General Election Is On

[taio]

Not my post but presume its something to do with this...

https://fullfact.org/economy/public-debt/

Cant be. Different figures.

[martin_p]

Cant be. Different figures.

I think the point being made stands.

[clarethomer]

Broadly speaking they are similar and I agree with martin that the figures being quoted makes the point

[Mala591]

Ongoing national debt is £1.8 trillion and we pay £50 billion each year interest on this debt, which is more than the annual defence budget.

Do you think that this debt should be significantly increased or should the government be trying to reduce it?

[martin_p]

Just for taio here’s Andrew’s post re-written for accuracy.

‘ Look up Reginald Maudling’s note to Callaghan, to understand Byrne’s joke.

If you want to talk shitshows: UK national debt when Labour left office - £1.03 trillion. U.K. National debt after the Tories have been in office for nine years - £1.8 trillion. Austerity failed and happened only so the Tories could hand out tax breaks for the rich. The Tories cannot be trusted with the economy.’

Not looking much better is it?

[taio]

I think the point being made stands.

It sort of dilutes the point if the figures aren't correct. Especially after earlier on in this thread the same person said national debt had tripled.

[taio]

Just for taio here’s Andrew’s post re-written for accuracy.

‘ Look up Reginald Maudling’s note to Callaghan, to understand Byrne’s joke.

If you want to talk shitshows: UK national debt when Labour left office - £1.03 trillion. U.K. National debt after the Tories have been in office for nine years - £1.8 trillion. Austerity failed and happened only so the Tories could hand out tax breaks for the rich. The Tories cannot be trusted with the economy.’

Not looking much better is it?

So about £500,000,000 better then. Aye immaterial amount.

[Devils_Advocate]

So about £500,000,000 better then. Aye immaterial amount.

The original point was about having a go at Labour for passing large debt on. Andrews post kinda showed that maybe the Tory's aren't the best antidote to this. I would say the difference in the figures doesn't make the Tory's look any better at being the go to party for not passing on debt

[martin_p]

So about £500,000,000 better then. Aye immaterial amount.

No. Just the same as the extra £770,000,000 extra debt under the Tories isn’t (which is the point being made).

[martin_p]

Ongoing national debt is £1.8 trillion and we pay £50 billion each year interest on this debt, which is more than the annual defence budget.

Which is about 2% of GDP.

[Darthlaw]

Clearly the guys who turned the £103 billion per year DEFECIT into a £19 billion SURPLUS are not to be trusted with the economy.

Best give it back to the guys who’s manifesto promises will plunge us back into the red again, eh?

With all the spending on bringing broadband, rail, etc back in house they might actually be able to put us back in the **** before Easter.

[taio]

The original point was about having a go at Labour for passing large debt on. Andrews post kinda showed that maybe the Tory's aren't the best antidote to this. I would say the difference in the figures doesn't make the Tory's look any better at being the go to party for not passing on debt

I thought you in particular were an advocate of people getting their facts correct.

Incredible that some people think that debt should not have significantly increased given the huge deficits over the last decade and at the same time deplore public spending reductions.

[clarethomer]

The 2 numbers are not comparable so 0.85tn, 0.95tn or 1.03tn is largely irrelevant in the comparison to todays national debt figure

You can also measure debt to include the debt held by public sector banks (those banks that were partially or wholly nationalised during the financial crisis). This measure isn’t as commonly used, however, as it can distort the underlying figures.

On this measure, debt has fallen from £2.3 trillion in May 2010 to £2.1 trillion in March 2019, because the debt attributable to those banks declined sharply as many of the government’s holdings in them were sold back onto the open market.

So the claim has close to the correct figure for May 2010 using debt excluding public sector banks, and close to the correct figure for the present day using debt including public sector banks. But they’re obviously not comparable.

National debt has reduced under the tories if you want to use the £2.1tn figure in comparative terms to include the same things..

