Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What happened to all the money they made by increasing VAT on private school? Didn't work out the way they wanted? Yet another economically illiterate left wing policy I guess " It is estimated that extending VAT to private school fees will raise £460m in 2024/25, rising to £1.51 billion in 2025/26. The government forecast that imposing VAT on fees will result in 37,000 pupils leaving the private sector, representing about 6% of the current private school population. (Parliamentary briefing 23 Dec 2024) For perspective interest on the national debt is £300M a day | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. " Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch." Schools aren't funded by local councils. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x" Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars." The funding for this school year would have been set before the last election. Next years budget will be in the next few months. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars." Are we doing that? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch." Labour have introduced a £700million bill for councils with the increase to NI. They know how to run a tight ship.....  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x" Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers." Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x" Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage." Austerity as imposed by the Tories was way too harsh, poorly implementation and not taken up by any of our European partners. They did ok, but we had to be shit on from a great height by those lying scumbags. But hey ho the haves taking from the have nots again, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage." If austerity was doing fine can you explain the state of the country’s infrastructure ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage.Austerity as imposed by the Tories was way too harsh, poorly implementation and not taken up by any of our European partners. They did ok, but we had to be shit on from a great height by those lying scumbags. But hey ho the haves taking from the have nots again, Mrs x" How is austerity same as taking from the have nots? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage. If austerity was doing fine can you explain the state of the country’s infrastructure ?" It wasn't fine though. It was a huge mistake, depressing the nation not only financially but mentally. It's even been said that this depressing change in mindset can in some way explain the vote seen in Brexit. It was a disaster inflicted on the British public. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage. If austerity was doing fine can you explain the state of the country’s infrastructure ?" The country's debts were coming down. If a family keeps borrowing and spending, it will look nice and happy for awhile, until they couldn't even pay the interests for the debt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage. If austerity was doing fine can you explain the state of the country’s infrastructure ?It wasn't fine though. It was a huge mistake, depressing the nation not only financially but mentally. It's even been said that this depressing change in mindset can in some way explain the vote seen in Brexit. It was a disaster inflicted on the British public. Mrs x" Borrowing money without any idea of how to pay back isn't a solution. As I mentioned above, that's how you end up like Argentina | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage.Austerity as imposed by the Tories was way too harsh, poorly implementation and not taken up by any of our European partners. They did ok, but we had to be shit on from a great height by those lying scumbags. But hey ho the haves taking from the have nots again, Mrs x How is austerity same as taking from the have nots?" There the ones that suffered through the use of this fiscal monstrosity. It was unnecessary. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage.Austerity as imposed by the Tories was way too harsh, poorly implementation and not taken up by any of our European partners. They did ok, but we had to be shit on from a great height by those lying scumbags. But hey ho the haves taking from the have nots again, Mrs x How is austerity same as taking from the have nots?There the ones that suffered through the use of this fiscal monstrosity. It was unnecessary. Mrs x" NOT giving out free money isn't monstrosity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage. If austerity was doing fine can you explain the state of the country’s infrastructure ?It wasn't fine though. It was a huge mistake, depressing the nation not only financially but mentally. It's even been said that this depressing change in mindset can in some way explain the vote seen in Brexit. It was a disaster inflicted on the British public. Mrs x Borrowing money without any idea of how to pay back isn't a solution. As I mentioned above, that's how you end up like Argentina" Sorry but I don't know your background but unless you are a world leading authority on economics, you are arguing a case that's in opposition from such people. Quote from The New York Times about how experts from the UN viewed this... "A United Nations expert said late last year that efforts by the Conservative government to pare state spending were “entrenching high levels of poverty and inflicting unnecessary misery in one of the richest countries in the world.” Since 2010, the Conservative government has announced more than 30 billion pounds, or nearly $40 billion, in cuts to welfare payments, housing subsidies and social services, and the British leadership is in “a state of denial” about the devastation its policies have wrought, the United Nations said. The British government disputed those findings, but there are many signs that social well-being declined under austerity. The use of food banks almost doubled between 2013 and 2017. Families that receive benefits are now thousands of dollars worse off every year." "High levels of poverty", "unnecessary misery", "state of denial" and " devestation" are not positive phrases. It was, and still is an unmitigated disaster. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage. If austerity was doing fine can you explain the state of the country’s infrastructure ? The country's debts were coming down. If a family keeps borrowing and spending, it will look nice and happy for awhile, until they couldn't even pay the interests for the debt." That didn’t answer the question. If austerity was doing fine, why are our roads in such disrepair, why are our schools infrastructure in such disrepair, why are our hospitals in such disrepair. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage. If austerity was doing fine can you explain the state of the country’s infrastructure ? The country's debts were coming down. If a family keeps borrowing and spending, it will look nice and happy for awhile, until they couldn't even pay the interests for the debt. That didn’t answer the question. If austerity was doing fine, why are our roads in such disrepair, why are our schools infrastructure in such disrepair, why are our hospitals in such disrepair. " Maybe the money has gone elsewhere, it doesn't just disappear, or maybe it does.... big black hole anyone? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage. If austerity was doing fine can you explain the state of the country’s infrastructure ? The country's debts were coming down. If a family keeps borrowing and spending, it will look nice and happy for awhile, until they couldn't even pay the interests for the debt. That didn’t answer the question. If austerity was doing fine, why are our roads in such disrepair, why are our schools infrastructure in such disrepair, why are our hospitals in such disrepair. " The roads are in disrepair because the country didn't have the money. The country did not have the productivity to keep the infrastructure running. How do you fix the problem? Control the spending and tell people to get back to work. That's what austerity was doing. But just when the country's debt to GDP ratio was going down, we went on a spending rampage. Would you rather keep borrowing and spend the money without having any plans on how to pay it back or be fiscally responsible, cut down the spending and then start spending when the economy is back on tracks? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What happened to all the money they made by increasing VAT on private school? Didn't work out the way they wanted? Yet another economically illiterate left wing policy I guess It is estimated that extending VAT to private school fees will raise £460m in 2024/25, rising to £1.51 billion in 2025/26. The government forecast that imposing VAT on fees will result in 37,000 pupils leaving the private sector, representing about 6% of the current private school population. (Parliamentary briefing 23 Dec 2024) For perspective interest on the national debt is £300M a day " And lots of private schools are claiming VAT back from building projects and improvements now they are vat registered they can. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage. If austerity was doing fine can you explain the state of the country’s infrastructure ?It wasn't fine though. It was a huge mistake, depressing the nation not only financially but mentally. It's even been said that this depressing change in mindset can in some way explain the vote seen in Brexit. It was a disaster inflicted on the British public. Mrs x Borrowing money without any idea of how to pay back isn't a solution. As I mentioned above, that's how you end up like ArgentinaSorry but I don't know your background but unless you are a world leading authority on economics, you are arguing a case that's in opposition from such people. Quote from The New York Times about how experts from the UN viewed this... "A United Nations expert said late last year that efforts by the Conservative government to pare state spending were “entrenching high levels of poverty and inflicting unnecessary misery in one of the richest countries in the world.” Since 2010, the Conservative government has announced more than 30 billion pounds, or nearly $40 billion, in cuts to welfare payments, housing subsidies and social services, and the British leadership is in “a state of denial” about the devastation its policies have wrought, the United Nations said. The British government disputed those findings, but there are many signs that social well-being declined under austerity. The use of food banks almost doubled between 2013 and 2017. Families that receive benefits are now thousands of dollars worse off every year." "High levels of poverty", "unnecessary misery", "state of denial" and " devestation" are not positive phrases. It was, and still is an unmitigated disaster. Mrs x" No one denied that social well being went down during that period. But that doesn't mean austerity was wrong. The truth is that the country just did not have enough money. You can't keep borrowing and spending. Would you rather have the country be fiscally responsible now so that things are stable in the long term or would you prefer being like a family spending over their means, swiping out the credit card everywhere, collecting major debts until one day the debt collectors come to collect their debts and make them homeless? All the great infrastructure here and in other Western European countries were possible when the productivity per person was growing rapidly. Right now, we have an ageing population. And the working age population is work averse. You just can't sustain the same thing anymore. You can keep voting for different parties all you want. No politician can create a magic well of money. This means some sacrifices have to be made. Some social welfare will have to be given up. Unfortunately people here are still living in a denial, building castles in the air about how a politician will wave a magic wand and save the country. Just the same path that Argentina took. Now they are relying on Milei to save them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch." Shhhhhhhh don't be be telling the truth, the righties may believe you  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Liebour have always been full of shit, who every voted this bunch of liars and clowns in need to be ashamed of them selves. " Ain't happening!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can spend money here first on teachers then spend whats left overseas. Why fund a war when you can fund a teacher, too much money is being syphoned out of this country like a leaking tap. Are we at War? Must have missed that, Mrs x Oh yeh we're not, even more reason not to fund other people's wars.Are we doing that? Mrs x Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage. If austerity was doing fine can you explain the state of the country’s infrastructure ? The country's debts were coming down. If a family keeps borrowing and spending, it will look nice and happy for awhile, until they couldn't even pay the interests for the debt. That didn’t answer the question. If austerity was doing fine, why are our roads in such disrepair, why are our schools infrastructure in such disrepair, why are our hospitals in such disrepair. The roads are in disrepair because the country didn't have the money. The country did not have the productivity to keep the infrastructure running. How do you fix the problem? Control the spending and tell people to get back to work. That's what austerity was doing. But just when the country's debt to GDP ratio was going down, we went on a spending rampage. Would you rather keep borrowing and spend the money without having any plans on how to pay it back or be fiscally responsible, cut down the spending and then start spending when the economy is back on tracks?" But that's not what the experts say is it though. At times like this you need to stimulate the economy not suppress it. We went in the opposite direction to economic practice. Why did we do that? Because we shit ourselves about Greece and the very real threat it was going tit's up. It had a huge negative effect of the Stocks Market and this spooked Osbourne to behave like he did. Now I know the US did similar too but they had a divided government at the time and Obama had to bow to pressure from the Republicans but Osbourne didn't. In the end the Stock market didn't react so harshly towards America so they eased their austerity measures following the more conventional economic advice. So when it became obvious we weren't going to the wall, that our circumstances weren't the same as Greece's why wasn't austerity eased then? Because it looks good, at least to Osbourne etc al, to be "responsible". But by reducing investment in things like local councils and the NHS might look responsible in such times it has a huge incremental effect over time and we are paying the price for that now. It's not just enough to say we've increased funding this year so that these services can operate but you have to find a way of funding all the damage that's been done to the infrastructure through these austerity policies and that's going to be near nigh on impossible. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch. Schools aren't funded by local councils." Academies aren't. But not all schools are academies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage. If austerity was doing fine can you explain the state of the country’s infrastructure ? The country's debts were coming down. If a family keeps borrowing and spending, it will look nice and happy for awhile, until they couldn't even pay the interests for the debt. That didn’t answer the question. If austerity was doing fine, why are our roads in such disrepair, why are our schools infrastructure in such disrepair, why are our hospitals in such disrepair. The roads are in disrepair because the country didn't have the money. The country did not have the productivity to keep the infrastructure running. How do you fix the problem? Control the spending and tell people to get back to work. That's what austerity was doing. But just when the country's debt to GDP ratio was going down, we went on a spending rampage. Would you rather keep borrowing and spend the money without having any plans on how to pay it back or be fiscally responsible, cut down the spending and then start spending when the economy is back on tracks?But that's not what the experts say is it though. At times like this you need to stimulate the economy not suppress it. We went in the opposite direction to economic practice. Why did we do that? Because we shit ourselves about Greece and the very real threat it was going tit's up. It had a huge negative effect of the Stocks Market and this spooked Osbourne to behave like he did. Now I know the US did similar too but they had a divided government at the time and Obama had to bow to pressure from the Republicans but Osbourne didn't. In the end the Stock market didn't react so harshly towards America so they eased their austerity measures following the more conventional economic advice. So when it became obvious we weren't going to the wall, that our circumstances weren't the same as Greece's why wasn't austerity eased then? Because it looks good, at least to Osbourne etc al, to be "responsible". But by reducing investment in things like local councils and the NHS might look responsible in such times it has a huge incremental effect over time and we are paying the price for that now. It's not just enough to say we've increased funding this year so that these services can operate but you have to find a way of funding all the damage that's been done to the infrastructure through these austerity policies and that's going to be near nigh on impossible. Mrs x" For every expert that supports your view, I can find different experts who support my view. Economists are also split based on right wing, left wing and Keynesian views. You can't force stimulate an economy when it's not productive. If you have numerous people who want to work but couldn't find work, you stimulate it by making investments. If there aren't enough people to work, what good is throwing more money going to do? It's easy to say we have to "find the funding". Where is it going to come from? Who is going to work for it? Who is going to pay for it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Good to know we're not, so there shouldn't be any problem funding teachers.Apart from the policies tge Tories imposed which decimated local councils and their ability to fund education in their wards. Austerity wasn't such a good idea after all, Mrs x Austerity was doing just fine. The problem is that the Tories ended up reversing all of austerity with their covid time spending to the point they ended up collecting way more debt than where they started. UK's debt to GDP ratio stabilised for a few years and just started dropping in 2019 and then COVID happened. Simply put, UK doesn't have the productivity levels to keep borrowing and spending. UK and most of Western Europe are going through the same trajectory that Argentina took until they defaulted in their debts. Once that happens, austerity will be forced on you whether you like it or not. It's better to course-correct ourselves before we reach that stage. If austerity was doing fine can you explain the state of the country’s infrastructure ?It wasn't fine though. It was a huge mistake, depressing the nation not only financially but mentally. It's even been said that this depressing change in mindset can in some way explain the vote seen in Brexit. It was a disaster inflicted on the British public. Mrs x Borrowing money without any idea of how to pay back isn't a solution. As I mentioned above, that's how you end up like ArgentinaSorry but I don't know your background but unless you are a world leading authority on economics, you are arguing a case that's in opposition from such people. Quote from The New York Times about how experts from the UN viewed this... "A United Nations expert said late last year that efforts by the Conservative government to pare state spending were “entrenching high levels of poverty and inflicting unnecessary misery in one of the richest countries in the world.” Since 2010, the Conservative government has announced more than 30 billion pounds, or nearly $40 billion, in cuts to welfare payments, housing subsidies and social services, and the British leadership is in “a state of denial” about the devastation its policies have wrought, the United Nations said. The British government disputed those findings, but there are many signs that social well-being declined under austerity. The use of food banks almost doubled between 2013 and 2017. Families that receive benefits are now thousands of dollars worse off every year." "High levels of poverty", "unnecessary misery", "state of denial" and " devestation" are not positive phrases. It was, and still is an unmitigated disaster. Mrs x No one denied that social well being went down during that period. But that doesn't mean austerity was wrong. The truth is that the country just did not have enough money. You can't keep borrowing and spending. Would you rather have the country be fiscally responsible now so that things are stable in the long term or would you prefer being like a family spending over their means, swiping out the credit card everywhere, collecting major debts until one day the debt collectors come to collect their debts and make them homeless? All the great infrastructure here and in other Western European countries were possible when the productivity per person was growing rapidly. Right now, we have an ageing population. And the working age population is work averse. You just can't sustain the same thing anymore. You can keep voting for different parties all you want. No politician can create a magic well of money. This means some sacrifices have to be made. Some social welfare will have to be given up. Unfortunately people here are still living in a denial, building castles in the air about how a politician will wave a magic wand and save the country. Just the same path that Argentina took. Now they are relying on Milei to save them." Not sure we're you are getting your economic theory from. It's not the same running running a government as running a family, poor analogy. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. So the Tories squeezed every part of the economy, cut all aspects of social welfare, education, health everything. They did this to save money, is that what you are saying? Because if that's the case, the Tories stopped spending, to "save" money can you explain why Osbourne left a huge increase in the national debt? Just for you to have a look at, from the Independant, "If one compares Osborne's original borrowing targets we find that public borrowing has been higher in every year since 2012-13. The cumulative borrowing is £171bn more than projected six years ago" over 170 billion more than predicted, so that worked didn't it. What about GDP? "In those original plans public debt as a share of GDP was supposed to peak at 70 per cent in 2013-14 and decline to 67 per cent by the end of 2015-16. Instead, it has now hit 84 per cent of GDP." Another failure through austerity. So you can see running a government is clearly not done under the same lines as running a family. Families who tighten their purse strings in times of hardship may benefit from squirrelling a little something away, that's true, but in cases like this Osbourne should have tried to stimulate the economy but he didn't. He also didn't hit any of his targets set for his plans for austerity, not one. So if debt was higher, no targets was met you still going to claim a "victory" for austerity. By any metric i can find its not only a defeat but a knockout we are still suffering from today. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Not sure we're you are getting your economic theory from. It's not the same running running a government as running a family, poor analogy. " It's almost the same. End of the day, you can't create something out of nothing. You can't put food on people's plates if not enough people are working. You can't get goods or services if not enough people are working. " But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. So the Tories squeezed every part of the economy, cut all aspects of social welfare, education, health everything. They did this to save money, is that what you are saying? " Yes. In a way, their hands were forced. There is a limit to how much you can borrow. A lesson Labour is learning the hard way. I hope that one day people will also learn the same lesson. " Because if that's the case, the Tories stopped spending, to "save" money can you explain why Osbourne left a huge increase in the national debt? Just for you to have a look at, from the Independant, "If one compares Osborne's original borrowing targets we find that public borrowing has been higher in every year since 2012-13. The cumulative borrowing is £171bn more than projected six years ago" over 170 billion more than predicted, so that worked didn't it. " Because the previous labour government had already signed up for a lot of spending in terms of wages and policies? If you look at debt vs GDP graph, you will see that the ratio was up in the first few years of the Tories rule but then it stabilised at the same level, before it came down in 2019. That's why I said that austerity was working. The country's debt to GDP ratio eventually started going down. " "In those original plans public debt as a share of GDP was supposed to peak at 70 per cent in 2013-14 and decline to 67 per cent by the end of 2015-16. Instead, it has now hit 84 per cent of GDP." Another failure through austerity. " There is no evidence to show that not having austerity would have made things better. " So you can see running a government is clearly not done under the same lines as running a family. Families who tighten their purse strings in times of hardship may benefit from squirrelling a little something away, that's true, but in cases like this Osbourne should have tried to stimulate the economy but he didn't. He also didn't hit any of his targets set for his plans for austerity, not one. " I still haven't heard an explanation for how pumping more money into an work averse country is going to magically make things better. In a country where people are struggling to find jobs,it works. In countries where businesses are struggling to find workers and millions of working age people prefer living off benefits, it is not going to help. " So if debt was higher, no targets was met you still going to claim a "victory" for austerity. By any metric i can find its not only a defeat but a knockout we are still suffering from today. Mrs x " I claim victory because debt to GDP ratio started going down in 2019. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Not sure we're you are getting your economic theory from. It's not the same running running a government as running a family, poor analogy. It's almost the same. End of the day, you can't create something out of nothing. You can't put food on people's plates if not enough people are working. You can't get goods or services if not enough people are working. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. So the Tories squeezed every part of the economy, cut all aspects of social welfare, education, health everything. They did this to save money, is that what you are saying? Yes. In a way, their hands were forced. There is a limit to how much you can borrow. A lesson Labour is learning the hard way. I hope that one day people will also learn the same lesson. Because if that's the case, the Tories stopped spending, to "save" money can you explain why Osbourne left a huge increase in the national debt? Just for you to have a look at, from the Independant, "If one compares Osborne's original borrowing targets we find that public borrowing has been higher in every year since 2012-13. The cumulative borrowing is £171bn more than projected six years ago" over 170 billion more than predicted, so that worked didn't it. Because the previous labour government had already signed up for a lot of spending in terms of wages and policies? If you look at debt vs GDP graph, you will see that the ratio was up in the first few years of the Tories rule but then it stabilised at the same level, before it came down in 2019. That's why I said that austerity was working. The country's debt to GDP ratio eventually started going down. "In those original plans public debt as a share of GDP was supposed to peak at 70 per cent in 2013-14 and decline to 67 per cent by the end of 2015-16. Instead, it has now hit 84 per cent of GDP." Another failure through austerity. There is no evidence to show that not having austerity would have made things better. So you can see running a government is clearly not done under the same lines as running a family. Families who tighten their purse strings in times of hardship may benefit from squirrelling a little something away, that's true, but in cases like this Osbourne should have tried to stimulate the economy but he didn't. He also didn't hit any of his targets set for his plans for austerity, not one. I still haven't heard an explanation for how pumping more money into an work averse country is going to magically make things better. In a country where people are struggling to find jobs,it works. In countries where businesses are struggling to find workers and millions of working age people prefer living off benefits, it is not going to help. So if debt was higher, no targets was met you still going to claim a "victory" for austerity. By any metric i can find its not only a defeat but a knockout we are still suffering from today. Mrs x I claim victory because debt to GDP ratio started going down in 2019. " So for 9 years it was shit and you claim victory for that, ok you can have it, all the evidence and quotes are obviously shit, you're right you've won. 9 years of pain and suffering but it worked and everyone feels so much better off now, hahaha ha, it is funny and tragic that you feel like that. And as for an explanation how things would work or would have worked. That's not down to me, I'm not an expert, maybe you are but I'm not. However I can read and I've supplied enough evidence, from reputable sources, to back up what I've said. Don't care if you've read anything I've posted and quoted and that's on you but austerity was a disaster confirmed by most reputable experts except yourself, so you win, well done, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch. Shhhhhhhh don't be be telling the truth, the righties may believe you "Gordon Brown's government left a very obnoxious note after they left office. Leaving the economy in yet another recession. Callaghn pretty much kicked the country into touch gifting it to the Tories. Labours record is as bad if not worse. Add the funding of dodgy groups abroad under the guise of foreign aid. Any wrong this government does will come under the magnifying glass quite rightly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch. Shhhhhhhh don't be be telling the truth, the righties may believe you
Gordon Brown's government left a very obnoxious note after they left office.
Leaving the economy in yet another recession.
Callaghn pretty much kicked the country into touch gifting it to the Tories.
Labours record is as bad if not worse.
Add the funding of dodgy groups abroad under the guise of foreign aid.
Any wrong this government does will come under the magnifying glass quite rightly.
"Just not true, the world had a huge financial crash which affected what Brown left. The OPEC crisis affected the whole of the 70s, you don't have that many elections within a decade if everything's stable. And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. But don't let facts get in the way of your story, carry on. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch. Shhhhhhhh don't be be telling the truth, the righties may believe you
Gordon Brown's government left a very obnoxious note after they left office.
Leaving the economy in yet another recession.
Callaghn pretty much kicked the country into touch gifting it to the Tories.
Labours record is as bad if not worse.
Add the funding of dodgy groups abroad under the guise of foreign aid.
Any wrong this government does will come under the magnifying glass quite rightly.
Just not true, the world had a huge financial crash which affected what Brown left.
