The Swedish Model (Radio 4 - 'Analysis')

That's not what my wfe would say from her experience in the NHS....



Of course ones wife is never influenced one iota by ones own beliefs , of course not:rolleyes:Funnily enough my wife believes the ills are caused by under-resourcing, understaffing and constant changes which are never allowed to bed down properly.This all leads to far too much pressure which results in a lack of effectiveness
 
la gran siete said:
Of course ones wife is never influenced one iota by ones own beliefs , of course not:rolleyes:Funnily enough my wife believes the ills are caused by under-resourcing, understaffing and constant changes which are never allowed to bed down properly.This all leads to far too much pressure which results in a lack of effectiveness

Interesting how you so often refer to your wife as the font of all knowledge as far as the public sector is concerned...
:facepalm:
 
Interesting how you so often refer to your wife as the font of all knowledge as far as the public sector is concerned...
:facepalm:

its purely based on her experiences and she certainly has more of that than you have with regard to PS, although i never claimed she was, as you put it, font of all knowledge.That seems to be an accolade you reserve for yourself.Quite extraordinary when you sit all day in an office spouting stuff you found on some website or other and calling it facts
 
la gran siete said:
its purely based on her experiences and she certainly has more of that than you have with regard to PS, although i never claimed she was, as you put it, font of all knowledge.That seems to be an accolade you reserve for yourself.Quite extraordinary when you sit all day in an office spouting stuff you found on some website or other and calling it facts

You mean using the government's own statistics to disprove your ignorant claims?

Maybe you should find an equally credible website and see if you can find even a shred of evidence to support your absurd notions...
:nono:
 
Hardly. The cause is largely due to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bailing out the banks, and the loss of income from the subsequent recession.

In fact, Social security spending grew much faster between April 2008 and March 2011 than under Labour before 2008.

as damo_in_sale has already posted, why is it that so many people in general a) do not yet understand the difference between a stock number (debt) and a flow (deficit).

The things you list are not huge spends in the current year, so cannot be adding to the stock (though they may well be already in the stock - in fact you cite 3 examples that ARE)
 
Quite extraordinary when you sit all day in an office spouting stuff you found on some website or other and calling it facts

Quite extraordinary when you sit all day in front of a computer spouting stuff you found on some website or other and calling it a feeling

:smashin:
 
Quite extraordinary when you sit all day in front of a computer spouting stuff you found on some website or other and calling it a feeling

:smashin:


its called intuition, something we all have :smashin:but many choose to ignore:thumbsdow
 
its called intuition, something we all have :smashin:but many choose to ignore:thumbsdow

Of course - much better to use 'intuition' than hard facts...

Of course most people would recognise that verifiable evidence is slightly stronger than 'intuition' which is basicallu equivalent to inherent prejudice...?
:facepalm:
 
Of course - much better to use 'intuition' than hard facts...

Of course most people would recognise that verifiable evidence is slightly stronger than 'intuition' which is basicallu equivalent to inherent prejudice...?
:facepalm:

you mean "hard facts" as you interpret them.Make sure they fit with your agenda, eh?
 
you mean "hard facts" as you interpret them.Make sure they fit with your agenda, eh?

You seem to struggle with the concept that facts do not need interpretation - subjective views on the other hand....
 
You seem to struggle with the concept that facts do not need interpretation - subjective views on the other hand....


No i am saying that what you spout and called facts are anything but- they are your opinions
 
No i am saying that what you spout and called facts are anything but- they are your opinions

Which opinions are you referring to?

My facts about government debt etc are all verifiable facts!
 
LGS, let it drop, facts are facts. You might not like them if they don't fit your rosy feeling about what is right, but you should find facts of your own to discredit him with, not just say that's ******** because it doesn't feel right to you.

That's where the flat earthers got it wrong, they eventually had to realise that their senses, suspicions and feelings about their imagined world were beaten by cold hard facts and reality.

Try some fact finding, rather than making up stories about what feels nice to you, you might find you get more respect here.

You may even be proven right about something if you can find some facts to back you up :)
 
Last edited:
I'm unsure of the point your trying to make here. But in any case, rather than simply compare figures from two years based upon a political 'cycle' (but ignoring the bad years under ones favoured 'team'), we tend to take account of the economic cycle, look at trends before and after chosen data points, and take account of vulnerability to future disruptions, amongst other considerations.
You accused me of being happy that state spending is so high, presumably because you consider it something "my team" (-as you put it) want.

I merely presented some statistics that showed that "your team" spent more than mine, during their respective periods in office.

Damo, if you find posts that challenge your assertions with statistical facts depressing, then perhaps this isn't forum for you, as you say.
 
Last edited:
MikeTV said:
Damo, if you find posts that challenge your assertions with statistical facts depressing, then perhaps this isn't forum for you, as you say.

I wonder why you only looked at figures as a percentage of GDP and not the underlying figures..
That wouldn't be because there was a huge distortion following a record growth in GDP fuelled by unsustainable credit etc etc??
:confused:
 
icstm said:
like the LIBOR survey? ;)

The Libor survey has always been about an opinion on borrowing costs..
:)
 
I wonder why you only looked at figures as a percentage of GDP and not the underlying figures..
That wouldn't be because there was a huge distortion following a record growth in GDP fuelled by unsustainable credit etc etc??
:confused:
But at the time, it was generally regarded as sustainable growth. It's only in hindsight that we consider it as unsustainable (although, I am sure there are commentators who were claiming it was unsustainable at the time too, but that's not the point.).