Labour will be catastrophic for this country financially. It amazes me, but doesn't surprise me, how the average working person cannot see past the dangling carrot of being told that the rich will pay for everything.

Im just waiting for the return of no boom or bust to be rolled out. I will seriously consider leaving this country if that rat eyed grandad gets in because my childrens future will be ****** with him in charge.

[taio]

No. Just the same as the extra £770,000,000 extra debt under the Tories isn’t (which is the point being made).

No, Andrew was quoting a debt increase of £1,250,000,000. Quite a difference in my book.

[Devils_Advocate]

I thought you in particular were an advocate of people getting their facts correct.

Incredible that some people think that debt should not have significantly increased given the huge deficits over the last decade and at the same time deplore public spending reductions.

I have no problem with you questioning it and highlighting if something was wrong. Your question has brought about some better discussion. Andrew hasnt come back to you but if he has made a mistake then you might remind him of that in future discussions.

What I also hate (and not saying this is what you were trying to do) is people who jump on an error and then use it to distract from the actual discussion where it isnt quite that relevant.

Im glad youve challenged something and if youre not that interested in the main topic then feel free to step back but in the context of the main discussion the mistake doesnt alter the validity point Andrew made

[taio]

I have no problem with you questioning it and highlighting if something was wrong. Your question has brought about some better discussion. Andrew hasnt come back to you but if he has made a mistake then you might remind him of that in future discussions.

What I also hate (and not saying this is what you were trying to do) is people who jump on an error and then use it to distract from the actual discussion where it isnt quite that relevant.

Im glad youve challenged something and if youre not that interested in the main topic then feel free to step back but in the context of the main discussion the mistake doesnt alter the validity point Andrew made

I think it's entirely fair to highlight it when he previously said on this very thread debt had tripled. From a broader perspective debt was obviously going to increase for the reasons stated above.

[martin_p]

Clearly the guys who turned the £103 billion per year DEFECIT into a £19 billion SURPLUS are not to be trusted with the economy.

Best give it back to the guys who’s manifesto promises will plunge us back into the red again, eh?

With all the spending on bringing broadband, rail, etc back in house they might actually be able to put us back in the **** before Easter.

What’s this surplus?

[Devils_Advocate]

I think it's entirely fair to highlight it when he previously said on this very thread debt had tripled. From a broader perspective debt was obviously going to increase for the reasons stated above.

I've agreed its fair for you to highlight it but that doesn't invalidate or really make a difference to the point Andrew was making.

[Darthlaw]

What’s this surplus?

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_n ... t_analysis

[AndrewJB]

What was the deficit, the Tories inherited from Labour again?

I know you guys aren’t good with debt and all but it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that whoever came after Labour couldn’t avoid increasing debt with the deficit they inherited.

Or maybe you could explain how you get rid of a £103 billion budget deficit overnight? Corbyn balance transfer?

Are you still pretending the Tories actually cared about the deficit, other than it being a useful excuse to cut spending? Had they been, they wouldn't have cut taxes for the richest. Britain has faced far greater deficit / debt challenges, such as when the '45 Labour government took us into prosperity while building the welfare state. That would have been the best blueprint to follow, but Osborne was probably unaware of history. Labour governments have created less debt than Tory governments, and also paid back more debt than Tory governments. The facts speak for themselves. North Sea Oil money? Spaffed up a wall. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund, but not us. BT, British Gas, British Rail, and Royal Mail - all sold off, and where's the money? Handed out in tax breaks for the rich. The Tories just rob the country blind, and useful idiots keep voting them back in because they read the Daily Mail.

[taio]

I've agreed its fair for you to highlight it but that doesn't invalidate or really make a difference to the point Andrew was making.

And my view on that is that through the very turbulent economic period there was no chance of there being no substantial increase in national debt and not significantly reducing public spending at the same time.

[Devils_Advocate]

And my view on that is that through the very turbulent economic period there was no chance of there being no substantial increase in national debt and not significantly reducing public spending at the same time.

