Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
The Masked Tulip

Miliband And Balls Knew Uk Economy Was Due To 'fall Off A Cliff' A Year Before It Happened... But Kept It A Secret

Recommended Posts

So the Mail is revealing that Messrs Miliband/Balls knew about a likely 2008 collapse in 2007 - and issuing "the story" 4 months before the 2015 general election. Well I never.

Everyone knew the economy was falling off a cliff towards the end of 2007.

There had just been all sorts of crises since about August 2007 and also the run on Northern Rock during September 2007 - etc. So the Mail "reveals" that they knew something was in the offing in October 2007- what a surprise. Did the BoE guess. Yet again it's laughable.

Has the actual history of events been redacted or something.

If the Mail was revealing that Miliband/Balls knew in 2006 then they might be revealing something. Actually it's more than likely they did have an inkling in 2006 but it seems the article isn't claiming that - and it seems pretty likely that Prime Minister Blair did have an an inkling in 2006 (certainly much of the stock market seemed to know early in 2007) as he announced he would resign (some would say was forced out) during September 2006 and actually resigned on 27 June 2007 - amazingly fortuitous timing. Apparently choosing his exact resignation date just before the UK crises became public - by coincidence?


George Osborne said revelation ‘exposed cynicism’ of Balls and Miliband

The "revelation" exposes political and media cynicism all round more like.


The first official sign that Britain was heading for a crash came in August 2008 – ten months after Miliband blurted it out to Winter

:rolleyes:

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They ought to be reporting that Dave and Gidiot are doing this in 2015.

Everybody who can read the news knows that the economy is toast. The allegation is that they wanted a snap election so that the next government would have the economy blow up in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What billybong said. Didn't Darling warn us all in 2007?

I suspect however that many in power (like now) would have feared it was going to get worse, but emotionally felt things could be different this time, and a credit driven bubble could be kept inflated. To be fair, the current mob have done an amazing job in this respect. But watch the deficit surge now income from North Sea oil is set to plummet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Mail is revealing that Messrs Miliband/Balls knew about a likely 2008 collapse in 2007 - and issuing "the story" 4 months before the 2015 general election. Well I never.

Everyone knew the economy was falling off a cliff towards the end of 2007.

There had just been all sorts of crises since about August 2007 and also the run on Northern Rock during September 2007 - etc. So the Mail "reveals" that they knew something was in the offing in October 2007- what a surprise. Did the BoE guess. Yet again it's laughable.

Has the actual history of events been redacted or something.

If the Mail was revealing that Miliband/Balls knew in 2006 then they might be revealing something. Actually it's more than likely they did have an inkling in 2006 but it seems the article isn't claiming that - and it seems pretty likely that Prime Minister Blair did have an an inkling in 2006 (certainly much of the stock market seemed to know early in 2007) as he announced he would resign (some would say was forced out) during September 2006 and actually resigned on 27 June 2007 - amazingly fortuitous timing. Apparently choosing his exact resignation date just before the UK crises became public - by coincidence?

The "revelation" exposes political and media cynicism all round more like.

:rolleyes:

+1

You have saved me having to write anything. The credit crunch was in 2007. So the ed's knew about it after it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

You have saved me having to write anything. The credit crunch was in 2007. So the ed's knew about it after it happened.

according to the mail, House Prices were still soaring then, so, technically, according to their worldview, nothing happened till 2008, and even then, only their daily soothing words and encouragement were what kept food in the supermarkets ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miliband and Balls knew UK economy was due to 'fall off a cliff' a year before it happened... but kept it a secret

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2914839/Two-Eds-hid-truth-global-crash-Miliband-Balls-knew-UK-economy-fall-cliff-year-happened-kept-secret.html#ixzz3P7folvFJ

Clever sratergist in Tory HQ writes article for Tory paper to entice UKIP voter back to the fold. Chancellor reacts with suitable outrage etc.. I guess I could almost have written the script myself

Finally made my 100th post and as befits the society we live in - it's all about me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to the mail, House Prices were still soaring then, so, technically, according to their worldview, nothing happened till 2008, and even then, only their daily soothing words and encouragement were what kept food in the supermarkets ever since.

I would say it was 2007 that I woke up and I didn't have the benefits of pillow talk with stephanie flanders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this forum saw it coming, I saw it coming, the intelligent people I spoke to saw it coming.

Considering how their policies led to it you would imagine they saw it coming too, indeed knew it to be a consequence of their actions but did them anyway for short term gain.