The OPEC crisis affected the whole of the 70s, you don't have that many elections within a decade if everything's stable.
And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories.
But don't let facts get in the way of your story, carry on.
Mrs x"
How come the Tories kept winning elections if Labour so good.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch. Shhhhhhhh don't be be telling the truth, the righties may believe you
Gordon Brown's government left a very obnoxious note after they left office.
Leaving the economy in yet another recession.
Callaghn pretty much kicked the country into touch gifting it to the Tories.
Labours record is as bad if not worse.
Add the funding of dodgy groups abroad under the guise of foreign aid.
Any wrong this government does will come under the magnifying glass quite rightly.
Just not true, the world had a huge financial crash which affected what Brown left.
The OPEC crisis affected the whole of the 70s, you don't have that many elections within a decade if everything's stable.
And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories.
But don't let facts get in the way of your story, carry on.
Mrs x
How come the Tories kept winning elections if Labour so good.
"I've responded to your post, you can believe it or not. Every labour government has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tory party. I should imagine other factors come into play as per election results. Sure you'll tell me now though, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch. Shhhhhhhh don't be be telling the truth, the righties may believe you
Gordon Brown's government left a very obnoxious note after they left office.
Leaving the economy in yet another recession.
Callaghn pretty much kicked the country into touch gifting it to the Tories.
Labours record is as bad if not worse.
Add the funding of dodgy groups abroad under the guise of foreign aid.
Any wrong this government does will come under the magnifying glass quite rightly.
Just not true, the world had a huge financial crash which affected what Brown left.
The OPEC crisis affected the whole of the 70s, you don't have that many elections within a decade if everything's stable.
And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories.
But don't let facts get in the way of your story, carry on.
Mrs x
How come the Tories kept winning elections if Labour so good.
"Better liars/ manipulators/ propagandists/ story tellers/ promisers? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch. Shhhhhhhh don't be be telling the truth, the righties may believe you
Gordon Brown's government left a very obnoxious note after they left office.
Leaving the economy in yet another recession.
Callaghn pretty much kicked the country into touch gifting it to the Tories.
Labours record is as bad if not worse.
Add the funding of dodgy groups abroad under the guise of foreign aid.
Any wrong this government does will come under the magnifying glass quite rightly.
Just not true, the world had a huge financial crash which affected what Brown left.
The OPEC crisis affected the whole of the 70s, you don't have that many elections within a decade if everything's stable.
And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories.
But don't let facts get in the way of your story, carry on.
Mrs x
How come the Tories kept winning elections if Labour so good.
"Because the vote was split between the parties on the left/centre left, pretty much handing the Tories victory in most elections. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch. Shhhhhhhh don't be be telling the truth, the righties may believe you
Gordon Brown's government left a very obnoxious note after they left office.
Leaving the economy in yet another recession.
Callaghn pretty much kicked the country into touch gifting it to the Tories.
Labours record is as bad if not worse.
Add the funding of dodgy groups abroad under the guise of foreign aid.
Any wrong this government does will come under the magnifying glass quite rightly.
Just not true, the world had a huge financial crash which affected what Brown left.
The OPEC crisis affected the whole of the 70s, you don't have that many elections within a decade if everything's stable.
And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories.
But don't let facts get in the way of your story, carry on.
Mrs x
How come the Tories kept winning elections if Labour so good.
Better liars/ manipulators/ propagandists/ story tellers/ promisers?"So the winter of discontent was propaganda and lies, even though our rubbish was piling up in the streets, dead not being buried, lorry drivers on strike, unions battling with the goverment, Unemployment increasing. There was a fair amount of socialist propaganda aswell, I know I was there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch. Shhhhhhhh don't be be telling the truth, the righties may believe you
Gordon Brown's government left a very obnoxious note after they left office.
Leaving the economy in yet another recession.
Callaghn pretty much kicked the country into touch gifting it to the Tories.
Labours record is as bad if not worse.
Add the funding of dodgy groups abroad under the guise of foreign aid.
Any wrong this government does will come under the magnifying glass quite rightly.
Just not true, the world had a huge financial crash which affected what Brown left.
The OPEC crisis affected the whole of the 70s, you don't have that many elections within a decade if everything's stable.
And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories.
But don't let facts get in the way of your story, carry on.
Mrs x
How come the Tories kept winning elections if Labour so good.
I've responded to your post, you can believe it or not. Every labour government has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tory party.
I should imagine other factors come into play as per election results. Sure you'll tell me now though,
Mrs x"Regarding the bit about Labour borrowing less and paying back more, are you expecting this to continue under the present regime | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I claim victory because debt to GDP ratio started going down in 2019. So for 9 years it was shit and you claim victory for that, ok you can have it, all the evidence and quotes are obviously shit, you're right you've won. 9 years of pain and suffering but it worked and everyone feels so much better off now, hahaha ha, it is funny and tragic that you feel like that. " When did I say the evidence was shit? The debt GDP ratio went up for the first couple of years, then stabilised for a few years and going down eventually. Just like how economic reforms usually work. As I mentioned before, unfortunately people want magical solutions to everything. The argument is simple - Do not spend beyond your means. If you want to spend more, then increase your production. You can't keep increasing your spending while more and more people just stop working. " And as for an explanation how things would work or would have worked. That's not down to me, I'm not an expert, maybe you are but I'm not. However I can read and I've supplied enough evidence, from reputable sources, to back up what I've said. " All the "evidence" you supplied are basically predictions of what might have happened. If you have followed these predictions closely, you would have realised how terrible these "experts" are at predicting the economic outcomes one quarter ahead, let alone long term. My arguments are based on principles and events which actually happened. Argentina is a clear example of what unchecked spending can lead to. I think that's a much better argument to make than the predictions made by self proclaimed experts. For every expert prediction you are pointing out, I can also show you expert predictions from right wing think-tanks. I don't do it because I know that these predictions aren't worth anything. " Don't care if you've read anything I've posted and quoted and that's on you but austerity was a disaster confirmed by most reputable experts except yourself, so you win, well done, Mrs x" Yeah expert predictions are cool as long as they agree with your own economic views? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch. Shhhhhhhh don't be be telling the truth, the righties may believe you
Gordon Brown's government left a very obnoxious note after they left office.
Leaving the economy in yet another recession.
Callaghn pretty much kicked the country into touch gifting it to the Tories.
Labours record is as bad if not worse.
Add the funding of dodgy groups abroad under the guise of foreign aid.
Any wrong this government does will come under the magnifying glass quite rightly.
Just not true, the world had a huge financial crash which affected what Brown left.
The OPEC crisis affected the whole of the 70s, you don't have that many elections within a decade if everything's stable.
And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories.
But don't let facts get in the way of your story, carry on.
Mrs x
How come the Tories kept winning elections if Labour so good.
I've responded to your post, you can believe it or not. Every labour government has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tory party.
I should imagine other factors come into play as per election results. Sure you'll tell me now though,
Mrs x"The both oil crisie were while Tory and Lab were in power, they both had to deal with them, we had North Sea Oil being discovered at the same time so the Oil issue cancels itself out, and if the crisie hadn't occurred domestic problems were crux of both parties downfall. The fact is both parties want to get what British people have, on the pretence or promise of making their lives better. Fortunately as drop in voteing turn out shows, is becoming more transparent. Voting for Labour is turning out to be a big disappointment for more and more people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I claim victory because debt to GDP ratio started going down in 2019. So for 9 years it was shit and you claim victory for that, ok you can have it, all the evidence and quotes are obviously shit, you're right you've won. 9 years of pain and suffering but it worked and everyone feels so much better off now, hahaha ha, it is funny and tragic that you feel like that. When did I say the evidence was shit? The debt GDP ratio went up for the first couple of years, then stabilised for a few years and going down eventually. Just like how economic reforms usually work. As I mentioned before, unfortunately people want magical solutions to everything. The argument is simple - Do not spend beyond your means. If you want to spend more, then increase your production. You can't keep increasing your spending while more and more people just stop working. And as for an explanation how things would work or would have worked. That's not down to me, I'm not an expert, maybe you are but I'm not. However I can read and I've supplied enough evidence, from reputable sources, to back up what I've said. All the "evidence" you supplied are basically predictions of what might have happened. If you have followed these predictions closely, you would have realised how terrible these "experts" are at predicting the economic outcomes one quarter ahead, let alone long term. My arguments are based on principles and events which actually happened. Argentina is a clear example of what unchecked spending can lead to. I think that's a much better argument to make than the predictions made by self proclaimed experts. For every expert prediction you are pointing out, I can also show you expert predictions from right wing think-tanks. I don't do it because I know that these predictions aren't worth anything. Don't care if you've read anything I've posted and quoted and that's on you but austerity was a disaster confirmed by most reputable experts except yourself, so you win, well done, Mrs x Yeah expert predictions are cool as long as they agree with your own economic views?" When you say predictions you are aware of how predictions work? Because the evidence I've supplied has been a commentary on austerity and the subsequent impact following this. That's not a prediction it's a review, I'll let you look up what a review is so you can see for yourself. So you need to revise your comments on how terrible the experts I've quoted are at giving predictions because I haven't done that. Only you have done that when you predict what's going to happen with Argentina. It's exactly this prediction of how other countries compare with the UK, ie Greece this time, that got us in this mess. You cannot predict how things will work out even though you are doing your best. As far as any expert I've quoted being self proclaimed I think they may take issue with your claim. After all you don't get in The New York Times or the UN by self proclamation, unless you are thinking about those on X. This leads me on to your 'right wing' think tanks. Please do quote what they think, it may be illuminating but just so you know I've not quoted from partisan sources. The New York Times and UN don't appear to be politically aligned with the left. As for this being my economic view, it isn't, this is the views of experts, who have reviewed austerity, it's impact and have come to their conclusion, it's not predictive if it happens after the event. These are reputable, unbiased, assessments of, what turned out to be, the damaging effect of Osbournes austerity fiscal policy. Mystic Meg, it's not. But in case you forget, Viva Argentina, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" When you say predictions you are aware of how predictions work? Because the evidence I've supplied has been a commentary on austerity and the subsequent impact following this. That's not a prediction it's a review, I'll let you look up what a review is so you can see for yourself. " What was the goal of austerity? To control spending so that we don't spend beyond our means. Did it achieve that goal? Yes it did and there is evidence for it. Life getting harder because of austerity is expected. I never denied that. I am arguing against the idea that the country would have better off if they continued increasing spending beyond the means. Anyone who says that's the case is just making predictions which we cannot trust. " Only you have done that when you predict what's going to happen with Argentina. " The Argentina thing isn't a prediction. It's a fact. The impact of Milei's policies is already seen. He has reduced the deficit and controlled inflation. In other words, austerity policies really worked. " It's exactly this prediction of how other countries compare with the UK, ie Greece this time, that got us in this mess. You cannot predict how things will work out even though you are doing your best. " If you keep spending beyond your means, you will eventually default paying your debts. It's not an economic prediction. It's a matter of fact. " As far as any expert I've quoted being self proclaimed I think they may take issue with your claim. After all you don't get in The New York Times or the UN by self proclamation, unless you are thinking about those on X. " The UN is a joke of an organisation. Even the bank of England makes wrong predictions all the time. What difference are the UN "experts" going to make? " This leads me on to your 'right wing' think tanks. Please do quote what they think, it may be illuminating but just so you know I've not quoted from partisan sources. The New York Times and UN don't appear to be politically aligned with the left. " "UK needs 10 years of austerity to recover - think-tank" There is a reuters article you can find. " As for this being my economic view, it isn't, this is the views of experts, who have reviewed austerity, it's impact and have come to their conclusion, it's not predictive if it happens after the event. " What actually happened was people's quality of life going down. That's expected when you don't spend like a sugar baby with an unlimited credit card. " These are reputable, unbiased, assessments of, what turned out to be, the damaging effect of Osbournes austerity fiscal policy. " Unbiased. LMAO!! All people and political organisations are biased. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories." I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's funny to see Labour supporters shitting on austerity while austerity is exactly what Labour is doing. The country doesn't have enough productivity to justify its public spending. This means some sacrifices have to be made in form of spending cuts. You can't keep spending like you are a billionaire when you aren't even a millionaire. Austerity ensures that you have a controlled safe landing. If you don't do that, you will default on debts and at that point, you won't be able to control what happens. If people stop living in denial hoping for some politician to fall out of sky and weave his magic wand to solve the problems, we can actually have an honest conversation about this and cut the spending with care so that the country's economy is sustainable in the long term. If not, well you have Argentina to follow" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data." There are nuances to it. For example, Covid spending during Tories rule would have pushed their numbers up. Also, if Labour increases salaries of public service workers a year before they lose to Tories or sign up for some big projects, the increase in spending will still be counted under the names of Tories. I am pretty sure whoever calculated these numbers did not take these into account. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data. There are nuances to it. For example, Covid spending during Tories rule would have pushed their numbers up. Also, if Labour increases salaries of public service workers a year before they lose to Tories or sign up for some big projects, the increase in spending will still be counted under the names of Tories. I am pretty sure whoever calculated these numbers did not take these into account." That's right,the economists haven't thought of what you have or taken it into account. Only you have. Think they might think they know more about this than you but I may be wrong and you'll be on the International media programmes and not them very soon, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data." Don't believe it then, it's not my opinion, and not only does he let people see the data he tells them where to find it, but I can't be bothered right now it's just boring, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" When you say predictions you are aware of how predictions work? Because the evidence I've supplied has been a commentary on austerity and the subsequent impact following this. That's not a prediction it's a review, I'll let you look up what a review is so you can see for yourself. What was the goal of austerity? To control spending so that we don't spend beyond our means. Did it achieve that goal? Yes it did and there is evidence for it. Life getting harder because of austerity is expected. I never denied that. I am arguing against the idea that the country would have better off if they continued increasing spending beyond the means. Anyone who says that's the case is just making predictions which we cannot trust. Only you have done that when you predict what's going to happen with Argentina. The Argentina thing isn't a prediction. It's a fact. The impact of Milei's policies is already seen. He has reduced the deficit and controlled inflation. In other words, austerity policies really worked. It's exactly this prediction of how other countries compare with the UK, ie Greece this time, that got us in this mess. You cannot predict how things will work out even though you are doing your best. If you keep spending beyond your means, you will eventually default paying your debts. It's not an economic prediction. It's a matter of fact. As far as any expert I've quoted being self proclaimed I think they may take issue with your claim. After all you don't get in The New York Times or the UN by self proclamation, unless you are thinking about those on X. The UN is a joke of an organisation. Even the bank of England makes wrong predictions all the time. What difference are the UN "experts" going to make? This leads me on to your 'right wing' think tanks. Please do quote what they think, it may be illuminating but just so you know I've not quoted from partisan sources. The New York Times and UN don't appear to be politically aligned with the left. "UK needs 10 years of austerity to recover - think-tank" There is a reuters article you can find. As for this being my economic view, it isn't, this is the views of experts, who have reviewed austerity, it's impact and have come to their conclusion, it's not predictive if it happens after the event. What actually happened was people's quality of life going down. That's expected when you don't spend like a sugar baby with an unlimited credit card. These are reputable, unbiased, assessments of, what turned out to be, the damaging effect of Osbournes austerity fiscal policy. Unbiased. LMAO!! All people and political organisations are biased. " You've still not grasped what I'm saying about predictions. I'll try something simple. If you bet on a result you get paid out if your prediction, or guess, is correct. Once the event is over everyone can see the result and you cannot place the bet. So prediction before the event, not a prediction after the race or game has finished. I'll make a prediction that your still going to argue this somehow. As for bias, The Spectator, a right leaning publication, stated each person in the UK is at least 12,000 pounds worse of because of austerity, so big win again for old George. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch. Schools aren't funded by local councils." In Scotland the funding is given by the local council | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data. There are nuances to it. For example, Covid spending during Tories rule would have pushed their numbers up. Also, if Labour increases salaries of public service workers a year before they lose to Tories or sign up for some big projects, the increase in spending will still be counted under the names of Tories. I am pretty sure whoever calculated these numbers did not take these into account.That's right,the economists haven't thought of what you have or taken it into account. Only you have. Think they might think they know more about this than you but I may be wrong and you'll be on the International media programmes and not them very soon, Mrs x" "Every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories" I am not sure the above numbers are published by economists. But anyway I am saying this in itself doesn't tell us the whole story. You need to account for whose policies resulted in the expenditure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch. Schools aren't funded by local councils. In Scotland the funding is given by the local council " And Scotland has been governed by the SNP and Labour, not the Conservatives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You've still not grasped what I'm saying about predictions. I'll try something simple. If you bet on a result you get paid out if your prediction, or guess, is correct. Once the event is over everyone can see the result and you cannot place the bet. So prediction before the event, not a prediction after the race or game has finished. I'll make a prediction that your still going to argue this somehow. " Yes I am. I am not arguing what a prediction means. My argument is simple. UK was spending more than its means. So austerity was necessary to control spending. I don't need "predictions" to prove that it worked because the debt to GDP ratio eventually went down. So it's evidence that it worked. All the data that you have been vomiting here are about how the standard of living went down. I never denied that. Obviously if you stop borrowing more than your means, your standard of living will go down. That's reality for you. If you continued spending knowing that you don't have means to pay them back, it will be fun for awhile. And then the debt repayment will come back to bite us even harder another day. Borrowing and spending doesn't work unless you have means to pay it back. Seriously, how hard is it to get? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You've still not grasped what I'm saying about predictions. I'll try something simple. If you bet on a result you get paid out if your prediction, or guess, is correct. Once the event is over everyone can see the result and you cannot place the bet. So prediction before the event, not a prediction after the race or game has finished. I'll make a prediction that your still going to argue this somehow. Yes I am. I am not arguing what a prediction means. My argument is simple. UK was spending more than its means. So austerity was necessary to control spending. I don't need "predictions" to prove that it worked because the debt to GDP ratio eventually went down. So it's evidence that it worked. All the data that you have been vomiting here are about how the standard of living went down. I never denied that. Obviously if you stop borrowing more than your means, your standard of living will go down. That's reality for you. If you continued spending knowing that you don't have means to pay them back, it will be fun for awhile. And then the debt repayment will come back to bite us even harder another day. Borrowing and spending doesn't work unless you have means to pay it back. Seriously, how hard is it to get?" I must be reading the graphs wrong. Uk national debt has increased every year since the early 2000s, be it in real terms or as a % of GDP. Austerity the way it was operated, didn't really work to bring debt down, its justification was based on flawed research. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories." "I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data." "There are nuances to it. For example, Covid spending during Tories rule would have pushed their numbers up. Also, if Labour increases salaries of public service workers a year before they lose to Tories or sign up for some big projects, the increase in spending will still be counted under the names of Tories. I am pretty sure whoever calculated these numbers did not take these into account." "That's right,the economists haven't thought of what you have or taken it into account. Only you have. Think they might think they know more about this than you ..." Again, it's not economists, it's just one bloke that has no qualifications in economics. Real economists do know more about this than any of us, which is why they don't listen to him. "Don't believe it then, it's not my opinion, and not only does he let people see the data he tells them where to find it ..." He doesn't let people see the data. He refuses to detail which committees to search for and just says that others should go check the parliamentary records. That's 80 years worth of records, most of which have not been digitised. If he was right, and he made the data available, we'd be seeing economists writing papers on it. It'd be big news if Labour's reputation for financial mismanagement turned out to be unfounded. They'd be throwing the data in the Tories faces every time finance came up. But that's not what we see is it? We just see one bloke announcing it, and a lot of people who've been triggered repeating it with no backup. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You've still not grasped what I'm saying about predictions. I'll try something simple. If you bet on a result you get paid out if your prediction, or guess, is correct. Once the event is over everyone can see the result and you cannot place the bet. So prediction before the event, not a prediction after the race or game has finished. I'll make a prediction that your still going to argue this somehow. Yes I am. I am not arguing what a prediction means. My argument is simple. UK was spending more than its means. So austerity was necessary to control spending. I don't need "predictions" to prove that it worked because the debt to GDP ratio eventually went down. So it's evidence that it worked. All the data that you have been vomiting here are about how the standard of living went down. I never denied that. Obviously if you stop borrowing more than your means, your standard of living will go down. That's reality for you. If you continued spending knowing that you don't have means to pay them back, it will be fun for awhile. And then the debt repayment will come back to bite us even harder another day. Borrowing and spending doesn't work unless you have means to pay it back. Seriously, how hard is it to get?" Again I'm quite confused,especially about my 'vonit' which is a bit sick, considering you mention I stated that the 'standard of living' went down. I've not mentioned this once in this thread, you are making stuff up now. So if borrowing and spending is easy at government level, how come after austerity, you know the excuse that Osboirne was saving money, as a country our debt increased and not just by a little. Could you explain that, other than your tired family analogy, because it appears to go in direct opposition to your argument. Go on please answer that and illuminate us all, thanks, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You've still not grasped what I'm saying about predictions. I'll try something simple. If you bet on a result you get paid out if your prediction, or guess, is correct. Once the event is over everyone can see the result and you cannot place the bet. So prediction before the event, not a prediction after the race or game has finished. I'll make a prediction that your still going to argue this somehow. Yes I am. I am not arguing what a prediction means. My argument is simple. UK was spending more than its means. So austerity was necessary to control spending. I don't need "predictions" to prove that it worked because the debt to GDP ratio eventually went down. So it's evidence that it worked. All the data that you have been vomiting here are about how the standard of living went down. I never denied that. Obviously if you stop borrowing more than your means, your standard of living will go down. That's reality for you. If you continued spending knowing that you don't have means to pay them back, it will be fun for awhile. And then the debt repayment will come back to bite us even harder another day. Borrowing and spending doesn't work unless you have means to pay it back. Seriously, how hard is it to get? I must be reading the graphs wrong. Uk national debt has increased every year since the early 2000s, be it in real terms or as a % of GDP. Austerity the way it was operated, didn't really work to bring debt down, its justification was based on flawed research." I am talking about debt to GDP ratio. The Tories got it under control after it went up like crazy during the recession. It just started going down when COVID happened. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53104734.amp | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You've still not grasped what I'm saying about predictions. I'll try something simple. If you bet on a result you get paid out if your prediction, or guess, is correct. Once the event is over everyone can see the result and you cannot place the bet. So prediction before the event, not a prediction after the race or game has finished. I'll make a prediction that your still going to argue this somehow. Yes I am. I am not arguing what a prediction means. My argument is simple. UK was spending more than its means. So austerity was necessary to control spending. I don't need "predictions" to prove that it worked because the debt to GDP ratio eventually went down. So it's evidence that it worked. All the data that you have been vomiting here are about how the standard of living went down. I never denied that. Obviously if you stop borrowing more than your means, your standard of living will go down. That's reality for you. If you continued spending knowing that you don't have means to pay them back, it will be fun for awhile. And then the debt repayment will come back to bite us even harder another day. Borrowing and spending doesn't work unless you have means to pay it back. Seriously, how hard is it to get? I must be reading the graphs wrong. Uk national debt has increased every year since the early 2000s, be it in real terms or as a % of GDP. Austerity the way it was operated, didn't really work to bring debt down, its justification was based on flawed research." Please don't tell him that I think his head might explode. But obviously thats jusy a prediction, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm quite confused,especially about my 'vonit' which is a bit sick, considering you mention I stated that the 'standard of living' went down. I've not mentioned this once in this thread, you are making stuff up now. " Below is one of your posts verbatim. If it's not about standard of living, what else is this? " from the UN viewed this... "A United Nations expert said late last year that efforts by the Conservative government to pare state spending were “entrenching high levels of poverty and inflicting unnecessary misery in one of the richest countries in the world.” Since 2010, the Conservative government has announced more than 30 billion pounds, or nearly $40 billion, in cuts to welfare payments, housing subsidies and social services, and the British leadership is in “a state of denial” about the devastation its policies have wrought, the United Nations said. The British government disputed those findings, but there are many signs that social well-being declined under austerity. The use of food banks almost doubled between 2013 and 2017. Families that receive benefits are now thousands of dollars worse off every year." " " So if borrowing and spending is easy at government level, how come after austerity, you know the excuse that Osboirne was saving money, as a country our debt increased and not just by a little. Could you explain that, other than your tired family analogy, because it appears to go in direct opposition to your argument. Go on please answer that and illuminate us all, thanks, Mrs x" Debt to gdp ratio stabilised and eventually decreased. The absolute debt will obviously increase because of inflation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data. There are nuances to it. For example, Covid spending during Tories rule would have pushed their numbers up. Also, if Labour increases salaries of public service workers a year before they lose to Tories or sign up for some big projects, the increase in spending will still be counted under the names of Tories. I am pretty sure whoever calculated these numbers did not take these into account. That's right,the economists haven't thought of what you have or taken it into account. Only you have. Think they might think they know more about this than you ... Again, it's not economists, it's just one bloke that has no qualifications in economics. Real economists do know more about this than any of us, which is why they don't listen to him. Don't believe it then, it's not my opinion, and not only does he let people see the data he tells them where to find it ... He doesn't let people see the data. He refuses to detail which committees to search for and just says that others should go check the parliamentary records. That's 80 years worth of records, most of which have not been digitised. If he was right, and he made the data available, we'd be seeing economists writing papers on it. It'd be big news if Labour's reputation for financial mismanagement turned out to be unfounded. They'd be throwing the data in the Tories faces every time finance came up. But that's not what we see is it? We just see one bloke announcing it, and a lot of people who've been triggered repeating it with no backup." Richard Murphy (born 21 March 1958) is a British former chartered accountant and political economist who campaigns on issues of tax avoidance and tax evasion. He advises the Trades Union Congress on economics and taxation, and founded the Tax Justice Network. He is a Professor of Accounting Practice at University of Sheffield Management School. Yeah just one bloke, a crank, charlatan, fraud. They give out Professorships for this, not to experts in their field. And accountants are shit at looking at accounts to work out what's going on in said accounts, how dare he the that, haha, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You've still not grasped what I'm saying about predictions. I'll try something simple. If you bet on a result you get paid out if your prediction, or guess, is correct. Once the event is over everyone can see the result and you cannot place the bet. So prediction before the event, not a prediction after the race or game has finished. I'll make a prediction that your still going to argue this somehow. Yes I am. I am not arguing what a prediction means. My argument is simple. UK was spending more than its means. So austerity was necessary to control spending. I don't need "predictions" to prove that it worked because the debt to GDP ratio eventually went down. So it's evidence that it worked. All the data that you have been vomiting here are about how the standard of living went down. I never denied that. Obviously if you stop borrowing more than your means, your standard of living will go down. That's reality for you. If you continued spending knowing that you don't have means to pay them back, it will be fun for awhile. And then the debt repayment will come back to bite us even harder another day. Borrowing and spending doesn't work unless you have means to pay it back. Seriously, how hard is it to get? I must be reading the graphs wrong. Uk national debt has increased every year since the early 2000s, be it in real terms or as a % of GDP. Austerity the way it was operated, didn't really work to bring debt down, its justification was based on flawed research.Please don't tell him that I think his head might explode. But obviously thats jusy a prediction, Mrs x" Thanks for looking out for me  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm quite confused,especially about my 'vonit' which is a bit sick, considering you mention I stated that the 'standard of living' went down. I've not mentioned this once in this thread, you are making stuff up now. Below is one of your posts verbatim. If it's not about standard of living, what else is this? from the UN viewed this... "A United Nations expert said late last year that efforts by the Conservative government to pare state spending were “entrenching high levels of poverty and inflicting unnecessary misery in one of the richest countries in the world.” Since 2010, the Conservative government has announced more than 30 billion pounds, or nearly $40 billion, in cuts to welfare payments, housing subsidies and social services, and the British leadership is in “a state of denial” about the devastation its policies have wrought, the United Nations said. The British government disputed those findings, but there are many signs that social well-being declined under austerity. The use of food banks almost doubled between 2013 and 2017. Families that receive benefits are now thousands of dollars worse off every year." So if borrowing and spending is easy at government level, how come after austerity, you know the excuse that Osboirne was saving money, as a country our debt increased and not just by a little. Could you explain that, other than your tired family analogy, because it appears to go in direct opposition to your argument. Go on please answer that and illuminate us all, thanks, Mrs x Debt to gdp ratio stabilised and eventually decreased. The absolute debt will obviously increase because of inflation." It's a review by the UN expert, not me. They say what they found out, it's not me telling them what to say. I'm just passing this information on. It would help if you could differentiate what I say as to what others have said. The latter I normally put inside quotation marks if that helps, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data. There are nuances to it. For example, Covid spending during Tories rule would have pushed their numbers up. Also, if Labour increases salaries of public service workers a year before they lose to Tories or sign up for some big projects, the increase in spending will still be counted under the names of Tories. I am pretty sure whoever calculated these numbers did not take these into account. That's right,the economists haven't thought of what you have or taken it into account. Only you have. Think they might think they know more about this than you ... Again, it's not economists, it's just one bloke that has no qualifications in economics. Real economists do know more about this than any of us, which is why they don't listen to him. Don't believe it then, it's not my opinion, and not only does he let people see the data he tells them where to find it ... He doesn't let people see the data. He refuses to detail which committees to search for and just says that others should go check the parliamentary records. That's 80 years worth of records, most of which have not been digitised. If he was right, and he made the data available, we'd be seeing economists writing papers on it. It'd be big news if Labour's reputation for financial mismanagement turned out to be unfounded. They'd be throwing the data in the Tories faces every time finance came up. But that's not what we see is it? We just see one bloke announcing it, and a lot of people who've been triggered repeating it with no backup. Richard Murphy (born 21 March 1958) is a British former chartered accountant and political economist who campaigns on issues of tax avoidance and tax evasion. He advises the Trades Union Congress on economics and taxation, and founded the Tax Justice Network. He is a Professor of Accounting Practice at University of Sheffield Management School. Yeah just one bloke, a crank, charlatan, fraud. They give out Professorships for this, not to experts in their field. And accountants are shit at looking at accounts to work out what's going on in said accounts, how dare he the that, haha, Mrs x" Do you really believe that people with such big degrees cannot be frauds?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a review by the UN expert, not me. They say what they found out, it's not me telling them what to say. I'm just passing this information on. " That's exactly what I said. All the stuff you have been sharing about what experts said only mentioned how standard of living went down. I never denied that in the first place. So I didn't see a point in you repeatedly mentioning that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data.Don't believe it then, it's not my opinion, and not only does he let people see the data he tells them where to find it, but I can't be bothered right now it's just boring, Mrs x" I asked a question on this subject a bit earlier (do you think the current regime will continue this trend of borrowing less and paying back more) but assumed this claim was a verified fact. That now seems in a bit of doubt after reading other posts. So with that in mind do you know if this has been claimed by any serving Labour MP? I don't recall hearing it mentioned before the election or the previous election and would have thought such a thing would have been shouted loud and clear. It is possible I missed it of course hence the question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm quite confused,especially about my 'vonit' which is a bit sick, considering you mention I stated that the 'standard of living' went down. I've not mentioned this once in this thread, you are making stuff up now. Below is one of your posts verbatim. If it's not about standard of living, what else is this? from the UN viewed this... "A United Nations expert said late last year that efforts by the Conservative government to pare state spending were “entrenching high levels of poverty and inflicting unnecessary misery in one of the richest countries in the world.” Since 2010, the Conservative government has announced more than 30 billion pounds, or nearly $40 billion, in cuts to welfare payments, housing subsidies and social services, and the British leadership is in “a state of denial” about the devastation its policies have wrought, the United Nations said. The British government disputed those findings, but there are many signs that social well-being declined under austerity. The use of food banks almost doubled between 2013 and 2017. Families that receive benefits are now thousands of dollars worse off every year." So if borrowing and spending is easy at government level, how come after austerity, you know the excuse that Osboirne was saving money, as a country our debt increased and not just by a little. Could you explain that, other than your tired family analogy, because it appears to go in direct opposition to your argument. Go on please answer that and illuminate us all, thanks, Mrs x Debt to gdp ratio stabilised and eventually decreased. The absolute debt will obviously increase because of inflation." In 2019, after almost a decade and this was after austerity was supposedly abandoned by Theresa May, in 2018. So they got rid of austerity before any improvement, again counter to your argument but carry on, it's a good story, if you ignore the facts, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data.Don't believe it then, it's not my opinion, and not only does he let people see the data he tells them where to find it, but I can't be bothered right now it's just boring, Mrs x I asked a question on this subject a bit earlier (do you think the current regime will continue this trend of borrowing less and paying back more) but assumed this claim was a verified fact. That now seems in a bit of doubt after reading other posts. So with that in mind do you know if this has been claimed by any serving Labour MP? I don't recall hearing it mentioned before the election or the previous election and would have thought such a thing would have been shouted loud and clear. It is possible I missed it of course hence the question." The post that says its just one guy, with no qualifications? That post? Because I've replied to that. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Debt to gdp ratio stabilised and eventually decreased. The absolute debt will obviously increase because of inflation.In 2019, after almost a decade and this was after austerity was supposedly abandoned by Theresa May, in 2018. So they got rid of austerity before any improvement, again counter to your argument but carry on, it's a good story, if you ignore the facts, Mrs x" Yes, the country was getting out of a recession. And as I told, the ratio stabilised for a few years before that. It went down in 2019. This is how economics works. It's easy to take down an economy. Takes a lot of time and hard work to get it back to normal. It's easy to collect more debts. Difficult to pay it back with interests. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Guardian reporting cash strapped schools plan to lay off teachers in a blow to Labour’s pledge to recruit 6,500 new teachers, headteachers are under renewed pressure to avoid going into financial deficit. It says nearly 70% of schools plan to cut support staff, despite many also saying they did not have enough teaching assistants to give rising numbers of children with often complex special educational needs the one-to-one. Nearly 90% of schools said they would not replace staff who left. Data released before Christmas showed that the government had seen a fall in people entering primary teacher training and missed its recruitment target for secondary education by nearly 40%. And elsewhere teacher retention is reported to show 25% new teachers quitting in their first year. " did people actually believe all these Starmer promises in the first place?? surely we all know any politician will say anything to get into power then retract on it once they get elected,,, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data.Don't believe it then, it's not my opinion, and not only does he let people see the data he tells them where to find it, but I can't be bothered right now it's just boring, Mrs x I asked a question on this subject a bit earlier (do you think the current regime will continue this trend of borrowing less and paying back more) but assumed this claim was a verified fact. That now seems in a bit of doubt after reading other posts. So with that in mind do you know if this has been claimed by any serving Labour MP? I don't recall hearing it mentioned before the election or the previous election and would have thought such a thing would have been shouted loud and clear. It is possible I missed it of course hence the question." It's the same as the Tories are the part of low tax and that Labour are all for high taxes. Ignore the fact that the Tories were the highest Tax collecting government since before WW2 but maybe longer, I'd have to check. This myth comes about because in the 70s Labour increased the highest tax band from around the high 70ps per pound to the 80ps per pound. Sounds terrible, but prior to the introduction of the 70p rate, the highest tax band ran at an eye watering 90p ish per pound from WW2 until it was changed in the 70s by a Tory administration. The 90p rate ran unchanged by any government since WW2, Tories, Labour, it made no difference. But this change to the most wealthy people in the country landed Labour with the moniker of being the Tax raising party. This is nothing compared to what tge Tories have done since 2010. Read the Spectator article in which they claim each household is up to 13,000 pounds worse of annually because of tge Tories tax burden, and the Spectator is a right wing publication. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data.Don't believe it then, it's not my opinion, and not only does he let people see the data he tells them where to find it, but I can't be bothered right now it's just boring, Mrs x I asked a question on this subject a bit earlier (do you think the current regime will continue this trend of borrowing less and paying back more) but assumed this claim was a verified fact. That now seems in a bit of doubt after reading other posts. So with that in mind do you know if this has been claimed by any serving Labour MP? I don't recall hearing it mentioned before the election or the previous election and would have thought such a thing would have been shouted loud and clear. It is possible I missed it of course hence the question.The post that says its just one guy, with no qualifications? That post? Because I've replied to that. Mrs x" I seen your response and the back and forth hence why I said it was in question. However that was not my question. My question was has this been claimed by a Labour MP. I ask as to me such a fact would have been repeated over and over especially in the lead up to elections and I don't recall hearing it at all, which strikes me as odd. As said it is possible I missed it hence the question | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem of course is that schools are funded by the local councils and they are crippled by debt. It is amazing how Labour have brought about this crisis when the Conservative Party left the country debt free and running like a swiss watch. Schools aren't funded by local councils. In Scotland the funding is given by the local council And Scotland has been governed by the SNP and Labour, not the Conservatives." All paths lead back to Westminster I hear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Debt to gdp ratio stabilised and eventually decreased. The absolute debt will obviously increase because of inflation.In 2019, after almost a decade and this was after austerity was supposedly abandoned by Theresa May, in 2018. So they got rid of austerity before any improvement, again counter to your argument but carry on, it's a good story, if you ignore the facts, Mrs x Yes, the country was getting out of a recession. And as I told, the ratio stabilised for a few years before that. It went down in 2019. This is how economics works. It's easy to take down an economy. Takes a lot of time and hard work to get it back to normal. It's easy to collect more debts. Difficult to pay it back with interests." I'm glad you say 'this is how economics work', maybe you'll reread some of the posts were I've quoted expert analysis by genuine econonic experts, you know the kind the international press and financial community relies upon for the best economic advice, rather than take advice from a swingers website. This is turning into the equivalent of one of those threads on the Virus section, you know we're people quote from medical experts, peer reviewed papers, medical studies and the like, whilst others say that's all bollocks because the guy who delivers water to their GP, heard from Rita the receptionist that Tanya the cleaner, was told by her mates Mum, that her neighbour grew another head after taking the latest vaccine, so it must be true. Can't make this up. So just to clarify, none of this is my opinion. It's the conclusions of experts who have studied this. It's their opinions. It's not a prediction, taking place after the fact and you've been told were to look or you could just Google it to see I'm not making this up. These are not biased reports coming from left wing think tanks or anything like that. In fact most are published in the right leaning media, tge Spectator article being a great read. Finally, and I mean no disrespt, unless you are an equivalent expert in this field, what ever you are saying, without producing overwhelming evidence to the contrary I'm going to listen to the experts. I think that's prudent here and in most aspects of life. I'm certainly not listening g to Tanya's mates Mum, the mad cow, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data.Don't believe it then, it's not my opinion, and not only does he let people see the data he tells them where to find it, but I can't be bothered right now it's just boring, Mrs x I asked a question on this subject a bit earlier (do you think the current regime will continue this trend of borrowing less and paying back more) but assumed this claim was a verified fact. That now seems in a bit of doubt after reading other posts. So with that in mind do you know if this has been claimed by any serving Labour MP? I don't recall hearing it mentioned before the election or the previous election and would have thought such a thing would have been shouted loud and clear. It is possible I missed it of course hence the question.The post that says its just one guy, with no qualifications? That post? Because I've replied to that. Mrs x I seen your response and the back and forth hence why I said it was in question. However that was not my question. My question was has this been claimed by a Labour MP. I ask as to me such a fact would have been repeated over and over especially in the lead up to elections and I don't recall hearing it at all, which strikes me as odd. As said it is possible I missed it hence the question" I cannot recall that they did or that they didn't. However if it's the latter I think k that Murphys association with Corbynomics may be behind this as the new government may not have wanted to refer to this at all during the election due to the hammering Labour took at the previous one and this would make sense to distance themselves from this poor election showing. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Debt to gdp ratio stabilised and eventually decreased. The absolute debt will obviously increase because of inflation.In 2019, after almost a decade and this was after austerity was supposedly abandoned by Theresa May, in 2018. So they got rid of austerity before any improvement, again counter to your argument but carry on, it's a good story, if you ignore the facts, Mrs x Yes, the country was getting out of a recession. And as I told, the ratio stabilised for a few years before that. It went down in 2019. This is how economics works. It's easy to take down an economy. Takes a lot of time and hard work to get it back to normal. It's easy to collect more debts. Difficult to pay it back with interests.I'm glad you say 'this is how economics work', maybe you'll reread some of the posts were I've quoted expert analysis by genuine econonic experts, you know the kind the international press and financial community relies upon for the best economic advice, rather than take advice from a swingers website. This is turning into the equivalent of one of those threads on the Virus section, you know we're people quote from medical experts, peer reviewed papers, medical studies and the like, whilst others say that's all bollocks because the guy who delivers water to their GP, heard from Rita the receptionist that Tanya the cleaner, was told by her mates Mum, that her neighbour grew another head after taking the latest vaccine, so it must be true. Can't make this up. So just to clarify, none of this is my opinion. It's the conclusions of experts who have studied this. It's their opinions. It's not a prediction, taking place after the fact and you've been told were to look or you could just Google it to see I'm not making this up. These are not biased reports coming from left wing think tanks or anything like that. In fact most are published in the right leaning media, tge Spectator article being a great read. Finally, and I mean no disrespt, unless you are an equivalent expert in this field, what ever you are saying, without producing overwhelming evidence to the contrary I'm going to listen to the experts. I think that's prudent here and in most aspects of life. I'm certainly not listening g to Tanya's mates Mum, the mad cow, Mrs x" But an expert in CJD apparently. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm glad you say 'this is how economics work', maybe you'll reread some of the posts were I've quoted expert analysis by genuine econonic experts, you know the kind the international press and financial community relies upon for the best economic advice, rather than take advice from a swingers website. " The expert stuff you quoted is just that the standard of living of people went down. I never denied that. I thought I made it clear. " This is turning into the equivalent of one of those threads on the Virus section, you know we're people quote from medical experts, peer reviewed papers, medical studies and the like, whilst others say that's all bollocks because the guy who delivers water to their GP, heard from Rita the receptionist that Tanya the cleaner, was told by her mates Mum, that her neighbour grew another head after taking the latest vaccine, so it must be true. " If you repeatedly quote experts comments on something that has no bearing on my argument, I have to repeatedly point out that it's of no use. I don't have a choice, do I? " Can't make this up. So just to clarify, none of this is my opinion. It's the conclusions of experts who have studied this. It's their opinions. It's not a prediction, taking place after the fact and you've been told were to look or you could just Google it to see I'm not making this up. These are not biased reports coming from left wing think tanks or anything like that. In fact most are published in the right leaning media, tge Spectator article being a great read. " I know I just mentioned it above. But I will repeat myself because I have said the same thing many times above and you still didn't grasp it. We did austerity to reduce our debt to gdp. We achieved it. Standard of living reducing is an expected outcome and that's what your expects said. Nothing surprising there. " Finally, and I mean no disrespt, unless you are an equivalent expert in this field, what ever you are saying, without producing overwhelming evidence to the contrary I'm going to listen to the experts. I think that's prudent here and in most aspects of life. I'm certainly not listening g to Tanya's mates Mum, the mad cow, Mrs x" The reason we are going around in circles is because you have been making a strawman argument right from the beginning. And have been repeatedly doing the same even after I pointed it out multiple times as I did above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Debt to gdp ratio stabilised and eventually decreased. The absolute debt will obviously increase because of inflation.In 2019, after almost a decade and this was after austerity was supposedly abandoned by Theresa May, in 2018. So they got rid of austerity before any improvement, again counter to your argument but carry on, it's a good story, if you ignore the facts, Mrs x Yes, the country was getting out of a recession. And as I told, the ratio stabilised for a few years before that. It went down in 2019. This is how economics works. It's easy to take down an economy. Takes a lot of time and hard work to get it back to normal. It's easy to collect more debts. Difficult to pay it back with interests.I'm glad you say 'this is how economics work', maybe you'll reread some of the posts were I've quoted expert analysis by genuine econonic experts, you know the kind the international press and financial community relies upon for the best economic advice, rather than take advice from a swingers website. This is turning into the equivalent of one of those threads on the Virus section, you know we're people quote from medical experts, peer reviewed papers, medical studies and the like, whilst others say that's all bollocks because the guy who delivers water to their GP, heard from Rita the receptionist that Tanya the cleaner, was told by her mates Mum, that her neighbour grew another head after taking the latest vaccine, so it must be true. Can't make this up. So just to clarify, none of this is my opinion. It's the conclusions of experts who have studied this. It's their opinions. It's not a prediction, taking place after the fact and you've been told were to look or you could just Google it to see I'm not making this up. These are not biased reports coming from left wing think tanks or anything like that. In fact most are published in the right leaning media, tge Spectator article being a great read. Finally, and I mean no disrespt, unless you are an equivalent expert in this field, what ever you are saying, without producing overwhelming evidence to the contrary I'm going to listen to the experts. I think that's prudent here and in most aspects of life. I'm certainly not listening g to Tanya's mates Mum, the mad cow, Mrs x But an expert in CJD apparently." Not at all but Rita told me so it must be true, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Richard Murphy (born 21 March 1958) is a British former chartered accountant and political economist who campaigns on issues of tax avoidance and tax evasion. He is a Professor of Accounting Practice at University of Sheffield Management School." He is indeed an ex-accountant. He did have the qualifications for that and I have no doubt that he is good at counting money, and making sure that it gets allocated to the correct pot. That doesn't mean that he understands how an economy works. Would you choose Max Verstappen to run a car factory on the basis that he's good at driving, so he must know all about cars? The only person that calls Richard Murphy an economist is himself, and even he says that he's a "political economist", i.e. a person that justifies spending to fit his political viewpoint. "He advises the Trades Union Congress on economics and taxation, and founded the Tax Justice