Great and thats moving the discussion on in a constructive way.

Your new point is the same regardless of either sets of figures so whilst good to challenge and get the info corrected its then better to move on with your above argument rather than dwell on something that is now accurate and hasn't altered the crux of the original point

[martin_p]

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_n ... t_analysis

Don’t know where you’ve dug that site up from but the current deficit is £40m+ and even the government aren’t predicting a surplus for 19/20.

[Darthlaw]

Don’t know where you’ve dug that site up from but the current deficit is £40m+ and even the government aren’t predicting a surplus for 19/20.

Fair enough, google wasn’t my friend on this occasion.

To keep it really simple for you, can you tell me if a deficit of £103 billion is higher or lower than £40m current deficit?

[Damo]

The national debt was always going to rise during the next government.
A new government doesn't wipe loans and interest repayments overnight. Many of labours debts will still be growing.


Just look at what Labour did to the NHS for example.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... pfi-scheme

But yeah, tories or something

[Lowbankclaret]

Been an interesting few days.
Met a few Brexit voters on the coach to Spurs , young lads doing degrees. Kinda surprised by it.

Good reception in the miners yesterday whilst having a bene n hot.

Still the undecided going to decide the result.

Lots of them still around.

If 80% of the undecided go one way, they will win.

If they go 50/50, Julie will probably win.

[android]

Thanks for that reply, Android, although I would point out that recent research concluded that 94% of those using food banks did so because of 'destitution', their word not mine.

What you seem to be saying is that you think that the Labour Party's taxation plans would make a bad situation worse and so we can't look for a solution there. Which is tantamount to saying there is no feasible solution at all. We should vote Conservative because they won't make things worse.

You will understand that I can't accept the view that nothing substantial can be done to ease the plight of those who are destitute, elderly, disabled or receiving a substandard education, and as that is all that you are suggesting the Conservatives can do I won't vote for them.

I saw a graph on the television which showed that a no-deal Brexit will demand almost as much government borrowing as Labour's spending plans; but whereas Brexit will deliver no tangible benefits to the people of the country, Labour's increased spending might do. I know it is a gamble, but for me the crisis of poverty and destitution is so acute, and shameful for Britain, that doing more or less nothing is unthinkable.

Fair enough Erasmus if that's your view, at least you didn't claim moral superiority (fatboy), resort to silly name calling (martin) or fundamentally misrepresent my point (take a bow DA).

Just to be clear, yes I regard it as a near certainty that the Labour leadership will make the current situation much worse.

But no, I did not suggest that the Conservatives are unable to do anything substantial to help those most in need. I think they can but I don't have the same level of certainty about it that I do about the flip side with Labour. It does depend somewhat on how Brexit plays out and we simply do not know the answer to that (don't believe anyone who tells you they do)! We have no idea what government borrowing requirements will be yet in connection with Brexit (whatever deal). We can say with some certainty what the minimum borrowing requirements will be under Labour's plans. I say minimum because the actual borrowing requirements are almost certain to be higher, as they are very unlikely to raise the sums from taxation that they hope to, and because they are also unable to say no (see WASPI extra funding requirement for example).

You think Corbyn / Mcdonnell are worth a gamble and I think there is no likelihood of success and some likely hideous consequences. If spending vast sums of money was all it took to fix things why didn't Gordon Brown try harder to do it in his time in government - did he really hate the poor that much or did he fear the ultimate adverse consequences a bit like me?

[AndrewJB]

I thought you in particular were an advocate of people getting their facts correct.

Incredible that some people think that debt should not have significantly increased given the huge deficits over the last decade and at the same time deplore public spending reductions.

I apologise if my figures were wrong. I'm happy to agree to go with the government's own figures on the matter. I don't think it changes the general thrust of my argument though. And now we have the benefit of nine years of hindsight, we can agree that austerity as practiced by the government has failed (even Johnson has said as much). Countries find it hard to cut their way to prosperity, and a better way has been to grow out of it instead. We might argue about the exact figure - is it over a hundred thousand early deaths, or just in the tens of thousands? Either way, austerity has killed more people than terrorism in the UK. Then there are also the blighted lives due to poverty. A government that has presided over that is a failed government. It hasn't even been able to protect its own citizens.

Of course the deficit inherited by the government in 2010 was high, but we can't look at that without considering the effects of a worldwide financial crash. To do so would be the same as me pointing out that the very perilous economy and extremely high unemployment that Labour took on in '45 were left to them by a Tory prime minister, without even a nod to what happened in the years before.

You'll never find me defending the "tory lite" economic policies of the Blair and Brown years - and anyone who recalls me from the previous board would say I've been consistent in my opinions since it began. I've railed against PFI as a rip off, against privatisations of public services (things the last chancellor said he would end), and the scandal of our tax system. Labour is a very different beast to what it was ten years ago. I don't think you'll find COrbyn or McDonnell hiding expenditure from the books as the Tories and Labour did in the past. And rather than making substantial investments in public infrastructure so the private sector operators can make more money (as Johnson proposes to do), we'll own it outright.

[AndrewJB]

Fair enough, google wasn’t my friend on this occasion.

To keep it really simple for you, can you tell me if a deficit of £103 billion is higher or lower than £40m current deficit?

https://fullfact.org/economy/did-george ... icit-year/

Osborne failed and failed and then finally changed the rules (after he'd broken two out of his three fiscal rules). Considering everything they sold off, and all the cuts, and all the misery, if a £40 Billion deficit is actually "success" after nine years, then you're easily pleased.

[tiger76]

I notice Corbyn's been campaigning in Pendle,Morecambe and Carlisle today,all Conservative held seats with narrow majorities,which also voted strongly for brexit,if Jonathan Ainsworth is remotely correct this strategy is doomed,but we'll find out soon.

Yet another Conservative candidate in an Islamophobia storm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50736778

[Darthlaw]

if a £40 Billion deficit is actually "success" after nine years, then you're easily pleased.

If a reduction of £60 billion of borrowing per year is so easily dismissed, you’re a Labour idealist.

It’s no wonder you can’t see why the Corbyn credit card terrifies folk.

[Lowbankclaret]

I notice Corbyn's been campaigning in Pendle,Morecambe and Carlisle today,all Conservative held seats with narrow majorities,which also voted strongly for brexit,if Jonathan Ainsworth is remotely correct this strategy is doomed,but we'll find out soon.

Yet another Conservative candidate in an Islamophobia storm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50736778

I work in the Pendle constituency, there are several people who have never voted going to vote Tory.

Labour don’t stand a chance.

If they think not coming to Burnley was ok as it’s going to be safe Labour.
Whilst they might win I think it could be way closer than people think.

[Erasmus]

Android, you say you think that the Conservatives can do something to ease the problems of poverty and destitution. But my question would be do you think they will do something substantial to ease the problems I have referred to? Based on recent history, I really don't think they will.

[AndrewJB]

Fair enough Erasmus if that's your view, at least you didn't claim moral superiority (fatboy), resort to silly name calling (martin) or fundamentally misrepresent my point (take a bow DA).

Just to be clear, yes I regard it as a near certainty that the Labour leadership will make the current situation much worse.

But no, I did not suggest that the Conservatives are unable to do anything substantial to help those most in need. I think they can but I don't have the same level of certainty about it that I do about the flip side with Labour. It does depend somewhat on how Brexit plays out and we simply do not know the answer to that (don't believe anyone who tells you they do)! We have no idea what government borrowing requirements will be yet in connection with Brexit (whatever deal). We can say with some certainty what the minimum borrowing requirements will be under Labour's plans. I say minimum because the actual borrowing requirements are almost certain to be higher, as they are very unlikely to raise the sums from taxation that they hope to, and because they are also unable to say no (see WASPI extra funding requirement for example).

You think Corbyn / Mcdonnell are worth a gamble and I think there is no likelihood of success and some likely hideous consequences. If spending vast sums of money was all it took to fix things why didn't Gordon Brown try harder to do it in his time in government - did he really hate the poor that much or did he fear the ultimate adverse consequences a bit like me?

It's been acknowledged for a very long time that train companies, and water and power utilities have been ripping consumers off with high prices and poor service. These companies reinvest very little, pay out large dividends, and are often loaded down with debt, so as to minimise their tax exposure. We know that the private sector has achieved a whopping 5% UK coverage for fibre broadband - against something like 80% for Europe. We know that climate change is a big problem, and one we need to address now. It's not to say the free market is bad, but that the free market isn't the best delivery mechanism for the services I've described above.

[clarethomer]

Nationalisation - the myth of great efficiency and productivity...

Can't believe people actually buy this rubbish...

[AndrewJB]

If a reduction of £60 billion of borrowing per year is so easily dismissed, you’re a Labour idealist.

It’s no wonder you can’t see why the Corbyn credit card terrifies folk.

I'm giving you what George Osborne said he would do - and let's not forget he said it was the most important task of the government to eradicate the deficit - and what he actually achieved. By his own measures, he failed. He even managed to get our credit rating downgraded - which he had said would be a complete disaster. I've already said that growing the economy would be my main weapon against a high deficit, because that doesn't cause widespread pain throughout the country.

When contrasting Labour's manifesto with the Tory fag packet one - which did you see has the most detail? Which party went furthest to cost their plans? The Tories didn't at all - so you have to place your faith in Johnson on that one.

[clarethomer]

Detail and being realistic are not the same thing. I could write a load of detail on how we could become a champions league winning team - the task of actually carrying out and delivering what I expect would happen is a completely different thing.

It took how long for Labour to start spending money that they hadn't costed in their manifesto. A mere £58bn for a bribe to WASPI women. Oh the outrage of a £1bn bribe to DUP from the left was soon forgotten...

[AndrewJB]

Nationalisation - the myth of great efficiency and productivity...

Can't believe people actually buy this rubbish...

Perhaps you can pony up some facts to support your argument? The NHS is far more efficient, and on a per patient basis about half as expensive as the US health care service - and it also looks after everyone. The BBC costs far less than SKY - and delivers a far wider remit. The probation service had to be brought back under public ownership after its privatisation made it unfit for purpose. And then we have the Eastcoast Mainline: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44590366

[tiger76]

I work in the Pendle constituency, there are several people who have never voted going to vote Tory.

Labour don’t stand a chance.

If they think not coming to Burnley was ok as it’s going to be safe Labour.
Whilst they might win I think it could be way closer than people think.

There is many Labour voters in Burnley who won't vote Tory under any circumstances,but it's not impossible a good number of those will sit at home,or vote for a minor party,i can see Julie Cooper hanging on by her fingertips,but it could be a close call.

Burnley is definitely in the target range given the national polling,if the Conservatives have an 8-10 point lead a lot of northern seats come into play.

If Labour are going to make gains they're more likely to come in the South,i can't see an advance in the brexit voting traditional Labour heartlands,in fact Labour will do well to hold their ground in these areas.

[martin_p]

If a reduction of £60 billion of borrowing per year is so easily dismissed, you’re a Labour idealist.

It’s no wonder you can’t see why the Corbyn credit card terrifies folk.

We were promised that austerity would wipe out the deficit by 2015, then 2018. It’s a failure, pure and simple.

[AndrewJB]

Detail and being realistic are not the same thing. I could write a load of detail on how we could become a champions league winning team - the task of actually carrying out and delivering what I expect would happen is a completely different thing.

It took how long for Labour to start spending money that they hadn't costed in their manifesto. A mere £58bn for a bribe to WASPI women. Oh the outrage of a £1bn bribe to DUP from the left was soon forgotten...

Being realistic like "getting brexit done" - when there's still a major trade deal to sort out?

People like you said the NHS couldn't be created - too expensive, and to many dots to join together - but it was. The Labour program is a series of solutions to major issues that beset the country. The tories are simply offering more of the same.

[clarethomer]

A good overview of nationalisation on here

https://www.ft.com/content/0470ad62-f62 ... 65a6ce1a00

The NHS relies on private firms to help deliver the free at point of use service. A great example of where public and private work well together.

There are all too many examples of nationalisation in this country only delivering inefficiency for users and the country. There is no incentive to invest and there is no incentive to avoid underperformance either.

Nationalisation doesn't work.

[tiger76]

Perhaps you can pony up some facts to support your argument? The NHS is far more efficient, and on a per patient basis about half as expensive as the US health care service - and it also looks after everyone. The BBC costs far less than SKY - and delivers a far wider remit. The probation service had to be brought back under public ownership after its privatisation made it unfit for purpose. And then we have the Eastcoast Mainline: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44590366

The NHS is sacrosanct,that'll i'll grant you,which is why no government of whatever colour will ever move from a free at the point of delivery principle,as to do so would be electoral suicide.

Regarding your BBC claim,the difference is i the consumer have an option whether to subscribe to SKY,on the basis of value for money,whereas the licence fee is a mandatory tax whether i think the BBC is worth it or not,given the plethora of modern technology available now,the BBC is an outdated institution in the 21st century.

[CombatClaret]

Which is about 2% of GDP.

While everyone starts foaming at the 0.32% of GDP we contribute to the EU...

[bfcjg]

It really is worrying that this gobsh1te could be in charge of our children's education in a few days time.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BJWEqSUX2xQ
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sqTxfzCvItw&t=6s
The tories are marginally better which isn't saying much.

[clarethomer]

Being realistic like "getting brexit done" - when there's still a major trade deal to sort out?

People like you said the NHS couldn't be created - too expensive, and to many dots to join together - but it was. The Labour program is a series of solutions to major issues that beset the country. The tories are simply offering more of the same.

People like me? What is that supposed to mean?

Im highly supportive of the NHS.

I am criticising the strategy of Labour to promise huge investment on the promise of a 'Robin Hood' type fantasy of robbing the rich to give to the poor.

The premise that the rich will stick around and take it is laughable. They have the means to be able to move elsewhere. France tried it and it wasn't too long after that they were pretty much trying to get them back as they realised what they got actually was better than nothing.

Likewise, I am criticising Labour telling people that only the top 5% will pay more.

Lets look at who gets the marriage tax allowance - is that the rich? No... Who pays corporation tax? Is that only the top 5%? Who pays dividend tax? Pretty much most people that have pensions and not limited to the top 5%

When the invoice needs paying... it wont be the 5% paying it - We all will be paying it.

Likewise those that are classed at the top earners- pay proportionately their fair share. They also generate wealth and taxes for the country. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/com ... ology.html

[martin_p]

Likewise, I am criticising Labour telling people that only the top 5% will pay more.

Labour aren’t telling people that. The right wing media are telling people that Labour are telling people that.

[taio]

Labour aren’t telling people that. The right wing media are telling people that Labour are telling people that.

Incredible if you don't think Labour has been telling people that. I've heard them say it countless times - straight from the horses mouth.

[clarethomer]

Labour aren’t telling people that. The right wing media are telling people that Labour are telling people that.

So it's not true that if you earn £80k a year, you are not in the top 5% and Labour have not said that they will make those in the top 5% pay more to fund their promises?

Screenshot 2019-12-10 at 22.53.00.png (255.1 KiB) Viewed 1673 times

[martin_p]

So it's not true that if you earn £80k a year, you are not in the top 5% and Labour have not said that they will make those in the top 5% pay more to fund their promises?

Sigh..... no it’s not true that Labour are saying just the top 5% will pay more.

Edit - even the extract you’ve added isn’t saying that.