were previously.

Only when you have stopped and have stopped moving forward can you then put it on reverse.
 
urban genie said:
The country is in one of it's biggest crisis periods of recent history.
Record numbers in food poverty.
Wges stagnating.
Biggest increase of people being trapped by debt with no solution.
NHS fucked.
Rail and transport infrastructure fucked and expensive.
Foriegn relations bar pandering to a sex pest loon are in tatters.
Homelessness at the highest for decades.


And she thinks prancing onto the stage to get a few laughs from members and upstage that other useless lump johnson is Prime Minister standard?
Think the press and general public had the right to ridicule her this time.

Also bar the house spending cap, the rest of the speach was just rewording present false promises and meaningless.
Click to expand...

You're right: the country is fucked and that's partly down to decades upon decades of woeful mismanagement. So when the country's only serious political party at this point in time promises a series of progressive policies on housing that stems the tide on 40 years of nastiness, you'd think it might feature more prominently than all this barely relevant nonsense about how authoritative she looks or whether her dancing was 'prime-ministerial'.
 
journolud said:
Eh. Wouldn't it decrease on the way to being a surplus. Makes no sense that it would increase first
Click to expand...
I see you last logged in two hours ago but didn’t take the time to thank any of the three people that took the time out of their busy lives to explain maths a 10 year old would be expected to know.

It’s fine. I now know you’re not worth replying to in future (other than to mock).
 
CityStu said:
No, it would increase at a decreasing rate. When you brake in a car, you still keep moving forwards for a bit.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that brief explanation


Damocles said:
Youre driving a car that is going 100mph.

You brake.

During your stopping distance, you are still moving forward bit at a lesser speed than you were previously.

Only when you have stopped and have stopped moving forward can you then put it on reverse.
Click to expand...

THank you for that slightgly more detailed explanation of something that a 10 year old would know

ChicagoBlue said:
People are conflating debt and deficit.

As deficits go down, they still increase debt, until they become surplus, at which time they start to reduce debt.

Debt $100...Deficit $10
Debt $110...Deficit $8
Debt $118...Surplus $4
Debt $114...Surplus $8
Debt $106...Surplus $10
Debt $96.....

Two years of smaller deficits still increased debt, but then three yrs of increasing surplus eventually lowered debt.

Annual versus cumulative.
Click to expand...

ah yes that is the elemntary mistake i was making.
 
journolud said:
Logged in briefly on my phone during a quick break at work, funnilly enough I have a busy life too. Planned to acknowledge the responses once I got back on for a longer spell this evening on my laptop. But you can fuck off now @SWP's back
Click to expand...
Oh I’ve already fucked you right off and the best part is that there are 12 years olds on here confused as to why you didn’t understand this already.
 
journolud said:
Really
Click to expand...
Yeah, it wasn’t exactly tricky.

I always find it strange when someone with obviously limited nous questions someone who obviously does know what they’re talking about on such things.

Remember your first post on the subject:

“Eh. Wouldn't it decrease on the way to being a surplus. Makes no sense that it would increase first”

Did it really make “no sense”?
 
SWP's back said:
Yeah, it wasn’t exactly tricky.

I always find it strange when someone with obviously limited nous questions someone who obviously does know what they’re talking about on such things.

Remember your first post on the subject:

“Eh. Wouldn't it decrease on the way to being a surplus. Makes no sense that it would increase first”

Did it really make “no sense”?
Click to expand...
SWP's back said:
Yeah, it wasn’t exactly tricky.

I always find it strange when someone with obviously limited nous questions someone who obviously does know what they’re talking about on such things.
Click to expand...

At the time it didn't no but if you read that as someone with limited nous questioning you're greater knwoeldge and authroity on the subject then you're reading a tad too much into it. It was obviously, to anyone with a bit of nous, a request for information/ explanation

Incidentally do your insults of me trangress any of the forum rules. Should I ask a mod?
 
journolud said:
At the time it didn't no but if you read that as someone with limited nous questioning you're greater knwoeldge and authroity on the subject then you're reading a tad too much into it. It was obviously, to anyone with a bit of nous, a request for information/ explanation

Incidentally do your insults of me trangress any of the forum rules. Should I ask a mod?
Click to expand...
*towards

Feel free. I’ll be waiting here on the edge of my seat for the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top