They are either evil or stupid. A simple fact, obvious for more than ten years now. Why is that news?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK economy was pretty good until 2002ish, all things considered.

Mainly because Brown had stuck to Clarkes budget from 97-02.

The BoE had already messed up by keeping rates too low.

And then the splurge happened.

The private sector spent ~20 years money in 5 years.

Brown spent 30 years money and totally messed up the workforce with tax credits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK economy was pretty good until 2002ish, all things considered.

Mainly because Brown had stuck to Clarkes budget from 97-02.

The BoE had already messed up by keeping rates too low.

And then the splurge happened.

The private sector spent ~20 years money in 5 years.

Brown spent 30 years money and totally messed up the workforce with tax credits.

What splurge are you talking about. UK national debtas as a percentage of GDP which under Labour before the financial crisis was not excessive by hisorical measures at about 40%. Neither was the interest payment on this debt excessive by historical standards.

You can view the charts with the associated analysis here.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/debt_brief.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What splurge are you talking about. UK national debtas as a percentage of GDP which under Labour before the financial crisis was not excessive by hisorical measures at about 40%. Neither was the interest payment on this debt excessive by historical standards.

You can view the charts with the associated analysis here.

http://

www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/debt_brief.php

One of the problems with the Debt as a percentage of GDP figures for the UK is that debt is virtually GDP so you can massively increase debt and the ratio will still stay relatively constant.

Then the GDP has been what some would say artificially inflated in recent years through stuff like excessively inflated imputed rent and more recently including previously risque activities (admittedly the latter seems to have been in order to align with the eu).

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with the Debt as a percentage of GDP figures for the UK is that debt is virtually GDP so you can massively increase debt and the ratio will still stay relatively constant.

Then the GDP has been what some would say artificially inflated in recent years through stuff like excessively inflated imputed rent and more recently including previously risque activities (admittedly the latter seems to have been in order to align with the eu).

One of the problems with the Debt as a percentage of GDP figures for the UK is that debt is virtually GDP so you can massively increase debt and the ratio will still stay relatively constant.

Then the GDP has been what some would say artificially inflated in recent years through stuff like excessively inflated imputed rent and more recently including previously risque activities (admittedly the latter seems to have been in order to align with the eu).

More reading on my part needed to understand your comments. But a least you are not spouting the usual Tory rubbish about high spending Labour prior to the financial crisis.

Arguing for a smaller state has a rich intellectual history from both a philosophical and economic perspective. Though I don't share the analysis it is interesting and deserves some serious thought. For those who want to expand their reading I have found the following very informative.

http://mises.org

And for the best of the conservative economic thinkers

https://www.aei.org/author/john-h-makin/

However, I find the chancellor particular nauseaus with his constant repetition with respect to Labour spending excessively prior to the financial crisis. Guttless. Argue the case for a smaller state on its merit and let the people judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the mail the economy IS house prices and house prices ARE the economy

In that respect the economy only visibly fell come 2008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I find the chancellor particular nauseaus with his constant repetition with respect to Labour spending excessively prior to the financial crisis. Guttless. Argue the case for a smaller state on its merit and let the people judge.

Lovely idea. But the people are spackers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily Mail everybody.

Hilariously predictable headline 4 months from a GE.

+1 sadly many will read it as fact and not even question any deeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 sadly many will read it as fact and not even question any deeper.

+1

Even so many more than ever before will have thought:

Wait a moment - Blair resigned in 2007 and wasn't that the same year as the Northern Rock run/fiasco/queues around the block and the start of all the other devastating financial stuff. It sounds like they're twisting things again for this year's election

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More reading on my part needed to understand your comments. But a least you are not spouting the usual Tory rubbish about high spending Labour prior to the financial crisis.

Arguing for a smaller state has a rich intellectual history from both a philosophical and economic perspective. Though I don't share the analysis it is interesting and deserves some serious thought. For those who want to expand their reading I have found the following very informative.

http://mises.org

And for the best of the conservative economic thinkers

https://www.aei.org/author/john-h-makin/

However, I find the chancellor particular nauseaus with his constant repetition with respect to Labour spending excessively prior to the financial crisis. Guttless. Argue the case for a smaller state on its merit and let the people judge.

considering messrs balls and osbourne work for the same group, I kinda share your sense of nausea.

we getting fed up with pantomime now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   221 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.