The reason it is usually quoted as a percentage of gdp, is because it's the main way of making sensible comparisons of relative spending levels.
 
Last edited:
But at the time, it was generally regarded as sustainable growth.
I don't think that's the case. The growth was fuelled by easy credit and public spending not by productivity improvements.

It's only in hindsight that we consider it as unsustainable (although, I am sure there are commentators who were claiming it was unsustainable at the time too, but that's not the point.).
Hindsight for you, maybe.

The reason it is usually quoted as a percentage of gdp, is because it's the main way of making sensible comparisons of relative spending levels.

Unless of course the GDP measure is hugely distorted (e.g. for the reasons identified above)...
 
You accused me of being happy that state spending is so high, presumably because you consider it something "my team" (-as you put it) want.

I merely presented some statistics that showed that "your team" spent more than mine, during their respective periods in office.

Damo, if you find posts that challenge your assertions with statistical facts depressing, then perhaps this isn't forum for you, as you say.


Hmmm, I'm not sure what to make of the above post to be honest.

I was merely pointing out that we have a very high level government spending right now, near 50% of GDP. And I had thought that you quite liked high levels of government spending. If i am wrong then i am very sorry. I had hoped that, by inference considering our current situation, we could agree that high government spending clearly isn't in all cases a good thing- surely we are in agreement here? And I am sorry if you felt that I had 'accused' you of something.

Regarding your use of statistics. I am unsure as to why you would pick one very specific metric for comparison, and two very specific years. Should the metric be altered, or the year be altered, by just a little, the comparison would be quite different. Please forgive me if I am wrong, but it almost struck me as though you were choosing figures to bulster your opinion, as opposed to using the data to inform your opinion. But I am sure that that cannot be the case.

It is difficult choosing years to make a comparison, because trends are very important also.

It's quite possible that I missunderstood your reasoning though, and if so I sincerely apologise.
 
Last edited:
But at the time, it was generally regarded as sustainable growth. It's only in hindsight that we consider it as unsustainable (although, I am sure there are commentators who were claiming it was unsustainable at the time too, but that's not the point.).

Well, I thought it was unsustainable growth at the time. And I said so on these forums if I remember rightly, and I used to bang on about it quite a lot.

Don't you remember?

And I'm no Einstein, not even a Newton. :)

I don't think that you thought so at the time though. In fact, I had thought you used to tell me that I was wrong.




PS, Only joking about Newton, he was a giant.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, I'm not sure what to make of the above post to be honest.

I was merely pointing out that we have a very high level government spending right now, near 50% of GDP. And I had thought that you quite liked high levels of government spending. If i am wrong then i am very sorry. I had hoped that, by inference considering our current situation, we could agree that high government spending clearly isn't in all cases a good thing- surely we are in agreement here? And I am sorry if you felt that I had 'accused' you of something.
The answer is, it depends on what we are spending on, to be simplistic. I agree that government spending for the sake of spending is flawed. But if spending is intended to provide an economic stimulus, that's different. Unfortunately, a significant proportion our high public spending can be attributed to the government's actions as a result of the financial crisis, in propping up the financial sector. As well as wars and increased welfare arising from the recession. Needless to say, none of this is desirable spending.
Regarding your use of statistics. I am unsure as to why you would pick one very specific metric for comparison, and two very specific years. Should the metric be altered, or the year be altered, by just a little, the comparison would be quite different. Please forgive me if I am wrong, but it almost struck me as though you were choosing figures to bulster your opinion, as opposed to using the data to inform your opinion. But I am sure that that cannot be the case.
Now you're cherry picking. The point I was making was to counter a generalisation about levels of labour spending.
It is difficult choosing years to make a comparison, because trends are very important also.

It's quite possible that I missunderstood your reasoning though, and if so I sincerely apologise.
Trends are important, but so is context.
 
Well, I thought it was unsustainable growth at the time. And I said so on these forums if I remember rightly, and I used to bang on about it quite a lot.

Don't you remember?
You didn't say: the banks are massively over leveraged and are about to destroy the global economy by their recklessness, and we are going to have to bail them all out, and we're going to have a massive recession like we haven't seen since the 1930's. Did you?

More likely you said the labour government were spending too much, and you didn't like it.

But if you remember it differently, find the quotes, and we can discuss.
 
LGS, let it drop, facts are facts. You might not like them if they don't fit your rosy feeling about what is right, but you should find facts of your own to discredit him with, not just say that's ******** because it doesn't feel right to you.

That's where the flat earthers got it wrong, they eventually had to realise that their senses, suspicions and feelings about their imagined world were beaten by cold hard facts and reality.

Try some fact finding, rather than making up stories about what feels nice to you, you might find you get more respect here.

You may even be proven right about something if you can find some facts to back you up :)

yes there is a fact, which is we are in a debt crisis.I think we can all agree on that
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom