This "Conservatives borrow less" idea.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri May 19, 2017 8:49 pm

Unsupported by facts.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016 ... nt-page-1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Turfiteclaret · Post by **Turfiteclaret** » Fri May 19, 2017 8:54 pm

: IMG_0134.PNG (291.25 KiB) Viewed 5468 times

mdd2 · Post by **mdd2** » Fri May 19, 2017 8:55 pm

Hardly surprising given the s**t we were left with post 2008. We are still unable to live within our means

minnieclaret · Post by **minnieclaret** » Fri May 19, 2017 8:56 pm

Turfiteclaret wrote:
IMG_0134.PNG

As the debt has gone from billions to trillions under Gideon "no money" then was a damn site more than there is now.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri May 19, 2017 8:58 pm

mdd2 wrote:Hardly surprising given the s**t we were left with post 2008. We are still unable to live within our means

That's accounted for in the link. Even without the 2008 global crisis Conservatives still borrowed more.

You should read it, it'll inform you.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:02 pm

I would love to live in your black and white world charlie

Claretrew · Post by **Claretrew** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:02 pm

You ever maxed a credit card then tried paying it off?
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... 5S1YGBZzUw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:05 pm

Damo wrote:I would love to live in your black and white world charlie

So wait a minute. When you lot say Labour borrows too much, Tories don't" that's ok. But when someone proves this to be false by actually looking at the data then you complain about "black and white" thinking.

******* ideologues.

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:16 pm

Politics, Religion, the US, Donald Trump, Economics...is there anything you do know about Turtle ?

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:17 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:So wait a minute. When you lot say Labour borrows too much, Tories don't" that's ok. But when someone proves this to be false by actually looking at the data then you complain about "black and white" thinking.

******* ideologues.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
Check the post above yours as to why borrowing skews what your trying to pin on the tory's

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:18 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:Politics, Religion, the US, Donald Trump, Economics...is there anything you do know about Turtle ?

Football

Turfiteclaret · Post by **Turfiteclaret** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:20 pm

It's what you borrow it for and how you use it that matters. Also there was no choice but to borrow more to pay the debt and have more to invest to try and steady the ship. Of course we could have used our gold reserves. Oh hang on a minute!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:22 pm

Damo wrote:I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
Check the post above yours as to why borrowing skews what your trying to pin on the tory's

I've looked already, it does nothing to dispute the findings in the link i provided.

What is it you think it shows that debunks the content of link in the OP?

Claretrew · Post by **Claretrew** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:25 pm

Why not use the PFI to borrow without having to show it on the books oh wait labour did

Claretrew · Post by **Claretrew** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:27 pm

Which bit of the labour manifesto costs out the £10 minimum wage I couldn't just find that bit?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:28 pm

Turfiteclaret wrote:It's what you borrow it for and how you use it that matters. Also there was no choice but to borrow more to pay the debt and have more to invest to try and steady the ship. Of course we could have used our gold reserves. Oh hang on a minute!

How much do you think that gold was worth? In billions? Do you have any idea how little effect selling it all even at its peak would have had?

According to a Telegraph article in 2009 Brown's decision to sell when he did and not at gold's peak cost the UK £5 billion. That's 0.32% of the national debt as of Q1 2015.

Stop pretending that this gold would have solved all our problems because it makes you look stupid.

Claretrew · Post by **Claretrew** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:32 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:How much do you think that gold was worth? In billions? Do you have any idea how little effect selling it all even at its peak would have had?

According to a Telegraph article in 2009 Brown's decision to sell when he did and not at gold's peak cost the UK £5 billion. That's 0.32% of the national debt as of Q1 2015.

Stop pretending that this gold would have solved all our problems because it makes you look stupid.

Where as Brown announcing that he was about to dump 400 tonnes of gold was inspired brilliance.
Corrected the 900 to 400 call it the Diane influence.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:34 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I've looked already, it does nothing to dispute the findings in the link i provided.

What is it you think it shows that debunks the content of link in the OP?

Well for starters, it looks like we had to borrow a lot to steady the ship after the last time Labour were in government.
I have no doubt that Corbyn could get away with his anti austerity plans for a couple of years, but then I'd imagine the government that follows him would need to borrow to stop the UK from becoming the next Venuzuela.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:35 pm

Damo wrote:Well for starters, it looks like we had to borrow a lot to steady the ship after the last time Labour were in government.

This objection has already been raised and dealt with, if you would just scroll up a little bit. Or better yet, read the article before you criticise it. Now there's a novel idea.

Damo wrote:... the government that follows him would need to borrow to stop the UK from becoming the next Venuzuela.

I remember when idiots were saying that Osbourne saying we'll need an emergency budget was considered "scaremongering". We're going to have to come up with whole new words to describe this level of bullshit.

Turfiteclaret · Post by **Turfiteclaret** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:37 pm

resorting to insults shows how intelligent you are not me. Now read your own words. Browns decision cost the uk £5bn. Now I may or may not be stupid but I've never made a decision that cost the uk £5bn. How many union leaders could we have paid with£5bn ?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:42 pm

Still, if people want to believe the Daily Mail, a paper that once supported the Nazi party, and the Sun, a paper that claimed Liverpool supporters were responsible for the Hillsborough disaster, says it all!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:43 pm

Turfiteclaret wrote:resorting to insults shows how intelligent you are not me. Now read your own words. Browns decision cost the uk £5bn. Now I may or may not be stupid but I've never made a decision that cost the uk £5bn. How many union leaders could we have paid with£5bn ?

It wasn't an insult. You can choose to be insulted by it if you like, but that doesn't make it an insult. "You are stupid" is an insult, "it makes you look stupid" isn't, and in fact implies that might not be stupid.

That said, the rest of your post makes you look even more stupid than your other one (note how i'm still open to you not actually being as stupid as you look? but keep being offended). How many union leaders could we have paid if we closed tax loopholes? £5 billion 15 years ago is next to nothing compared to about £25 billion in avoided tax every single year.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:47 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:This objection has already been raised and dealt with, if you would just scroll up a little bit. Or better yet, read the article before you criticise it. Now there's a novel idea.

You engaged me not the other way around. I'm not going to read back because you think it counters my point

someclaretcharlieaccountorother wrote:
I remember when idiots were saying that Osbourne saying we'll need an emergency budget was considered "scaremongering". We're going to have to come up with whole new words to describe this level of bullshit.

Wtf are you even on about. There was no emergency budget. No need for one and there will no doubt not be an emergency budget in the future.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:49 pm

Spijed wrote:Still, if people want to believe the Daily Mail, a paper that once supported the Nazi party, and the Sun, a paper that claimed Liverpool supporters were responsible for the Hillsborough disaster, says it all!

Hang on, did someone quote the daily mail or the sun or are you just angry and short of a counter argument?

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:51 pm

The "Con"servative Party, What are they good for?

Well they primarily exist to support the extremes of big business and Off-Shore Tax Dodgers, using various methods to get elected, for example Divide and Conquer and playing to the less intelligent of the population through the Gutter Press etc.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:51 pm

Claretrew wrote:Where as Brown announcing that he was about to dump 400 tonnes of gold was inspired brilliance.

It's a really stupid point to make though. Like literally the most stupid possible anti-New Labour position to take. You could choose to blame Brown and Blair for not plugging the holes poked into our banking regulations by previous Tory governments that led to the very predictable 2008 collapse and i'd be on board with you. But instead you want to blame Brown personally for not predicting the future of the gold markets, an inability that cost us next to nothing compared to the 2008 collapse.

There is nor more stupid a complaint to make about New Labour than this ******* gold fascination the Mail has got you obsessed with. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:52 pm

Damo wrote:Hang on, did someone quote the daily mail or the sun or are you just angry and short of a counter argument?

The entire "gold reserves" argument is the work of the right-wing press.

Claretrew · Post by **Claretrew** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:53 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:This objection has already been raised and dealt with, if you would just scroll up a little bit. Or better yet, read the article before you criticise it. Now there's a novel idea.

I remember when idiots were saying that Osbourne saying we'll need an emergency budget was considered "scaremongering". We're going to have to come up with whole new words to describe this level of bullshit.

I trust you have read about Labours PFI borrowing to set up the hospitals which was hidden from the balance sheet. The Labour set up of the hospital trusts that have closed the A+E at Burnley.
In 1997 spending on NHS Managers was less than £190 million by 2010 this had risen by 450% to £1billion annually.
But that was all the old new Labour JC the leader of Labour now wouldn't be so profligate surely.

ontario claret · Post by **ontario claret** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:55 pm

This whole idea of "living within our means" has simply gotten out of control. Without a certain amount of debt, there simply isn't any growth in the economy. Look up "Schumpeter's Theory". This predates Keynesian economics. What it simply states is that you have to take a certain amount of money out of the economy in order to achieve growth, otherwise everything goes to consumption. This why the third world is stuck in neutral (or worse). Without a concept of borrowing and saving (ie. a banking system), you're simply spinning your wheels. The interest rate is simply the cost of money. If you have ideas for expanding the economy, you better get in now, because Trump's monetary theories (or lack thereof), are going to increase inflation with no corresponding increase in GNP. And the idea that Conservatives are the best overseers of the economy is just ludicrous. The Great Depression (the one in the '30s, not the one we just went through), was caused by a universal application of Conservative monetary policies. When the economy imploded after Black Friday, 1929, the central banks just stood to one side, or worse, cut back on government programmes that increased the "churn".

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:55 pm

Damo wrote:Hang on, did someone quote the daily mail or the sun or are you just angry and short of a counter argument?

People believe the Sun & Mail tell the truth, that's the problem!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri May 19, 2017 9:58 pm

Damo wrote:You engaged me not the other way around. I'm not going to read back because you think it counters my point

Lol, what?

Damo wrote:I would love to live in your black and white world charlie

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Fri May 19, 2017 10:01 pm

IT, Damo thinks you're an Alsation and dogs cant' see colour, I think that's what he means.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Fri May 19, 2017 10:03 pm

Spijed wrote:People believe the Sun & Mail tell the truth, that's the problem!

Typical angry left wing response

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri May 19, 2017 10:04 pm

ClaretAndJew wrote:IT, Damo thinks you're an Alsation and dogs cant' see colour, I think that's what he means.

We're allies now, we can call then German Shepherds again.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Fri May 19, 2017 11:20 pm

ClaretAndJew wrote:IT, Damo thinks you're an Alsation and dogs cant' see colour, I think that's what he means.

I've read some odd responses in my time.....

kritichris · Post by **kritichris** » Fri May 19, 2017 11:28 pm

Calm down, it's not the Tory's borrowing that should concern us on here, it's what the venky's are borrowing, that's more fun.

barba · Post by **barba** » Fri May 19, 2017 11:44 pm

if you compare borrowing on a proportionate GDP basis rather than absolute then past Governments do fare worse

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Fri May 19, 2017 11:54 pm

It's rather strange that Tory supporters would make a big deal about Brown selling off the gold, when the Tories have sold off a great deal more. Royal Mail, anyone? Sold off well below its value.

barba · Post by **barba** » Sat May 20, 2017 12:01 am

AndrewJB wrote:It's rather strange that Tory supporters would make a big deal about Brown selling off the gold, when the Tories have sold off a great deal more. Royal Mail, anyone? Sold off well below its value.

Politics aside notifying the market you are selling large amounts of an asset on a given date is as naive as it is stupid.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat May 20, 2017 1:28 am

barba wrote:if you compare borrowing on a proportionate GDP basis rather than absolute then past Governments do fare worse

Public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... /hf6x/pusf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By the way, Japan is at almost 130% of GDP but they're essentially money printing (quantitative easing) to service it if I'm not mistaken (others on here will no doubt be more informed that I) and the markets are calm about it because they hold a lot of assets and aren't holding much foreign debt at all. Public finances shouldn't ever be interpreted or managed in the way household finances are managed.

barba · Post by **barba** » Sat May 20, 2017 2:12 am

Spiral wrote: By the way, Japan is at almost 130% of GDP but they're essentially money printing (quantitative easing) to service it if I'm not mistaken (others on here will no doubt be more informed that I) and the markets are calm about it because they hold a lot of assets and aren't holding much foreign debt at all. Public finances shouldn't ever be interpreted or managed in the way household finances are managed.

Japan are blowing all past use of QE out of the water with their 'Abenomics'

Effectively they are trying to steepen the 10 year yield curve (interest rate) with the view to stimulate bank profits which historically leads to economic stimulation and growth through inflation.

Re your link; looking at early 70's and mid 40's for obvious reasons show a different picture than post 93.

Ultimately I think that the only way 'they' can deal with the debt is to inflate it away which is basically **** for me and you.

mikeS · Post by **mikeS** » Sat May 20, 2017 6:09 am

I'm waiting to hear what the real reason for the election, Brexit, is going to cost. Whats the divorce settlement going to be? Figures of between £50Bn to £100Bn being mentioned. David Davies says, "It won't be anywhere near that." Boris Johnson says we'll pay nothing. Will there be any on-going financial comittment to stay in the single market? The Tories are the ones who got us into this mess. They caused this ****, but it will be the rest of us who pay for it in the end.

kentonclaret · Post by **kentonclaret** » Sat May 20, 2017 6:27 am

Of course it will be the ordinary people of Britain that will bear the brunt should Britain not get a successful negotiated settlement to leave the European Union and Theresa May stated as much during her statement outside No. 10 denouncing EU dirty tricks. Although that part of the statement was virtually ignored by the pro Brexit press.

"If we do not get this right the consequences will be serious. And, they will be felt by ORDINARY WORKING PEOPLE across the country."

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sat May 20, 2017 6:59 am

ITT: people who don't know the difference between the national debt and the deficit.

OffTheBar · Post by **OffTheBar** » Sat May 20, 2017 7:17 am

I was going to read that, but then saw who it was by. The guy behind Corbyn's economic plan. Conflict of interest?

Who do you think will borrow more over the next parliament? What's been happening to net issuance over the past few years?

Borrowing for the UK isn't the same issue it is for Greece or Spain in terms of default risk, nevertheless a big debt plan would likely increase the cost.

mdd2 · Post by **mdd2** » Sat May 20, 2017 11:19 am

Lies damn lies and statistics. If you read the entire article and comments you can say as It says that the Tories borrow more or that in fact it is about equal or that as people would think that Labour borrow more.
Makes for an interesting read that labour borrow less and payback more. Makes one wonder how the hell we managed to have the IMF in in the1970's with such a careful lot in power and why Prudence before the crash had the National debt rising.
There can be little doubt that the Tories have overseen the biggest rise in National debt since the war years.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Sat May 20, 2017 11:20 am

It is an interesting article IT has posted and reading the comments is also worth it. It covers some of the items mentioned here - PFI, gold sales.

It is, as the author says, just facts. It also, again as the author points out, contradicts a basic tenet of electioneering - Labour borrows, Conservatives save.

No explanation of the figures is offered and of course that is where the argument should be.

But no-one has said the facts are false.

On an economic note, as I understand it, governments borrow using 'Gilts' and most of these are for a fixed term and fixed interest. Recently Gilts have had an extremely low yield so it seems to make sense (i.e. it is cheap) to borrow at this time. The only issue is they will have to be paid back in so many years (fifteen, thirty say), and if they can't then that money will have to be re-borrowed with new Gilts at the then current rate which of course may be higher. As long as borrowers have faith we will pay it back we can borrow relatively cheaply.

http://www.dmo.gov.uk/index.aspx?page=gilts/about_gilts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/627/e ... ent-money/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sat May 20, 2017 1:41 pm

OK then lefties if you want to bring the deficit down then what do you want to cut first ?

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat May 20, 2017 1:54 pm

You don't cut services, that just shrinks the economy. Cutting taxes certainly wont bring it down. You collect tax from those who can afford it and invest in infrastructure. That puts people in work. People in work pay taxes.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sat May 20, 2017 2:41 pm

Some very good posts on here ( and some real shytte) from the usual idiots.

- 'bout time that the Tory/Media lie was nailed about the Conservatives being sound in terms of debt and money.. no they are not - the National Debt has doubled ( hard to believe) in the last 7 years while the fool Osborne ( he has done a runner since, into another 'fat cat' job) was practising 'austerity'.
On the back of the 2008/9 bank- caused calamity he actually tried to run the economy by CUTTING demand through public spending cuts and taxation increase...a weak GCSE student heading for a grade D will tell you that Osborne should have done exactly the opposite...in a difficult recession packed economy the clown deflated rather than reflating.
The incompetent oaf...thank God he's out of the picture now for good.

Oh my God..the 1970's IMF story and the more recent Gold Reserve story...how many times..?
These are minuscule non- events in the scheme of things and should be challenged every time the right wing laboured thinkers wheel them out...read the full stories of the two events from a decent source.

Finally..anyone who seriously thinks that comparing Venezuela and the U.K economically is a good ideas, needs their head examining.

What is becoming clear with every day passing, is that the Tories are bereft of new ideas and sharp 2017 thinking...they are hiding away, saying little, refusing to debate, cocooning apes like Boris Johnson and hoping that the opinion polls are somewhere near accurate.

- anyone can see that they are 'frit' and on the run.