# Most young people favour massive spending cuts



## ExtraRefined (Jul 13, 2011)

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/t...xes-lower-taxes-the-british-people-agree.html



> Asked more generally on public spending 55% (of those who expressed an opinion) believe government spending should be 35% of national income or lower. Significantly, the youngest were the most radical with 67% of those under 25 and 69% of those between 25 and 34 supporting government spending being reduced to 35% of national income or lower.



Being in favour of a massive state apparatus consuming half of the UK's wealth is overwhelmingly the view of the midddle aged and elderly. They got to go uni for free, didn't pay enough tax, and now expect the young to pay for unlimited health and social care forever. Oddly enough the young aren't very keen on this approach.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 13, 2011)

The young are idiots. 

Selfish ones at that.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 13, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/t...xes-lower-taxes-the-british-people-agree.html
> 
> 
> 
> Being in favour of a massive state apparatus consuming half of the UK's wealth is overwhelmingly the view of the midddle aged and elderly. *They got to go uni for free*, didn't pay enough tax, and now expect the young to pay for unlimited health and social care forever. Oddly enough the young aren't very keen on this approach.



Yeah, cos the overwhelming majority of those 40 and over went to University?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 13, 2011)

How many were asked?
How were they engaged in this poll?
Where are they from? etc...


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

Right, so you post a link from.....a Conservative blog, which is by no means pushing a certain agenda, from the Institute of Economic Affairs, who mainline Hayek and Friedman day in day out?

Good grief, that's like posting a survey from the Swappies about which member of the Central Committee should choose our Government.

A plate of massive fail to go, please.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 13, 2011)

there's absolute no details on what the polling actually asked people.


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 13, 2011)

Sounds like a pile of bollocks survey to me. Government spending should be less than 35% of national income eh? What's the significance of this arbitrary figure? I want to see the questions.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 13, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> http://conservativehome.blogs.com


 
Lol it's not exactly going to say "nationalise everything" is it.


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 13, 2011)

I reckon that something like 0% of the population have ever thought about the percentage of national income that spending should make up.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jul 13, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> The young are idiots.
> 
> Selfish ones at that.



 Yeah. All that X-factor shit.....


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 13, 2011)

sure I could go and do a poll asking people if they think we should cut the NHS, schools, firefighters, the police etc by 33% each. Reckon young people would be pretty opposed to that.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jul 13, 2011)

FreddyB said:


> I reckon that something like 0% of the population have ever thought about the percentage of national income that spending should make up.



Indeed.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 13, 2011)

What percentage (to the nearest 3 decimal points) do you think it should make then freddy? eh??


----------



## roctrevezel (Jul 13, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> Being in favour of a massive state apparatus consuming half of the UK's wealth is overwhelmingly the view of the midddle aged and elderly. They got to go uni for free, didn't pay enough tax, and now expect the young to pay for unlimited health and social care forever. Oddly enough the young aren't very keen on this approach.


 
VERY few people went to Uni in the past, I can't think of one of my peer group or family from my youth who did. The problem is far too many now old or approaching retirement people believed the lie that their National Insurance would pay for a decent pension. I was one who did not, and paid into a private pension scheme from the age of 21.


----------



## Callie (Jul 13, 2011)

Young people: don't even know theyre born.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 13, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> said some shit



ɯsılɐʇıdɐɔ ʞɔnɟ


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> What percentage (to the nearest 3 decimal points) do you think it should make then freddy? eh??


 
I reckon probably 500 people have ever thought about it making it about 0.0008%


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 13, 2011)

Callie said:


> Young people: don't even know theyre born.


 
I dunno myself, I saw some in November smashing up Tory HQ. They looked like a decent lot who knew what they were about


----------



## marty21 (Jul 13, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/t...xes-lower-taxes-the-british-people-agree.html
> 
> 
> 
> Being in favour of a massive state apparatus consuming half of the UK's wealth is overwhelmingly the view of the midddle aged and elderly. They got to go uni for free, didn't pay enough tax, and now expect the young to pay for unlimited health and social care forever. Oddly enough the young aren't very keen on this approach.


 
massive LOL - a tory blog told you this...


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 13, 2011)

Made up poll that conveniently matches the political agenda of the poll commissioners.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jul 13, 2011)

imposs1904 said:


> Yeah, cos the overwhelming majority of those 40 and over went to University?



When I went (late 70s) we were always told it was 3% of the population. So hardly a "massive state apparatus".


----------



## marty21 (Jul 13, 2011)

isvicthere? said:


> When I went (late 70s) we were always told it was 3% of the population. So hardly a "massive state apparatus".


 
mid 80s when I went, I think it was up to 10% by then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/t...xes-lower-taxes-the-british-people-agree.html
> 
> 
> 
> Being in favour of a massive state apparatus consuming half of the UK's wealth is overwhelmingly the view of the midddle aged and elderly. They got to go uni for free, didn't pay enough tax, and now expect the young to pay for unlimited health and social care forever. Oddly enough the young aren't very keen on this approach.


 
If the IEA's report is so credible, why, on their own site, do they not have a link to the data that ComRes polled? It's all very well trotting out percentages, but unless the sample size, the questions asked and the demographic data on the people polled is given, those percentages are meaningless. If the poll size was 1,000, for example, it would be far too small to draw serious conclusions from. If the poll was mostly taken in Tory shire wards the conclusions would be biased, etc etc.

Here's some advice: Don't crow until you've read and digested the actual IEA report, not the puff the think-tank's "communications director" puts out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

imposs1904 said:


> Yeah, cos the overwhelming majority of those 40 and over went to University?


 
Less than 20% of us who left school in the '70s went to university *or* college. The IEA (as usual) are spinning their report to support Conservative policy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

isvicthere? said:


> When I went (late 70s) we were always told it was 3% of the population. So hardly a "massive state apparatus".


 
A lot more people did post O/A level vocational stuff at college, though, which got lumped in with the higher ed figures ,although with the decimation of manufacturing and industry, a lot of that went down the crapper.

E2A: I can remember when further ed colleges were like weeds, they were everywhere. Compare that to now, where further ed has been residualised to a limited number of subjects, plus giving an alternative educational route for people who've failed in the secondary school system.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 13, 2011)

Shall we make a better questionnaire? 

1. Would you like to pay an average of 7,500 GBP on healthcare each year like Americans do?


----------



## ExtraRefined (Jul 13, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Here's some advice: Don't crow until you've read and digested the actual IEA report, not the puff the think-tank's "communications director" puts out.



Pfft I don't have the attention span to read 282 bloody pages grandad.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 13, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> Pfft I don't have the attention span to read 282 bloody pages grandad.



You probably don't have the £12.50 they're skanking people for, either, for this load of old shite.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Jul 13, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> You probably don't have the £12.50 they're skanking people for, either, for this load of old shite.


 
My eyesight's still good enough to read the "download full publication free" bit thankfully.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 13, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> My eyesight's still good enough to read the "download full publication free" bit thankfully.



Should be good enough to read the report and get back to us, then.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 13, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> a massive state apparatus consuming half of the UK's wealth


 
If you think the role of the state in the economy is simply that of a consumer then you are pig-ignorant as well as a massive twat. Please apply brain before posting.


----------



## Riklet (Jul 13, 2011)

I just asked 5 fictional young people and they all hate government spending cuts and think they will fuck multiple generations.  My data's about as legit as the IEA's at the moment...

Try again, ExtraCunt!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

This is like getting News International to both commision and run a survey on press regulation, innit?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2011)

little_legs said:


> ɯsılɐʇıdɐɔ ʞɔnɟ


 
ah! an aussie posts!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> My eyesight's still good enough to read the "download full publication free" bit thankfully.


 
yeh? how's your brain?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 13, 2011)

I have asked ConHome to provide me with answers to the questions VP posed - demographic, what was asked, sample size. I expect I'll get no reply.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> Pfft I don't have the attention span to read 282 bloody pages grandad.


 
Which is why all you'll ever be is a third-rate cheerleader for processes you don't understand.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 13, 2011)

that's no good if you say that we should all believe views based in a document you've not even read yourself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I have asked ConHome to provide me with answers to the questions VP posed - demographic, what was asked, sample size. I expect I'll get no reply.


 
why don't you email ruth porter, whose contact details can be found here: http://www.iea.org.uk/biographies/ruth-porter-communications-director


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> that's no good if you say that we should all believe views based in a document you've not even read yourself.


 
But you don't need to read (only communists do that) - you need to Believe!

Do you believe, frogwoman?  Can you feel the spirit of Friedman?  Are you ready to testify, sister?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> But you don't need to read (only communists do that) - you need to Believe!
> 
> Do you believe, frogwoman?  Can you feel the spirit of Friedman?  Are you ready to testify, sister?


i'd fucking testify if friedman tried to get me to feel his 'spirit'.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 13, 2011)

oh god, it's like a cross between "the secret" and neo liberal ayn rand shite. 

i don't want to know their secret


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2011)

this is real met a black man stuff


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> oh god, it's like a cross between "the secret" and neo liberal ayn rand shite.
> 
> i don't want to know their secret


 
you'll find out anyway


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd fucking testify if friedman tried to get me to feel his 'spirit'.


 
+1/Like/ etc


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 13, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you'll find out anyway


 
ok i give up, but imnot letting the spirt of freedman enter me


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> this is real met a black man stuff



I heard Disco Dave once met a bl.......oh.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> ok i give up, but imnot letting the spirt of freedman enter me


 
How about the spirit of George Clinton, then?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 13, 2011)

ExtraRefined, it's all very well to dismiss VP's advice but he is right and especially on one thing -- polls like this are ALL about exactly how the poll questions were worded, the sample sizes, etc. Looks to me that like you're falling for a massively pro-freemarket site's spin on the matter. Unsurprisingly!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 13, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> sure I could go and do a poll asking people if they think we should cut the NHS, schools, firefighters, the police etc by 33% each. Reckon young people would be pretty opposed to that.



This, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

At the back of the report, under "other IEA publications, there's "Ludwig von Mises - A Primer".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> oh god, it's like a cross between "the secret" and neo liberal ayn rand shite.
> 
> i don't want to know their secret


 
I've read the executive summary of the report, and I've so far speed-read the first 3 chapters of the report proper. It's a horrible mish-mash of Thatcherism and the flatus of neo-liberal economists. There's a presumption of market superiority, and equally a presumption of the inferiority (a few core "public goods" excepted) of public sector provision.

I wouldn't wipe my arse with this, and that was *before* I discovered that they'd let an old charlatan wanker like Patrick Minford lose on it!


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 13, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've read the executive summary of the report, and I've so far speed-read the first 3 chapters of the report proper. It's a horrible mish-mash of Thatcherism and the flatus of neo-liberal economists. There's a presumption of market superiority, and equally a presumption of the inferiority (a few core "public goods" excepted) of public sector provision.
> 
> I wouldn't wipe my arse with this, and that was *before* I discovered that they'd let an old charlatan wanker like Patrick Minford lose on it!



So there's no explanation of the poll?



Pickman's model said:


> why don't you email ruth porter, whose contact details can be found here: http://www.iea.org.uk/biographies/ruth-porter-communications-director



Yeah, will do tomorrow. Thanks for the link.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 13, 2011)

come on people, a wee bit of basic research skills would have revealed all the polls details on the Com Res site.

poll broken down demographically
poll broken down by party  

a few points from that poll...

31% significantly underestimate the proportion of current government spending to GDP, so it'd be fair to say that they don't actually realise the size of the cuts they'd be talking about to get spending down to the levels the IEA proposes.

The question about the IEA proposals is framed in such a way as to highlight their contention that this would lead to an average reduction in taxes of £7500 per household. This is a highly dubious claim on a number of levels, firstly it doesn't say if this is mean median or mode average, which makes a big difference to what the figure would be, and I'd expect the figure for the majority of households would be far lower than this even if that figure were correct, secondly it assumes that the IEA policy wouldn't cause the economy to crash drastically, and thirdly it makes no mention of the fact that many of these cuts in government spending would seriously hit the pockets of the less well off in the country in the form of loss of tax credits, loss of benefits, loss of pensions, the need to pay for private health insurance etc etc etc.

so yes, as expected it's a badly biased poll designed specifically to produce results that are favourable to the IEA's position.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 14, 2011)

So in summary we're saying that ExtraRefined is a credulous cunt then?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 14, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> So in summary we're saying that ExtraRefined is a credulous cunt then?


I think there's a wider point to be made here, but the evidence also supports that statement.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

Thread is mistitled. Should read _"Immature people with no idea about how the world works yet are more likely to be convinced by laughably crude Tory propaganda messages."_

HTH


----------



## ExtraRefined (Jul 14, 2011)

Thanks for finding the data.



free spirit said:


> 31% significantly underestimate the proportion of current government spending to GDP, so it'd be fair to say that they don't actually realise the size of the cuts they'd be talking about to get spending down to the levels the IEA proposes.



But 53% significantly overestimate the level of public spending, so in fact want to cut by an even larger proportion.



free spirit said:


> The question about the IEA proposals is framed in such a way as to highlight their contention that this would lead to an average reduction in taxes of £7500 per household.



Question 4 is indeed somewhat loaded. But even question 3 "By the time of the next election the current Government's plan is to spend around 40% of the UK's national income each year. What proportion of the nation's income do you think the government should be aiming to spend?" results in almost half of respondents saying 35% or less, and only 14% saying 45% or more.

I think the main reason this poll is so interesting is that it shows what people in the real world, outside of the urban 75 echo chamber actually think. The reality is that thinking the current 52% level of government spending is reasonable or insuffufficent, is the view of a extremist minority. Far from being progressive, this tiny group is in fact in favour of high spending for selfish reasons, as reflected by the fact most of them are older and / or working in the public sector.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

Did the questionnaire list what we get for the money though? I mean, we could 'save' a fortune by abolishing the NHS, but we'd all be forking out three times as much for healthcare, so you'd have to be delusional to agree that it was a good idea. It's cheaper for government to buy stuff and cheaper for them to borrow, so it's really very stupid not to purchase as much as possible collectively. Really seriously stupidly idiotic.

IIRC 70% of us are better off after tax and benefits than we were before tax and benefits. Which benefits do 70% of the population want to lose? And why would the other 30% want to lose them too, when it would cost them more to replace them for themselves anyway?


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 14, 2011)

Personally I take a top-down view. 
What %age of GDP should a government be allowed to spend?
There's no right or wrong answer, it's a personal political/philosophic call.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Personally I take a top-down view.
> What %age of GDP should a government be allowed to spend?
> There's no right or wrong answer, it's a personal political/philosophic call.


 
It depends what you get back for it, doesn't it? Taxes in the US are no lower than in Sweden, but Swedish taxpayers get a hell of a lot more for their money. It's a ridiculous question to ask without any context.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

free spirit said:


> come on people, a wee bit of basic research skills would have revealed all the polls details on the Com Res site.
> 
> poll broken down demographically
> poll broken down by party
> ...


 
So, a sample of a whole 2050 people across the entirety of mainland Britain.

Why do I get the feeling that the poll size is just about optimum for ComRes to have derived the answers their clients at the IEA would have preferred from those questions?

Personally, and maybe I'm just old-fashioned, I'd prefer to see a *serious* attempt at producing qualitative data if you're pushing a paper like "Sharper Axes", rather than supporting it with something little better than a loaded _vox pop_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> TI think the main reason this poll is so interesting is that it shows what people in the real world, outside of the urban 75 echo chamber actually think.



Except that it doesn't, it merely reflects the views of 2050 randomly-selected people. Now, although "conventional wisdom" has it that such polling is representative, we all know that polling, unless the sample is large and the questions flexible enough to take into account local variation, polls are no better than a snapshot of attitude. To paint a sample that small as "representative" of views held by the mass of the population (which is what the "communications director" of the IEA tries to do) is misleading at best. 



> The reality is that thinking the current 52% level of government spending is reasonable or insuffufficent, is the view of a extremist minority. Far from being progressive, this tiny group is in fact in favour of high spending for selfish reasons, as reflected by the fact most of them are older and / or working in the public sector.


 
Interesting that when it's something you oppose, the people you oppose a re "selfish", and yet if you were in favour, the worst you'd describe such behaviour would be "instrumental".


----------



## Random (Jul 14, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> Asked more generally on public spending 55% (*of those who expressed an opinion*) believe government spending should be 35% of national income or lower. Significantly, the youngest were the most radical with 67% of those under 25 and 69% of those between 25 and 34 supporting government spending being reduced to 35% of national income or lower.



Doesn't this mean that you're discounting everyone who said "don't know"? Which means it's only 55% of 85% or something.


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 14, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> Far from being progressive, this tiny group is in fact in favour of high spending for selfish reasons, as reflected by the fact most of them are older and / or working in the public sector.



Actually, ER , as an "older " who worked for 30 + years in the public sector, I find your allegations of selfishness deeply insulting.

I did NOT go to Uni "for fee", my parents & grandparents paid taxes to enable me to do so & to set up the Welfare State. I want the same for my (possible future) grandkids and even yours,and am quite happy to help subsidise them.  So don't you DARE attribute your own base motives to others.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

Exactly ...


----------



## 8115 (Jul 14, 2011)

Leading questions are leading shocker.

To be honest, this angle, older people had everything, free university, good pensions, housing boom is actually one that does resonate with a lot of young people and I think the right have realised that.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 14, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> Pfft I don't have the attention span to read 282 bloody pages grandad.


yes, but you've actually barely read any of it, just cherry-picked the bits to suit your doofus 'argument', and which you are now asking others to take seriously.
Surely even you can see the glaring logical fallacy in that?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 14, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> I think the main reason this poll is so interesting is that it shows what people in the real world, outside of the urban 75 echo chamber actually think. The reality is that thinking the current 52% level of government spending is reasonable or insuffufficent, is the view of a extremist minority. Far from being progressive, this tiny group is in fact in favour of high spending for selfish reasons, as reflected by the fact most of them are older and / or working in the public sector.


It doesn't show anything of the sort that you're suggesting! All it show is that you can get a poll to prove anything, provided you spin the questions in a certain way, and ask people who fit the right geodemographic profile.
As indeed VP has already demonstrated admirably.


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 14, 2011)

8115 said:


> Leading questions are leading shocker.
> 
> To be honest, this angle, older people had everything, free university, good pensions, housing boom is actually one that does resonate with a lot of young people and I think the right have realised that.



I'm not convinced that many young folks DO think that----- perhaps we should do a rigorous study (unlike the crappy one presented here) ?


----------



## 8115 (Jul 14, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> I'm not convinced that many young folks DO think that----- perhaps we should do a rigorous study (unlike the crappy one presented here) ?


 
I'll do it!  I love Survey Monkey 

I'd absolutely love to see their questions.


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 14, 2011)

8115 said:


> I'll do it!  I love Survey Monkey
> 
> I'd absolutely love to see their questions.




Yay !!!! Get to it !  (I'm too old & selfish obv).


----------



## 8115 (Jul 14, 2011)

I'll do it later.  I might take ages.  Might post it up here if it's any good.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 14, 2011)

"Age difference in attitudes to spending on the welfare state".  Or some shit like that.


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 14, 2011)

8115 said:


> I'll do it later.  I might take ages.  Might post it up here if it's any good.



Good.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

8115 said:


> Leading questions are leading shocker.
> 
> To be honest, this angle, older people had everything, free university, good pensions, housing boom is actually one that does resonate with a lot of young people and I think the right have realised that.


 
some think like that, yeah. not everyone though


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

8115 said:


> Leading questions are leading shocker.
> 
> To be honest, this angle, older people had everything, free university, good pensions, housing boom is actually one that does resonate with a lot of young people and I think the right have realised that.


 
What the right haven't realised is that although it *might* work for a couple of years to blame the issue on "new" Labour, the root of the problems will always lie with Thatcher and Thatcherism.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 14, 2011)

Seems that this might be more of a flag-waving exercise to see who bites.


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 14, 2011)

Quartz said:


> Seems that this might be more of a flag-waving exercise to see who bites.



I KNOW I oughtn't to bite really  ------- just not letting him get away with it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/t...xes-lower-taxes-the-british-people-agree.html
> 
> 
> 
> Being in favour of a massive state apparatus consuming half of the UK's wealth is overwhelmingly the view of the midddle aged and elderly. They got to go uni for free, didn't pay enough tax, and now expect the young to pay for unlimited health and social care forever. Oddly enough the young aren't very keen on this approach.



You think the people in the 60-90s didn't pay enough tax? How much more should they have paid?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 14, 2011)

Given that er works in financial services, it is shocking how little he understands about economics.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> What the right haven't realised is that although it *might* work for a couple of years to blame the issue on "new" Labour, the root of the problems will always lie with Thatcher and Thatcherism.


 
I would've thought it rather stupid of the ruling class to continuously point out how much better off the previous generation was.


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 14, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> I would've thought it rather stupid of the ruling class to continuously point out how much better off the previous generation was.



No , not really ---- it helps create a "Blame Culture" & thus make it OK to target the "Baby Boomers".


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/t...xes-lower-taxes-the-british-people-agree.html
> 
> 
> 
> Being in favour of a massive state apparatus consuming half of the UK's wealth is overwhelmingly the view of the midddle aged and elderly. They got to go uni for free, didn't pay enough tax, and now expect the young to pay for unlimited health and social care forever. Oddly enough the young aren't very keen on this approach.


 
*Middle aged child calls for masive tax rises.*


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You think the people in the 60-90s didn't pay enough tax? How much more should they have paid?


To pay for all that luxury? Loads more, obv.

Cheapskates paying those low, low rates of tax uinder Thatcher until mean old Brown got his filthy hands on the Treasury.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Given that er works in financial services, it is shocking how little he understands about economics.


 
Doesn't shock me. I've never met such a consistently economically ignorant bunch of folks.

Just like I'm never shocked by how economically-ignorant holders of bachelor's degrees in economics are.


----------



## Rimbaud (Jul 15, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/t...xes-lower-taxes-the-british-people-agree.html
> 
> 
> 
> Being in favour of a massive state apparatus consuming half of the UK's wealth is overwhelmingly the view of the midddle aged and elderly. They got to go uni for free, didn't pay enough tax, and now expect the young to pay for unlimited health and social care forever. Oddly enough the young aren't very keen on this approach.


 
How old are you? How many young people have you talked to recently?

I'm 23 and I have not once heard a single one of my peers, including those who support the Tories and the spending cuts, express the sentiment that the middle aged had it better and now selfishly want us to pay for them - I mean, it's not like many of us have managed to get enough of a foothold on a stable career to give much thought towards where our taxes are going blah blah blah. If there is any resentment towards the older generations having it better than us it stems from being irritated that we won't be able to enjoy the social democratic benefits and employment opportunities that they enjoyed. That is to say, if there is any sense at all that we're having to pay for previous generations then the way that we're feeling the burden is in the welfare state being dismantled, so that hardly translates into a reason to support spending cuts. And nobody is stupid enough to rage against having to pay for the elderly, we all know we're going to be old one day ourselves. What I do hear 20 somethings of all political persuasians complain about, however, is how hard it is to find a stable job and become properly independant. If we're struggling to acheive financial independance then we're hardly in a position to complain about subsidising the elderly, if so many of us are still dependant on either our parents or on the state or on both to some degree. 

I also find it very unlikely that the young support the spending cuts more than the old. It is self evident that young people are the demographic least likely to vote Conservative, and the notion that 67% of people my age support the government's austerity programme jars so wildly against day to day experience that I can't see how any sensible person could draw the conclusions you've drawn. If the poll was conducted in an honest way the question would have been "Do you support the government's spending cuts?" As another poster already said, very few people have any clue about what a reasonable percentage of national income should go towards government spending, least of all the young who have had less life experience and have grown up in an ideological climate which treats all government expenditure as waste.

The argument you're posing is a pathetic attempt by the right wing middle aged to guilt trip the left wing middle aged, and the voice of the young is in actual fact nowhere to be seen in this nonsensical attempt at creating a propaganda meme. Try harder.


----------



## Rimbaud (Jul 15, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> I'm not convinced that many young folks DO think that----- perhaps we should do a rigorous study (unlike the crappy one presented here) ?


 
Some young folks might think that, but it tends to be the most ardently anti-Tory young folks who think like that. How on earth it translates into support for spending cuts, rather than opposition, I have no fucking clue.

E2A - Man, I wrote a rebuttal of the OP before writing this but it seems to have disappeared... 

Edited again - I rewrote my post and tried to post it again, but it says it needs to be checked by a mod, so I have no idea why this post wasn't.... so I'll just post it here:



ExtraRefined said:


> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/t...xes-lower-taxes-the-british-people-agree.html
> 
> 
> 
> Being in favour of a massive state apparatus consuming half of the UK's wealth is overwhelmingly the view of the midddle aged and elderly. They got to go uni for free, didn't pay enough tax, and now expect the young to pay for unlimited health and social care forever. Oddly enough the young aren't very keen on this approach.


 

How old are you? And how many young people have you actually communicated with lately?

I'm 23 and I have not heard a single one of peers, including those who support the spending cuts, espouse the viewpoint that because the older generations got to enjoy the benefits of the welfare state which it looks like we aren't going to be able to, then we should get rid of the welfare state altogether. Err.... sorry what? People aren't stupid or ruthlessly self interested, we all a)know that we will be old one day and b)love our grandparents and c)know that if there is no public social and healthcare for our parents then the burden will fall on us, so it doesn't make sense that we would have no interest in maintaining a system of care for the elderly. If there is any resentment directed towards older generations, it comes from bitterness that we won't be able to enjoy the fruits of a social democratic welfare state as they did, so why on earth we'd want to dismantle it is beyond me. 

The most frequently discussed gripe amongst my age group concerns how hard it is to get a foothold in a decent career and to become properly financially independant. If most under 25s are still dependant on our parents or on the state to varying degrees then we are hardly in a position to moan about having to subsidise them, are we? 

Also, the notion that 67% of 18-25s support the spending cuts is laughably unrealistic and grates so much against everyday experience I cannot see how any sensible person could take it seriously. It is self evident that this is the demographic least likely to support the Tories - if there is so much support for Tory policies amongst the young, then we do have to ask why on earth aren't young people voting Tory in droves? If the poll was conducted honestly it would have asked, "Do you support the government's spending cuts?" Like another poster said, most people have no clue what constitutes a normal percentage of national income to go on government spending, least of all the young, who on top of having less life experience have grown up in an ideological climate that treats all public expenditure as waste, so it's only natural that they would underestimate how much goes towards government spending.

Your argument amounts to an attempt by a right wing middle aged person to guilt trip left wing middle aged people, and the actual voice of young people features nowhere in this equation. It's a ridiculous attempt to create a propaganda meme that I'm not sorry to say just isn't going to stick. Try harder next time, eh?


----------



## Rimbaud (Jul 15, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/t...xes-lower-taxes-the-british-people-agree.html
> 
> 
> 
> Being in favour of a massive state apparatus consuming half of the UK's wealth is overwhelmingly the view of the midddle aged and elderly. They got to go uni for free, didn't pay enough tax, and now expect the young to pay for unlimited health and social care forever. Oddly enough the young aren't very keen on this approach.


 
(here we go again...)

How old are you? And how many young people have you actually communicated with lately?

I'm 23 and I have not heard a single one of peers, including those who support the spending cuts, espouse the viewpoint that because the older generations got to enjoy the benefits of the welfare state which it looks like we aren't going to be able to, then we should get rid of the welfare state altogether. Err.... sorry what? People aren't stupid or ruthlessly self interested, we all a)know that we will be old one day and b)love our grandparents and c)know that if there is no public social and healthcare for our parents then the burden will fall on us, so it doesn't make sense that we would have no interest in maintaining a system of care for the elderly. If there is any resentment directed towards older generations, it comes from bitterness that we won't be able to enjoy the fruits of a social democratic welfare state as they did, so why on earth we'd want to dismantle it is beyond me. 

The most frequently discussed gripe amongst my age group concerns how hard it is to get a foothold in a decent career and to become properly financially independant. If most under 25s are still dependant on our parents or on the state to varying degrees then we are hardly in a position to moan about having to subsidise them, are we? 

Also, the notion that 67% of 18-25s support the spending cuts is laughably unrealistic and grates so much against everyday experience I cannot see how any sensible person could take it seriously. It is self evident that this is the demographic least likely to support the Tories - if there is so much support for Tory policies amongst the young, then we do have to ask why on earth aren't young people voting Tory in droves? If the poll was conducted honestly it would have asked, "Do you support the government's spending cuts?" Like another poster said, most people have no clue what constitutes a normal percentage of national income to go on government spending, least of all the young, who on top of having less life experience have grown up in an ideological climate that treats all public expenditure as waste, so it's only natural that they would underestimate how much goes towards government spending.

Your argument amounts to an attempt by a right wing middle aged person to guilt trip left wing middle aged people, and the actual voice of young people features nowhere in this equation. It's a ridiculous attempt to create a propaganda meme that I'm not sorry to say just isn't going to stick. Try harder next time, eh?

And while we're on it, I've been lurking on this forum for a few months now, and I do wonder why on earth right wingers like yourself are not only posting on a lefty board but have been members for half a decade? It strikes me as a little bit odd I have to say.


----------



## Rimbaud (Jul 15, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/t...xes-lower-taxes-the-british-people-agree.html
> 
> 
> 
> Being in favour of a massive state apparatus consuming half of the UK's wealth is overwhelmingly the view of the midddle aged and elderly. They got to go uni for free, didn't pay enough tax, and now expect the young to pay for unlimited health and social care forever. Oddly enough the young aren't very keen on this approach.


 
(here we go again...)

How old are you? And how many young people have you actually communicated with lately?

I'm 23 and I have not heard a single one of peers, including those who support the spending cuts, espouse the viewpoint that because the older generations got to enjoy the benefits of the welfare state which it looks like we aren't going to be able to, then we should get rid of the welfare state altogether. Err.... sorry what? People aren't stupid or ruthlessly self interested, we all a)know that we will be old one day and b)love our grandparents and c)know that if there is no public social and healthcare for our parents then the burden will fall on us, so it doesn't make sense that we would have no interest in maintaining a system of care for the elderly. If there is any resentment directed towards older generations, it comes from bitterness that we won't be able to enjoy the fruits of a social democratic welfare state as they did, so why on earth we'd want to dismantle it is beyond me. 

The most frequently discussed gripe amongst my age group concerns how hard it is to get a foothold in a decent career and to become properly financially independant. If most under 25s are still dependant on our parents or on the state to varying degrees then we are hardly in a position to moan about having to subsidise them, are we? 

Also, the notion that 67% of 18-25s support the spending cuts is laughably unrealistic and grates so much against everyday experience I cannot see how any sensible person could take it seriously. It is self evident that this is the demographic least likely to support the Tories - if there is so much support for Tory policies amongst the young, then we do have to ask why on earth aren't young people voting Tory in droves? If the poll was conducted honestly it would have asked, "Do you support the government's spending cuts?" Like another poster said, most people have no clue what constitutes a normal percentage of national income to go on government spending, least of all the young, who on top of having less life experience have grown up in an ideological climate that treats all public expenditure as waste, so it's only natural that they would underestimate how much goes towards government spending.

Your argument amounts to an attempt by a right wing middle aged person to guilt trip left wing middle aged people, and the actual voice of young people features nowhere in this equation. It's a ridiculous attempt to create a propaganda meme that I'm not sorry to say just isn't going to stick. Try harder next time, eh?


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

Formal education can often instil overconfidence. Especially in areas you didn't go on to work in, or not in any role that requires truth and precision to be of any use, anyway. (Guilty as charged, before anyone has a dig. ).


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 15, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> No , not really ---- it helps create a "Blame Culture" & thus make it OK to target the "Baby Boomers".


 Yes and it works!
Having said that, they're just the same as well off older people bragging about how they always worked, never claimed benefits and blame idle youngsters for all the ills of the world.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 15, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/t...xes-lower-taxes-the-british-people-agree.html
> 
> 
> 
> Being in favour of a massive state apparatus consuming half of the UK's wealth is overwhelmingly the view of the midddle aged and elderly. They got to go uni for free, didn't pay enough tax, and now expect the young to pay for unlimited health and social care forever. Oddly enough the young aren't very keen on this approach.



Conservative Home, eh?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> At the back of the report, under "other IEA publications, there's "Ludwig von Mises - A Primer".



Please, say it isn't so.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 15, 2011)

Didn't Patrick Minford have something to do with the IEA?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Please, say it isn't so.


 
I could, but I'd be lying.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Didn't Patrick Minford have something to do with the IEA?


 
He's one of the contributors to the report mentioned in the OP.

And a right piece of arse it is too. Carefully chosen citations from fellow-travellers, no dissenting opinions. The usual right-wing think-tankery.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 15, 2011)

The thing that gets me is that even if we took the "research" at face value and accepted its ridiculous results, the response is still, "so what?"

So what if people under 25, when asked a question *massively* outside their world-experience -- a question that all but the most extreme of them will have no way whatsoever of answering with any kind of actual knowledge to bring to bear -- give a certain response?  What does the average person under 25 (and let's not forget that probably includes those in their teens) know about even _household _budgetting, let alone fiscal policy?  What can we possibly conclude from their answer?

Those 25-34 should have somewhat more experience, but even then I question the average fiscal policy awareness of the average 30 year-old.  Unless you are making a specialist subject of it, it takes decades of adult life for awareness of these kind of things to sink into your expectations and gut-level understanding.

So what are we left with?  Basically, that a bunch of youths have no understanding of the way the government finances itself.  Well whoopsy-do, thanks for that.

Unbelievably pathetic.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's one of the contributors to the report mentioned in the OP.
> 
> And a right piece of arse it is too. Carefully chosen citations from fellow-travellers, no dissenting opinions. The usual right-wing think-tankery.



Well, there's a surprise. Just had a look at some of the other names on that report: Ruth Lea, Dan Hannan Andrew Roberts...it reads like a Who's Who of the great and the good of British right libertarianism.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 15, 2011)

There's a book which I read called "Jilted Generation".

It's written by two journalists (one writes for the spectator and one writes for the times).  I thought it was quite good.   It does make a point of not blaming the older "boomers"  but does go some way into explaining where some of the wealth gaps lie.

Mainly in housing.

It's a good read and I recommend it.   I also started to read The Pinch by David Willets (of Tory fame), but found it rather properganderous o I sent it back to the library without finishing it.

Anyway... here it is:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jilted-Gene...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310727021&sr=1-1


----------



## peterkro (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Doesn't shock me. I've never met such a consistently economically ignorant bunch of folks.
> 
> Just like I'm never shocked by how economically-ignorant holders of bachelor's degrees in economics are.



Or indeed how economically ignorant so called "worlds top economists" are.


----------



## yield (Jul 15, 2011)

peterkro said:


> Or indeed how economically ignorant so called "worlds top economists" are.


Long-Term Capital Management was lead by two Nobel prize winning Economists. Load of good they did!


----------



## audiotech (Jul 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You think the people in the 60-90s didn't pay enough tax? How much more should they have paid?



There's also inflation to consider. That leapt to around 26 percent in the 1970's. Workers at that time didn't have pay rises to match that figure, far from it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

audiotech said:


> There's also inflation to consider. That leapt to around 26 percent in the 1970's. Workers at that time didn't have pay rises to match that figure, far from it.


 
That's beside the point, really. There is an attempt by some to blame the current debt 'crisis' (I would argue very strongly that there is no debt crisis at all) on people not paying enough tax in the past. This simply isn't true - or at least, you can only go back to the early 2000s at most to point any fingers: the case can be made that between 2002 and 2007, the government borrowed more than it should have and taxed less than it should have, but that's fairly marginal in any case in terms of current government debt levels. 

Blaming the ancient past for current financial problems is absurd, and is a misunderstanding of the nature of any current financial problems - current financial problems are due to the current distribution of wealth and resources, nothing to do with past decades.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 15, 2011)

yield said:


> Long-Term Capital Management was lead by two Nobel prize winning Economists. Load of good they did!


 
I have a bee in my bonnet about this so called 'Nobel Prize for Economics' - THERE'S NO SUCH THING. Alfred Nobel created his prizes for the natural sciences, and he ignored Economics totally when he set those prizes up. This so-called 'Nobel prize for Economics' is a bit of fake propaganda set up as recently as the 1970s, and intended - I believe - to imply that Economics has the same degree of rigour and accuracy as the natural sciences.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 15, 2011)

Whenever these discussion are had about taxation vs spending it's always about income tax and to a lesser extent maybe VAT.  Tax on business does not really get mentioned, although I think maybe UK Uncut are trying to bring that more to the fore.  I'd be interested to know how much tax businesses pay.


----------



## Random (Jul 15, 2011)

The real title of it is the Swedish central bank's prize for economics, in honour of alfred nobel, or similar. The economics winner still gets to take part in all the same ceremonies as the other winners, though, so i think we can assume that the nobel foundation see it as a legit Nobel prize.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 15, 2011)

8115 said:


> Whenever these discussion are had about taxation vs spending it's always about income tax and to a lesser extent maybe VAT.  Tax on business does not really get mentioned, although I think maybe UK Uncut are trying to bring that more to the fore.  I'd be interested to know how much tax businesses pay.


 






Ultimately, all taxes are taxes on people, though.  Corporation tax is just a tax on the business owners that is taken before allocation back to those owners.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 15, 2011)

Random said:


> The real title of it is the Swedish central bank's prize for economics, in honour of alfred nobel, or similar. The economics winner still gets to take part in all the same ceremonies as the other winners, though, so i think we can assume that the nobel foundation see it as a legit Nobel prize.




Well, more fool them, then.


----------



## Random (Jul 15, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Well, more fool them, then.


 Arms dealers' organisations do sometimes do things we don't like, that's the way it is.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 15, 2011)

It has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, but I also found this graph interesting and am posting it on the grounds that others might find it interesting to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Ultimately, all taxes are taxes on people, though.


 
They are, but if that money is put back into the system as state spending, that is spending on people. If it is instead used to pay down debt, it is money taken out of the system altogether. This is where it seems to me that there is muddled thinking about debt. All money represents debt - the amount of money in circulation is a measure of the total amount of debt there is in the system. 

There's no reason some or even a lot of this debt should not be represented by the state rather than the private sector. It is completely sustainable, in fact it is desirable: no debt = no money. The money supply increases in size if the amount of new debt being created is larger than the amount of old debt being repaid - and for an economy to keep functioning, an increasing money supply is a good idea: it causes inflation if it isn't matched by growth, and so there is an incentive to invest: ie there is an incentive for those who do not wish to spend their money to lend it to someone else so that they can spend it instead. 

Since 2007, the private sector has been repaying debt faster than it has been taking out new debt, so of course, the state should step in. And for as long as the private sector will not increase its debt, the public sector has to. In Japan, they have now had two decades of this situation, and national debt is now at 200 percent GDP. This is sustainable. It is in fact _functional_. The idea that governments should commit to reducing public borrowing regardless of the state of private borrowing is ludicrous, and it is a recipe for a damaged economy, in which fewer real things are made or done, and in the end it is the real things that are made or done that count. The rest is all simply bean-counting.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's beside the point, really.



Not entirely, when workers on PAYE were also expected to pay for that inflationary pressure by being forced into pay freezes, pay cuts, as well as redundancies, lock-outs, sackings and cuts to public services.

Also, the printing of large sums of money to bail out the banks I would think will come back to bite at some point in the form of inflation and as a result interest rates rising?

At the time of the government's bailout of RBS and Lloyds TSB alone it was estimated that it would cost the tax payer up to £1.5 trillion added to public debt.

http://www.money.co.uk/article/1002877-bank-bailout-to-add-up-to-1-5-trillion-to-public-debt.htm


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Also, the printing of large sums of money to bail out the banks I would think will come back to bite at some point in the form of inflation and as a result interest rates rising?


 
Possibly, but not necessarily. Government bail-out of the banks has transferred private debt onto the public books, that's all. There's no reason that can't be sustainable.

The truth about quantitative easing is that nobody really knows what its long-term effects will be. As long as the money created is used to do real things, there's no reason it should be unduly inflationary - a certain level of inflation is desirable in any case.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

audiotech said:


> . . .
> Also, the printing of large sums of money to bail out the banks I would think will come back to bite at some point in the form of inflation and as a result interest rates rising?
> . . .


There's no "think" about it, the first is already happening (despite the BoE's pathetic attempts to manage inflationary expectations) and whos interest -rate expectations are not bias-up?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> the first is already happening


 
Is it? We'll see - current high inflation is the result of hikes in food and fuel prices, primarily, not the result of extra money being pumped into the system. I would argue that current inflation is the result of external pressures rather than internal ones as you appear to be suggesting. Talking about the money being put into the system without also mentioning the money being taken out of the system at the same time makes no sense.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> . . .
> The truth about quantitative easing is that nobody really knows what its long-term effects will be.











Print a shedfull of money (aka "Quantitative Easing") => inflation.
Simples


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it? We'll see - current high inflation is the result of hikes in food and fuel prices, primarily . . .


Straight outta Eddie George's "how-to-pull-the-wool-over-their-eyes" manual


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Print a shedfull of money (aka "Quantitative Easing") => inflation.
> Simples



Nope, not simples at all. Pay back debt at a faster rate than new debt is being taken out = deflation. If the private sector will not borrow, the public sector has to. 

IMO QE has been done in completely the wrong way - I would use the money created to directly employ the people the private sector will not employ - but that isn't an argument against the principle. It was the perfect opportunity to embark on a massive programme of social housing building - not inflationary as the debt is repaid through the rents paid by the new tenants. An opportunity wasted.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 15, 2011)

I like to call quantitive easing  "Printy Printy".

It's more more to the point and easier to understand.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nope, not simples at all. Pay back debt at a faster rate than new debt is being taken out = deflation.



In the context that governments "print money" by issuing bonds, how is QE = "paying back debt"?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> In the context that governments "print money" by issuing bonds, how is QE = "paying back debt"?


 
QE isn't paying back debt. You need to reread what I wrote if you think I'm saying that. 

Why is QE being done?

I'll tell you if you like - it is because the private sector is not borrowing enough.


Japan has been engaged in QE for over a decade now, and there is no inflation yet on the horizon there. How is that? How long exactly would you expect it to take for QE to cause inflation?


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'll tell you if you like - it is because the private sector is not borrowing enough.


the private sector isn't borrowing enough because the bank's arn't lending any money, get in the real world ffs.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> the private sector isn't borrowing enough because the bank's arn't lending any money, get in the real world ffs.


 
It's also because corporations are more reluctant to issue paper, on the grounds that credit spreads are still very high.


----------



## love detective (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> In the context that governments "print money" by issuing bonds, how is QE = "paying back debt"?


 
The Govt doesn't 'print money' by 'issuing bonds' - the BOE creates money and with it buys govt bonds in the secondary market that have already been issued

what lbj is trying to say is that you can't just look at QE in isolation and shout inflation - you need to look both at what is being done with the QE money (for example a lot of it ended up straight back on deposit with the central bank and therefore can't inflate anything because it's not circualting) and also what else is going on in the economy, i.e. movements in velocity and the levels of debt repayment (both personal and commercial due to people not wanting to borrow and banks not wanting to lend) which are delationary rather than infaltionary - look at the money supply figures and you don't exactly get any proof for inflation caused by increased money supply, quite the reverse in fact


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> the private sector isn't borrowing enough because the bank's arn't lending any money, get in the real world ffs.


 
And QE is very precisely an attempt to get banks to lend more. It's not a very successful attempt if there is not enough demand for private sector borrowing, but WFT do you think QE is or is being done for?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

love detective said:


> The Govt doesn't 'print money' by 'issuing bonds' - the BOE creates money and with it buys govt bonds in the secondary market that have already been issued
> 
> what lbj is trying to say is that you can't just look at QE in isolation and shout inflation - you need to look both at what is being done with the QE money (for example a lot of it ended up straight back on deposit with the central bank and therefore can't inflate anything because it's not circualting) and also what else is going on in the economy, i.e. movements in velocity and the levels of debt repayment (both personal and commercial due to people not wanting to borrow and banks not wanting to lend) which are delationary rather than infaltionary - look at the money supply figures and you don't exactly get any proof for inflation caused by increased money supply, quite the reverse in fact


 
Yes, and I take your point on a previous thread that if there is no demand for the money created by QE, it will have an underwhelming effect on the economy. That's an important point to understand, imo, and one I had not understood properly before you explained it to me. I still disagree with you about certain things, but not about QE, I don't think.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> There's no "think" about it, the first is already happening (despite the BoE's pathetic attempts to manage inflationary expectations) and whos interest -rate expectations are not bias-up?


 
I'll go with that.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 15, 2011)

My interest-rate expectations are what they have been for the last three years -- I expect no changes in the next six months.


----------



## love detective (Jul 15, 2011)

here's a graph of the movement in UK M4 money suppply

QE started in early 2009 in the UK, since which time the increase in money supply has shrunk , not grown. The money supply would have probably shrunk even more if it hadn't have been for QE to be fair, but to say QE is responsible for the current rises in inflation in the UK is ridicilous - the current inflation is due to weak sterling, structural shifts in food/energy demand/supply and increases in indirect taxes


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> My interest-rate expectations are what they have been for the last three years -- I expect no changes in the next six months.


 
Yep. Beyond that, nobody knows, and whoever says they do know is either kidding you or kidding themselves.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

love detective said:


> The Govt doesn't 'print money' by 'issuing bonds' - the BOE creates money and with it buys govt bonds in the secondary market that have already been issued



Was talking generally ie not specifically about QE.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> It's also because corporations are more reluctant to issue paper, on the grounds that credit spreads are still very high.


 
Was using "private sector" in the context of SMB's not corps large enough to issue paper.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Was using "private sector" in the context of SMB's not corps large enough to issue paper.


 
Why?  Why weren't you using "private sector" in the context of the private sector?  When we're talking about private sector debt, corporate bonds are more important than SMBs' bank loans.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

love detective said:


> . . .  look at the money supply figures and you don't exactly get any proof for inflation caused by increased money supply, quite the reverse in fact


Not yet . . .


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And QE is very precisely an attempt to get banks to lend more.


Again, straight from Eddie George's "bullshit-the-public" manual.



littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not a very successful attempt if there is not enough demand for private sector borrowing, but WFT do you think QE is or is being done for?


It was and is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to shore up the bank's balance sheets.

Trust me, I'm far, far more cynical than you about all this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Not yet . . .


 
Explain Japan.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. Beyond that, nobody knows, and whoever says they do know is either kidding you or kidding themselves.


 
Intersting exercise, go through the last 3 years worth or BoE inflation reports (available on their web-site). Go to the bit where they forecast inflation for the next 3(?) years. Notice how they forecast 2 year inflation to always be 2% (ie in-line with their remit). 

Correlate that forecast with what actually happened.

Conclusion . . . 

1) my cat's a better economist than they . . . and I don't have a cat
OR
2) they are deliberately attempting to manipulate inflationary expectations.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Explain Japan.



Top of head before I get bored . . .  

Large amounts of public debt held my mom and pop
Very different social structure/norms/perceptions (call it what you will) than North Europe / USA

(got bored)
Bottom line, you're attempting to compare apples with pears.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Intersting exercise, go through the last 3 years worth or BoE inflation reports (available on their web-site). Go to the bit where they forecast inflation for the next 3(?) years. Notice how they forecast 2 year inflation to always be 2% (ie in-line with their remit).


 
So what?


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Why?  Why weren't you using "private sector" in the context of the private sector?  When we're talking about private sector debt, corporate bonds are more important than SMBs' bank loans.


 
Were you? Apols then. Personally I'd call that the Coporate Sector (as in "Corporate Bonds") but hey ho.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So what?


 
Suggestion used to fleash out your comment about "Yep. Beyond that, nobody knows, and whoever says they do know is either kidding you or kidding themselves. "

Thought as someone who professes an interst in things economic you may be interested in a real-world on-going example that you prolly hadn't seen. 

(serious, no sarcasm implied, no ulterior motive etc)


----------



## love detective (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Not yet . . .



you claimed it was 'already happening' though:-




			
				audiotech said:
			
		

> Also, the printing of large sums of money to bail out the banks I would think will come back to bite at some point in the form of inflation






			
				you said:
			
		

> There's no "think" about it, the first is already happening


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Bottom line, you're attempting to compare apples with pears.


 
Give it a few years. Since 1990, government debt in Japan has been displacing falling private debt. This is sustainable, and it will end up with 'mom and pop' holing large amounts of public debt. If you have a pension fund, you already hold some govt debt. 

Is it comparing apples with pears? When you compare the UK with Japan, you need to compare the UK today with Japan in perhaps the mid-90s. And when you do that, I would argue that you see a great many parallels. Personally, I far prefer the idea that private debt is displaced by public debt. It creates space to do good things.

ETA:

I'm not saying that what has happened in Japan will happen here. I don't know. Nobody knows. But I am saying that it could. There is absolutely no reason why it couldn't.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 15, 2011)

If you like, although the "public sector/private sector" dichotomy is well established.

In which case, it's the drying up of corporate sector debt that was a major driver of the need for QE to make up the difference.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Suggestion used to fleash out your comment about "Yep. Beyond that, nobody knows, and whoever says they do know is either kidding you or kidding themselves. "
> 
> Thought as someone who professes an interst in things economic you may be interested in a real-world on-going example that you prolly hadn't seen.
> 
> (serious, no sarcasm implied, no ulterior motive etc)


 
I already knew what you wrote. Why do you think I think 'so what' about it?


----------



## love detective (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> It was and is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to shore up the bank's balance sheets.


 
QE replaces one highly liquid asset (gilts) on a bank's balance sheet with another (money) - it's nothing to do with shoring up a bank's balance sheet

direct capital injections, asset insurance protection schemes, guaranteeing of debt issused were things which the state did to shore up bank's balance sheets - QE is not amongst those things


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I already knew what you wrote. Why do you think I think 'so what' about it?


 
I normally associate the phrase "So what" with stroppy teenagers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> I normally associate the phrase "So what" with stroppy teenagers.


 
I said so what as an indication that what you were saying had absolutely no bearing on anything I was saying. The BofE engages in propaganda. Wow.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

love detective said:


> QE replaces one highly liquid asset (gilts) on a bank's balance sheet with another (money) - it's nothing to do with shoring up a bank's balance sheet
> 
> direct capital injections, asset insurance protection schemes, guaranteeing of debt issused were things which the state did to shore up bank's balance sheets - QE is not amongst those things


 
Fair enough, many views make a market etc.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Fair enough, many views make a market etc.


 
Bollocks. What ld says in that post is simply factually accurate, not merely a 'view'.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I said so what as an indication that what you were saying had absolutely no bearing on anything I was saying. The BofE engages in propaganda. Wow.


 
You're hitting F5 a little too quickly LBJ!


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Jul 15, 2011)

"many views make a market" is City-speak LBJ. It's meaning is a bit more subtle than "you're wrong"

Anyway, weather's nice so off down the pub!


----------



## love detective (Jul 15, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Fair enough, many views make a market etc.



have a go at attempting to explain why QE 'shores up' commercial bank's balance sheets then

QE is about liquidity not solvency


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 15, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> How many were asked?
> How were they engaged in this poll?
> Where are they from? etc...


 
probably outside the Young Conservatives meeting at Spunkbridge University


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 15, 2011)

The last couple of pages of this have been interesting but confusing for me - can anyone (love detective/littlebabyjesus) recommend any websites/easily accessible books that explain QE, velocity of (if that's the right term) money circulation, bonds, gilts and all that stuff? I sometimes think I might have a vague understanding of it then someone who clearly knows what they're talking about says something that makes me realise I don't have a clue.

Thanks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

This is difficult stuff to think about, I think. Particularly, the relationship between the money supply and inflation is a very tricky one to tease out. This website has info about various countries' performance, and the overall money supply as represented by the overall level of outstanding debt varies quite a bit by country:







Japan's money supply is far larger than those of other countries, and the money supplies of all countries goes up in size over time, which you'd expect if there are increasing levels of borrowing. But inflation also depends on other factors concerning the circulation of money. The overall amount of debt represents how money is being created/destroyed over time. But what also matters is the rate of circulation of that money - ie how often that money changes hands, how many transactions are taking place within the economy, because not all transactions are represented by loans.  

This is complex stuff with lots of internal feedback loops. If an economy is suffering from stagflation, the money supply is likely to be increased in an attempt to stimulate demand for money - ie stimulate the number of people doing things with the money. But there's no guarantee that will happen, so the money supply can increase in size but if that money is just sitting around doing nothing, you can still have deflation. 

Something that interests me about those figures is the striking similarity between Japan in 1990 - at the start of its 'crisis' - and the UK in 2008 at the start if its 'crisis'. In Japan in 1990, private sector debt excluding financial services stood at 213% GDP; public sector debt stood at 59%. In the UK 2008, the figures are 215% and 52%. The balance of private debt is slightly different in that more private debt in the UK is held by households than businesses, but nonetheless, I think that is an extremely striking parallel. In other words, those that say there is a cultural difference between Japan and the UK, which explains Japan's difference are incorrect. There are striking cultural similarities in terms of the structure of debt between Japan 1990 and the UK 2008. In Japan, the boom was caused by business borrowing, while in the UK the boom was caused by personal borrowing, but in both cases, private sector borrowing grew at almost identical levels. 


I've been reading quite a few things in a fairly chaotic way for some time, sn. Love detective may be better at recommending things than me. He's put me right over a couple of things on here.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 15, 2011)

Cheers for the links, if ld has any recommendations about reading on the theory side of it I'd be grateful, I'm on holiday at the minute and it's pissing it down so now is the time to do a bit of reading I reckon  

I don't understand why the banks weren't nationalised (I mean properly nationalised) - we (as in the tax payer) had already pretty much kept them afloat when they'd have gone under otherwise. Then the government could have forced them to lend - it just seems so obvious to me that either 1) I understand even less about this than I thought, or 2) it's all about a combination of dogmatic ideology and vested interests.


----------



## love detective (Jul 15, 2011)

probably not the kind of thing you were looking for, but the single best thing i've ever read that provides an incredibly solid framework to think about all this stuff within is the three volumes of capital by marx


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 15, 2011)

Not at all, I'd hoped someone might point me in the direction of a Marxist interpretation but I thought that the introduction of fiat currency might have changed things a bit (again, I'm far from well informed on this stuff so that might be utter bollocks).

Which volume in particular? I read vol. 1 a few years ago but I must admit I didn't understand all of it (though it was still one of the most useful books I've ever read). 

I'm interested in the stuff about government bonds/gilts, etc - I have no idea whatsoever what any of them are. And in terms of theory it's the stuff about money circulation/velocity (and its impact on inflation/deflation and economic stagnation, etc. - sorry, I know what I want to know about but don't know the correct terms/jargon if you see what I mean) any idea which volume/chapter I'd be best looking at? I've got all 3 volumes but was a little put off after vol. 1 took me 3 months to read 

Maybe I'd be best off reading them all in one go now I've got a better general understanding of political economy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> probably outside the Young Conservatives meeting at Spunkbridge University


 
The dickwads aren't called "young conservatives" anymore, they're now known as "Conservative Future", the twats.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The dickwads aren't called "young conservatives" anymore, they're now known as "Conservative Future", the twats.


 
They're known as spotty faced cunts where I live


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 15, 2011)

http://torysay.wordpress.com/page/2/


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

Again, to go back to Japan for a second, this quote from wikipedia is relevant, I think. 



> Economist Richard Koo wrote that Japan's "Great Recession" that began in 1990 was a "balance sheet recession." It was triggered by a collapse in land and stock prices, which caused Japanese firms to become insolvent, meaning their assets were worth less than their liabilities. *Despite zero interest rates and expansion of the money supply to encourage borrowing, Japanese corporations in aggregate opted to pay down their debts from their own business earnings rather than borrow to invest as firms typically do.* Corporate investment, a key demand component of GDP, fell enormously (22% of GDP) between 1990 and its peak decline in 2003. Japanese firms overall became net savers after 1998, as opposed to borrowers. Koo argues that *it was* *massive fiscal stimulus (borrowing and spending by the government) that offset this decline and enabled Japan to maintain its level of GDP*. In his view, this avoided a U.S. type Great Depression, in which U.S. GDP fell by 46%. He argued that monetary policy was ineffective because there was limited demand for funds while firms paid down their liabilities. In a balance sheet recession, GDP declines by the amount of debt repayment and un-borrowed individual savings, leaving government stimulus spending as the primary remedy



(my bold)

Far from cutting public spending and attempting to reduce the budget deficit, the govt ought to be seeking to continue with a large deficit and continuing public spending apace. I think this sounds counterintuitive to a lot of people, which is why they hear of the deficit and think that must mean that the state is spending too much. But talking of one sector of the economy, whether public or private, without reference to what all the other sectors are doing is meaningless.

It's taken me a while to properly appreciate this. I don't know how you get others to appreciate it while politicians and newspapers of all colours are lying to them and misrepresenting the case. It's really quite depressing that those who would wish to transfer responsibility from the collective onto the individual are using this 'crisis' as cover for doing that. It's going to leave Britain a far meaner place at the end, as well as  a poorer one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> They're known as spotty faced cunts where I live


 
Not round here, "spotty-faced cunts" is just what we call them if they dare come canvassing!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> http://torysay.wordpress.com/page/2/


 
Christ, but the people in the header pic are as ugly a bunch of goat-fuckers as I've ever seen!


----------



## love detective (Jul 15, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not at all, I'd hoped someone might point me in the direction of a Marxist interpretation but I thought that the introduction of fiat currency might have changed things a bit (again, I'm far from well informed on this stuff so that might be utter bollocks).
> 
> Which volume in particular? I read vol. 1 a few years ago but I must admit I didn't understand all of it (though it was still one of the most useful books I've ever read).
> 
> ...


 
Volume 3 specifically deals with interest bearing capital, credit, interest, fictitious capital, relationship to 'real' capital etc.. but it's really got to be read in the context of the other volumes i.e. the first few chapters of volume 1 in relation to the development of money/exchange out of commodity production, and also volume 2 is all about circulation and tangentially touches upon the foundational basis of the credit system as a result of the circuits of capital

But all of this is just a general framework to think about the specifics within - the specifics of a lot of things will make a lot more sense once you've got a good framework to think about it all within, and that's what capital gives

Someone like Costas Lapavistas is worth reading for a more contemporary marxist analysis of money/finance - he did a great book with Makoto Itoh called The Political Economy of Money & Finance. Unfortunately it's not that easily available and seems to go for daft money - It's in a lot of libraries though - brief synopsis below:-

_Pronounced instability has characterised the capitalist world economy since the early 1970s, much of it originating in the mechanisms of money and finance. Several different government policies have failed to restore harmony, often appearing to exacerbate economic instability. This volume argues that monetary and financial instability has its roots in capitalist production and trade themselves, as well as in the defects of the mechanisms of money and finance. Thus, no mix of policies can fully establish monetary and financial harmony, though different policies can significantly amerliorate or worsen instability. To sustain its central claim, the book re-examines the historical and logical origin of money, the creation of interest-bearing capital, the spontaneous emergence of a capitalist credit system, the mechanism of capitalist crises, and the nature and functions of central banks. Further support is provided by the systematic examination of the monetary and financial analysis of all of the important schools of thought, including Classical political economy, Marxism, Keynesianism, Post-keynesianism and monetarism. The authors' ability to present important insights from Japanese political economy, not previously discussed in Anglo-Saxon economies, makes this a highly significant work in radical political economy, offering a systematic and up-to-date Marxist analysis_

*Pt. I. Classical Foundations. *
1. Classical Political Economy of Money and Credit. 
2. Value and Money in Marx's Political Economy. 
3. Interest-Bearing Capital: The Distinctive Marxist Approach

*Pt. II. Principles of Credit and Finance. *
4. The Credit System. 
5. Joint-Stock Capital and the Capital Market. 
6. Monetary and Financial Aspects of the Business Cycle. 
7. Central Banking

*Pt. III. Postwar Realities and Theories. *
8. Loss of Control over Money and Finance. 
9. The Rise and Fall of Keynesianism. 
10. Post-Keynesian Monetary Theory. 
11. Money and Credit in a Socialist Economy.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 15, 2011)

That blog gives me hope - these twats are mostly leaders of their local branches of Conservative Future, or Spotty Cunts Anonymous to their friends. It's likely that at least some will one day be Tory PPCs - when we consider the fact that these statements are now a matter of public record, combined with the fact that they're clearly utter fucking morons, the Conservative Future doesn't look all that bright.

But then I remember Boris Johnson and realise that fuckwittery is no obstacle to becoming a Tory MP


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 15, 2011)

love detective said:


> Volume 3 specifically deals with interest bearing capital, credit, interest, fictitious capital, relationship to 'real' capital etc.. but it's really got to be read in the context of the other volumes i.e. the first few chapters of volume 1 in relation to the development of money/exchange out of commodity production, and also volume 2 is all about circulation and tangentially touches upon the foundational basis of the credit system as a result of the circuits of capital
> 
> But all of this is just a general framework to think about the specifics within - the specifics of a lot of things will make a lot more sense once you've got a good framework to think about it all within, and that's what capital gives
> 
> ...


 
Thanks mate, looks like I'd better get reading  I've got access to the Sheffield Uni library so I'll hopefully be able to pick up a copy of the Lapavistas book when I get home. It strikes me that this stuff is particularly important at the moment and apart from Paul Mason (not perfect I know but better than most) I don't have any confidence the analysis offered by the UK media.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

It's really, really about time I read Capital.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Jul 15, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> http://torysay.wordpress.com/page/2/


 
GB2 LF


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 15, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> GB2 LF


 
Speak English boy.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 16, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The dickwads aren't called "young conservatives" anymore, they're now known as "Conservative Future", the twats.



Don't forget the Young Britons' Foundation, who are a sort of Federation of Conservative Students for the 21st century,
http://www.ybf.org.uk/


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 16, 2011)

Are you looking for a daily dose of conservative inspiration but don’t know where to look?  Check out YBF’s suggested Sound Bites on Twitter:


oh god


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 16, 2011)

Strangest of all, George Monbiot is on the list of suggested Sound Bites


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 16, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> GB2 LF



Sorry, I don't understand.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 16, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Strangest of all, George Monbiot is on the list of suggested Sound Bites



Yes, I found that odd. I know that Monbiot's family are Tories. but this... bizarre.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 16, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Are you looking for a daily dose of conservative inspiration but don’t know where to look?  Check out YBF’s suggested Sound Bites on Twitter:
> 
> 
> oh god



What a way to get one's kicks, eh?


----------



## ExtraRefined (Sep 30, 2011)




----------



## Refused as fuck (Sep 30, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The dickwads aren't called "young conservatives" anymore, they're now known as "Conservative Future", the twats.



one of those inbreds told me "shut the fuck up bastard prole" on twitter. 
it was former BoJo aid Einy Shah, who is now a Tory campaign manager and funnily enough, probably entirely coincidentally, an intern at Barclays.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 1, 2011)

There may well be some truth in the poll discussed by the OP (before this thread degenerated into extreme anorakism), if my recent university years at UWE (the former Bristol Polytechnic) are anything to go by. The students there were mostly a pretty reactionary lot, though what they thought of the proposed cuts I don't know. The current generation of student-age people (born in the early 90s) are still rebelling against the radicalism of their parents' generation (which is also my generation).

And UWE isn't associated with reactionaries - they contrast themselves with the toffs at Bristol Uni (there was once a talk of sending Prince William there).


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 2, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


>



Shame that Tories are shite in the sack, eh?


----------



## sihhi (Oct 2, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> one of those inbreds told me "shut the fuck up bastard prole" on twitter.
> it was former BoJo aid Einy Shah, who is now a Tory campaign manager and funnily enough, probably entirely coincidentally, an intern at Barclays.



She's part of the back Boris campaign - do you have a screenshot of it, please, thankyou?





with George Osborne there.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 2, 2011)

At least she said what she really thinks.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Oct 2, 2011)

Didn't think to take a screenshot at the time but it's referenced here:

http://www.boriswatch.co.uk/2010/04/21/new-einy-new-danger/


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 3, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Shame that Tories are shite in the sack, eh?




I've thought that a lot of cameron's rhetoric, "harder", "faster" "penetrating" etc is indicative of his (lack of) sex life


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 3, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


>



i'm not particularly turned on by the thought of tories having sex, but whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 3, 2011)

aka






Who wouldnt want to fuck these guys?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> aka
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
In the face with a hammer? No-one.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 3, 2011)

Check out these Squadristi filth in training:

http://video.answers.com/young-libertarians-at-the-students-for-liberty-conference-2011-516985671

I would have flooded that place with nerve gas if I'd have been there.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 3, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I've thought that a lot of cameron's rhetoric, "harder", "faster" "penetrating" etc is indicative of his (lack of) sex life



For sure and I think old Sigmund would agree.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 3, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Check out these Squadristi filth in training:
> 
> http://video.answers.com/young-libertarians-at-the-students-for-liberty-conference-2011-516985671
> 
> I would have flooded that place with nerve gas if I'd have been there.


I could only manage to watch it up to 00.54. There was one silly mare who said "I want to know what kind of libertarian I am".


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> In the face with a hammer? No-one.



From the look of them, that's already happened.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 3, 2011)

The fat one looks a bit like gaddafi fucked his mum


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> The fat one looks a bit like gaddafi fucked his mum



The pinhead looks like Gaddafi used him to fuck the fat ones mum. the T-shirt looks like he wants to wear Gaddafi's ring, and the beaky bloke looks like he wants to fuck children.


----------



## Balbi (Oct 3, 2011)

If the t-shirt one gets sunburn, does he self-destruct? If so, this warm period's most appreciated.


----------