Network." He advises lots of people, though few listen to him. Those that do, don't listen for very long. And he got kicked out of the Tax Justice Network for being too Bolshevik. "Yeah just one bloke, a crank, charlatan, fraud." Most economists do consider him to be a crank, a charlatan, and a fraud. Again, you won't find a single qualified economist repeating that claim about Labour's spending over the years. Why do you think that is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Richard Murphy (born 21 March 1958) is a British former chartered accountant and political economist who campaigns on issues of tax avoidance and tax evasion. He is a Professor of Accounting Practice at University of Sheffield Management School. He is indeed an ex-accountant. He did have the qualifications for that and I have no doubt that he is good at counting money, and making sure that it gets allocated to the correct pot. That doesn't mean that he understands how an economy works. Would you choose Max Verstappen to run a car factory on the basis that he's good at driving, so he must know all about cars? The only person that calls Richard Murphy an economist is himself, and even he says that he's a "political economist", i.e. a person that justifies spending to fit his political viewpoint. He advises the Trades Union Congress on economics and taxation, and founded the Tax Justice Network. He advises lots of people, though few listen to him. Those that do, don't listen for very long. And he got kicked out of the Tax Justice Network for being too Bolshevik. Yeah just one bloke, a crank, charlatan, fraud. Most economists do consider him to be a crank, a charlatan, and a fraud. Again, you won't find a single qualified economist repeating that claim about Labour's spending over the years. Why do you think that is?" When looking at the figures he is doing accountancy, not economics, which he holds a professorship in. You do know that you have to be voted into this position by a group of your peers, but what the he'll your right they give this out to cranks willy nilly, you win. He doesn't make it into the national media unlike all the ones you suggest at calling him a crank do, oh wait no he does, how does that happen, strange, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data.Don't believe it then, it's not my opinion, and not only does he let people see the data he tells them where to find it, but I can't be bothered right now it's just boring, Mrs x I asked a question on this subject a bit earlier (do you think the current regime will continue this trend of borrowing less and paying back more) but assumed this claim was a verified fact. That now seems in a bit of doubt after reading other posts. So with that in mind do you know if this has been claimed by any serving Labour MP? I don't recall hearing it mentioned before the election or the previous election and would have thought such a thing would have been shouted loud and clear. It is possible I missed it of course hence the question.The post that says its just one guy, with no qualifications? That post? Because I've replied to that. Mrs x I seen your response and the back and forth hence why I said it was in question. However that was not my question. My question was has this been claimed by a Labour MP. I ask as to me such a fact would have been repeated over and over especially in the lead up to elections and I don't recall hearing it at all, which strikes me as odd. As said it is possible I missed it hence the questionI cannot recall that they did or that they didn't. However if it's the latter I think k that Murphys association with Corbynomics may be behind this as the new government may not have wanted to refer to this at all during the election due to the hammering Labour took at the previous one and this would make sense to distance themselves from this poor election showing. Mrs x" I'm glad it's not just me that doesn't recall Labour MP's making this same claim. Personally I would have thought such a thing would have been front and centre of a campaign even if it was associated with Corbyn as its to good of a coup to leave out. I don't recall it being mentioned during corbyns time as leader either which if he is associated with corbynomics should have been fine presumably. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data.Don't believe it then, it's not my opinion, and not only does he let people see the data he tells them where to find it, but I can't be bothered right now it's just boring, Mrs x I asked a question on this subject a bit earlier (do you think the current regime will continue this trend of borrowing less and paying back more) but assumed this claim was a verified fact. That now seems in a bit of doubt after reading other posts. So with that in mind do you know if this has been claimed by any serving Labour MP? I don't recall hearing it mentioned before the election or the previous election and would have thought such a thing would have been shouted loud and clear. It is possible I missed it of course hence the question.The post that says its just one guy, with no qualifications? That post? Because I've replied to that. Mrs x I seen your response and the back and forth hence why I said it was in question. However that was not my question. My question was has this been claimed by a Labour MP. I ask as to me such a fact would have been repeated over and over especially in the lead up to elections and I don't recall hearing it at all, which strikes me as odd. As said it is possible I missed it hence the questionI cannot recall that they did or that they didn't. However if it's the latter I think k that Murphys association with Corbynomics may be behind this as the new government may not have wanted to refer to this at all during the election due to the hammering Labour took at the previous one and this would make sense to distance themselves from this poor election showing. Mrs x I'm glad it's not just me that doesn't recall Labour MP's making this same claim. Personally I would have thought such a thing would have been front and centre of a campaign even if it was associated with Corbyn as its to good of a coup to leave out. I don't recall it being mentioned during corbyns time as leader either which if he is associated with corbynomics should have been fine presumably. " I have no way of knowing this but it might be way Starmer never defended himself in the TV debate regarding the Tory lies about the 2k tax increase. He almost missed his chance to rebut this and only did at the last minute. Could be they'd recieved advice to avoid tax questions. The 1992 election was lost by Labour in the main through the Tax Bombshell campaign and they knew they were going to win regardless and just didn't want to bring taxation and other financial stuff into the debate. I have no evidence of this but allowing Sunak to try and get a response to this issue, over 13 times, during the debate seemed very odd. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When looking at the figures he is doing accountancy, not economics, which he holds a professorship in." That's a good point. For this claim it is indeed accountancy, and he does hold qualifications in that. Shame he doesn't let anyone else see the data to back him up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When looking at the figures he is doing accountancy, not economics, which he holds a professorship in. That's a good point. For this claim it is indeed accountancy, and he does hold qualifications in that. Shame he doesn't let anyone else see the data to back him up." Just because people can't be arsed to find it doesn't mean it's not there. He gives his formula, his reasoning behind what he includes and doesn't include, he's not stopping people seeing the data it's in the House of Commons Library or the OBR. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm glad it's not just me that doesn't recall Labour MP's making this same claim. Personally I would have thought such a thing would have been front and centre of a campaign even if it was associated with Corbyn as its to good of a coup to leave out. I don't recall it being mentioned during corbyns time as leader either which if he is associated with corbynomics should have been fine presumably." Richard Murphy came up with the claim in the early years of the Corbyn leadership. If it was true, you really would expect Labour to have been shouting it from the rooftops. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm glad it's not just me that doesn't recall Labour MP's making this same claim. Personally I would have thought such a thing would have been front and centre of a campaign even if it was associated with Corbyn as its to good of a coup to leave out. I don't recall it being mentioned during corbyns time as leader either which if he is associated with corbynomics should have been fine presumably. Richard Murphy came up with the claim in the early years of the Corbyn leadership. If it was true, you really would expect Labour to have been shouting it from the rooftops." What's tge name of that guy who's his biggest critic and is always trying to debunk him and establish he's talking bollocks? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When looking at the figures he is doing accountancy, not economics, which he holds a professorship in." "That's a good point. For this claim it is indeed accountancy, and he does hold qualifications in that. Shame he doesn't let anyone else see the data to back him up." "Just because people can't be arsed to find it doesn't mean it's not there. He gives his formula, his reasoning behind what he includes and doesn't include, he's not stopping people seeing the data it's in the House of Commons Library or the OBR." Yes, it's in some of the last 50 years of paper documents in the parliamentary library, as well as buried in the detail of the more recent 30 years of digitised stuff. Since he's already found the relevant documents, and added up all the numbers, why won't he just hand over his research so that other people can see the same things he does? If he wants people to believe him, why won't he help them out by giving them the information they need? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm glad it's not just me that doesn't recall Labour MP's making this same claim. Personally I would have thought such a thing would have been front and centre of a campaign even if it was associated with Corbyn as its to good of a coup to leave out. I don't recall it being mentioned during corbyns time as leader either which if he is associated with corbynomics should have been fine presumably." "Richard Murphy came up with the claim in the early years of the Corbyn leadership. If it was true, you really would expect Labour to have been shouting it from the rooftops.What's tge name of that guy who's his biggest critic and is always trying to debunk him and establish he's talking bollocks?" You'll have to be more specific, there are plenty of people that do that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When looking at the figures he is doing accountancy, not economics, which he holds a professorship in. That's a good point. For this claim it is indeed accountancy, and he does hold qualifications in that. Shame he doesn't let anyone else see the data to back him up. Just because people can't be arsed to find it doesn't mean it's not there. He gives his formula, his reasoning behind what he includes and doesn't include, he's not stopping people seeing the data it's in the House of Commons Library or the OBR. Yes, it's in some of the last 50 years of paper documents in the parliamentary library, as well as buried in the detail of the more recent 30 years of digitised stuff. Since he's already found the relevant documents, and added up all the numbers, why won't he just hand over his research so that other people can see the same things he does? If he wants people to believe him, why won't he help them out by giving them the information they need?" I have no answers to the questions you have raised but doesn't mean that it's not true. As much as you cannot point to the data you cannot give a definitive rebuttal to what he's saying. It's like saying something can't be true because you can't see it, but you believe in loads of stuff you haven't personally seen. Ask him, he might tell you, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no answers to the questions you have raised but doesn't mean that it's not true." Well, your claim that "every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories" is definitely not true. Murphy's own figures only claim that Labour has borrowed less and repaid more on average. But even that is a massive claim, given that the received wisdom is that Labour are bigger spenders that the Tories. Big claims require solid evidence. "Ask him, he might tell you" I have asked him. Like most of his critics, I got banned instead of answered. Murphy does not like people asking him for evidence of his claims. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no answers to the questions you have raised but doesn't mean that it's not true. Well, your claim that "every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories" is definitely not true. Murphy's own figures only claim that Labour has borrowed less and repaid more on average. But even that is a massive claim, given that the received wisdom is that Labour are bigger spenders that the Tories. Big claims require solid evidence. Ask him, he might tell you I have asked him. Like most of his critics, I got banned instead of answered. Murphy does not like people asking him for evidence of his claims." Nope I got this from Murphy, he's written tons of stuff, he's been advising on documentaries on main stream TV, been on Radio 2 for over a decade giving advice on Vines show, as well as articles written about him in the national press. Not bad for a crank who cannot back up his claims. Also don't the media have fact checking done on them so why is he asked to come back on and give more interviews and advice, even in advisory roles if he cannot back up what he's saying. That's what I find strange about what you are claiming. Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no answers to the questions you have raised but doesn't mean that it's not true. Well, your claim that "every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories" is definitely not true. Murphy's own figures only claim that Labour has borrowed less and repaid more on average. But even that is a massive claim, given that the received wisdom is that Labour are bigger spenders that the Tories. Big claims require solid evidence. Ask him, he might tell you I have asked him. Like most of his critics, I got banned instead of answered. Murphy does not like people asking him for evidence of his claims. Nope I got this from Murphy, he's written tons of stuff, he's been advising on documentaries on main stream TV, been on Radio 2 for over a decade giving advice on Vines show, as well as articles written about him in the national press. Not bad for a crank who cannot back up his claims. Also don't the media have fact checking done on them so why is he asked to come back on and give more interviews and advice, even in advisory roles if he cannot back up what he's saying. That's what I find strange about what you are claiming. Mrs x" Murphy is a failed accountant and a left wing loon! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no answers to the questions you have raised but doesn't mean that it's not true. Well, your claim that "every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories" is definitely not true. Murphy's own figures only claim that Labour has borrowed less and repaid more on average. But even that is a massive claim, given that the received wisdom is that Labour are bigger spenders that the Tories. Big claims require solid evidence. Ask him, he might tell you I have asked him. Like most of his critics, I got banned instead of answered. Murphy does not like people asking him for evidence of his claims. Nope I got this from Murphy, he's written tons of stuff, he's been advising on documentaries on main stream TV, been on Radio 2 for over a decade giving advice on Vines show, as well as articles written about him in the national press. Not bad for a crank who cannot back up his claims. Also don't the media have fact checking done on them so why is he asked to come back on and give more interviews and advice, even in advisory roles if he cannot back up what he's saying. That's what I find strange about what you are claiming. Mrs x Murphy is a failed accountant and a left wing loon! " Not doing bad for it though is he, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no answers to the questions you have raised but doesn't mean that it's not true. Well, your claim that "every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories" is definitely not true. Murphy's own figures only claim that Labour has borrowed less and repaid more on average. But even that is a massive claim, given that the received wisdom is that Labour are bigger spenders that the Tories. Big claims require solid evidence. Ask him, he might tell you I have asked him. Like most of his critics, I got banned instead of answered. Murphy does not like people asking him for evidence of his claims. Nope I got this from Murphy, he's written tons of stuff, he's been advising on documentaries on main stream TV, been on Radio 2 for over a decade giving advice on Vines show, as well as articles written about him in the national press. Not bad for a crank who cannot back up his claims. Also don't the media have fact checking done on them so why is he asked to come back on and give more interviews and advice, even in advisory roles if he cannot back up what he's saying. That's what I find strange about what you are claiming. Mrs x Murphy is a failed accountant and a left wing loon! Not doing bad for it though is he, Mrs x" Grifters grift, some get away with it for longer than others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no answers to the questions you have raised but doesn't mean that it's not true. Well, your claim that "every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories" is definitely not true. Murphy's own figures only claim that Labour has borrowed less and repaid more on average. But even that is a massive claim, given that the received wisdom is that Labour are bigger spenders that the Tories. Big claims require solid evidence. Ask him, he might tell you I have asked him. Like most of his critics, I got banned instead of answered. Murphy does not like people asking him for evidence of his claims. Nope I got this from Murphy, he's written tons of stuff, he's been advising on documentaries on main stream TV, been on Radio 2 for over a decade giving advice on Vines show, as well as articles written about him in the national press. Not bad for a crank who cannot back up his claims. Also don't the media have fact checking done on them so why is he asked to come back on and give more interviews and advice, even in advisory roles if he cannot back up what he's saying. That's what I find strange about what you are claiming. Mrs x Murphy is a failed accountant and a left wing loon! Not doing bad for it though is he, Mrs x Grifters grift, some get away with it for longer than others. " He is still going strong it would appear. So why has he got you so riled up? Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no answers to the questions you have raised but doesn't mean that it's not true. Well, your claim that "every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories" is definitely not true. Murphy's own figures only claim that Labour has borrowed less and repaid more on average. But even that is a massive claim, given that the received wisdom is that Labour are bigger spenders that the Tories. Big claims require solid evidence. Ask him, he might tell you I have asked him. Like most of his critics, I got banned instead of answered. Murphy does not like people asking him for evidence of his claims. Nope I got this from Murphy, he's written tons of stuff, he's been advising on documentaries on main stream TV, been on Radio 2 for over a decade giving advice on Vines show, as well as articles written about him in the national press. Not bad for a crank who cannot back up his claims. Also don't the media have fact checking done on them so why is he asked to come back on and give more interviews and advice, even in advisory roles if he cannot back up what he's saying. That's what I find strange about what you are claiming. Mrs x Murphy is a failed accountant and a left wing loon! Not doing bad for it though is he, Mrs x Grifters grift, some get away with it for longer than others. He is still going strong it would appear. So why has he got you so riled up? Mrs x" He's riled up cos you won't give your solution to Gaza  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no answers to the questions you have raised but doesn't mean that it's not true. Well, your claim that "every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories" is definitely not true. Murphy's own figures only claim that Labour has borrowed less and repaid more on average. But even that is a massive claim, given that the received wisdom is that Labour are bigger spenders that the Tories. Big claims require solid evidence. Ask him, he might tell you I have asked him. Like most of his critics, I got banned instead of answered. Murphy does not like people asking him for evidence of his claims. Nope I got this from Murphy, he's written tons of stuff, he's been advising on documentaries on main stream TV, been on Radio 2 for over a decade giving advice on Vines show, as well as articles written about him in the national press. Not bad for a crank who cannot back up his claims. Also don't the media have fact checking done on them so why is he asked to come back on and give more interviews and advice, even in advisory roles if he cannot back up what he's saying. That's what I find strange about what you are claiming. Mrs x Murphy is a failed accountant and a left wing loon! Not doing bad for it though is he, Mrs x Grifters grift, some get away with it for longer than others. He is still going strong it would appear. So why has he got you so riled up? Mrs x He's riled up cos you won't give your solution to Gaza "I will once you give your answers about Mormons and Muslims, Mrs x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no answers to the questions you have raised but doesn't mean that it's not true. Well, your claim that "every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories" is definitely not true. Murphy's own figures only claim that Labour has borrowed less and repaid more on average. But even that is a massive claim, given that the received wisdom is that Labour are bigger spenders that the Tories. Big claims require solid evidence. Ask him, he might tell you I have asked him. Like most of his critics, I got banned instead of answered. Murphy does not like people asking him for evidence of his claims. Nope I got this from Murphy, he's written tons of stuff, he's been advising on documentaries on main stream TV, been on Radio 2 for over a decade giving advice on Vines show, as well as articles written about him in the national press. Not bad for a crank who cannot back up his claims. Also don't the media have fact checking done on them so why is he asked to come back on and give more interviews and advice, even in advisory roles if he cannot back up what he's saying. That's what I find strange about what you are claiming. Mrs x Murphy is a failed accountant and a left wing loon! Not doing bad for it though is he, Mrs x Grifters grift, some get away with it for longer than others. He is still going strong it would appear. So why has he got you so riled up? Mrs x He's riled up cos you won't give your solution to Gaza I will once you give your answers about Mormons and Muslims, Mrs x"Yep - another fantastic enlightening post. Bit like kier starmers promises that disappear like a fart in the wind 💨 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And believe it or not but every, yes every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories. I'm going to not believe it. You won't find a reputable source making that claim. It comes from one guy that says he's been through decades of parliamentary documents to get the figures, but he refuses to allow anyone else to see the data.Don't believe it then, it's not my opinion, and not only does he let people see the data he tells them where to find it, but I can't be bothered right now it's just boring, Mrs x I asked a question on this subject a bit earlier (do you think the current regime will continue this trend of borrowing less and paying back more) but assumed this claim was a verified fact. That now seems in a bit of doubt after reading other posts. So with that in mind do you know if this has been claimed by any serving Labour MP? I don't recall hearing it mentioned before the election or the previous election and would have thought such a thing would have been shouted loud and clear. It is possible I missed it of course hence the question.The post that says its just one guy, with no qualifications? That post? Because I've replied to that. Mrs x I seen your response and the back and forth hence why I said it was in question. However that was not my question. My question was has this been claimed by a Labour MP. I ask as to me such a fact would have been repeated over and over especially in the lead up to elections and I don't recall hearing it at all, which strikes me as odd. As said it is possible I missed it hence the questionI cannot recall that they did or that they didn't. However if it's the latter I think k that Murphys association with Corbynomics may be behind this as the new government may not have wanted to refer to this at all during the election due to the hammering Labour took at the previous one and this would make sense to distance themselves from this poor election showing. Mrs x I'm glad it's not just me that doesn't recall Labour MP's making this same claim. Personally I would have thought such a thing would have been front and centre of a campaign even if it was associated with Corbyn as its to good of a coup to leave out. I don't recall it being mentioned during corbyns time as leader either which if he is associated with corbynomics should have been fine presumably. I have no way of knowing this but it might be way Starmer never defended himself in the TV debate regarding the Tory lies about the 2k tax increase. He almost missed his chance to rebut this and only did at the last minute. Could be they'd recieved advice to avoid tax questions. The 1992 election was lost by Labour in the main through the Tax Bombshell campaign and they knew they were going to win regardless and just didn't want to bring taxation and other financial stuff into the debate. I have no evidence of this but allowing Sunak to try and get a response to this issue, over 13 times, during the debate seemed very odd. Mrs x" It doesn't add up for me why such earth shattering news would not be mentioned by the only people it would benefit. Not The current lot (including the old corbyn era people) or even more curious corbyns lot, including corbyn himself. In fact I can't honestly say I ever heard any politician say it. Perhaps SKS does want to disassociate from corbyn but the claim is not about corbyn it is about all governments going back decades and would have been golden ammunition for any Labour party both at elections and even in between elections. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Overall since 1946 and through to the end of the 2018/19 financial year Labour has been, overall, in office for 28 years and the Tories for 45. In that time according to the House of Commons Library net total government borrowing has been £1,618 billion: £155 billion of borrowing predated that period, most paying for WW2. Of that sum 67.5%, or £1,092 billion was borrowed by the Tories. 32.5% or £526 billion was borrowed by Labour. The Tories have been in office for longer, of course. Restated per year the Tories have borrowed £24.3 billion a year on average in historic prices. Labour has borrowed £18.8 billion a year on average. In current prices Labour has borrowed approximately £28 billion a year and the Tories £33.6 billion. The Tories are always the party that borrows most." Just one of the articles I've seen, Mrs x" Even if the claims are true, which it most likely isn't, it just calculates what's the amount that was borrowed during each party's rule. It doesn't say whose policies resulted in the expenses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting article on the BBC news website today about how Spains socialist coalition government have achieved a GDP of 3.2%." Did it explain how ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting article on the BBC news website today about how Spains socialist coalition government have achieved a GDP of 3.2%. Did it explain how ?" Investment | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting article on the BBC news website today about how Spains socialist coalition government have achieved a GDP of 3.2%. Did it explain how ? Investment " The Spain–IFAD partnership focused on investing in smallholder agriculture to ensure food and nutrition security, with emphasis to climate change adaptation, sustainable land use, financial inclusion and increasing the engagement of the private sector. While here in the UK, Brexit and Labours hit on farmers have achieved the opposite. Uk agriculture diminished to 0.5% gdp while we have to be reliant on importing more food. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting article on the BBC news website today about how Spains socialist coalition government have achieved a GDP of 3.2%. Did it explain how ? Investment The Spain–IFAD partnership focused on investing in smallholder agriculture to ensure food and nutrition security, with emphasis to climate change adaptation, sustainable land use, financial inclusion and increasing the engagement of the private sector. While here in the UK, Brexit and Labours hit on farmers have achieved the opposite. Uk agriculture diminished to 0.5% gdp while we have to be reliant on importing more food. " Spain is generally a well run country that's used its EU money well. It has a big advantages in the renewable energy sector of having lots of sun and wind and also a huge amount of spare land. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting article on the BBC news website today about how Spains socialist coalition government have achieved a GDP of 3.2%. Did it explain how ? Investment " Spain's annual GDP growth rate was around 3 % even before Covid under the conservative government. The new government didn't do anything special. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't believe measuring a government on their borrowing is a fair target, local and global influences will dictate the necessity. However economic growth is a better measure. Labour have had periods of heavy borrowing, rebuilding the UK post WW2, the NHS and when they basically blew the economy in the 70's and needed an IMF bailout keep the lights on a few hours a day. The tories have also had periods of heavy borrowing and so the cycle continues. As for austerity measures, they were needed and they did a job, 2 things upset the stabilisation; some measures were in place longer than needed, not all but some and covid, which basically wiped out the work the gains. Policy decisions, rather than borrowing, is what creates partisan disagreement, as an example the taxation of private schools, and the over inflation public sector pay rises will not sit well with those on the right of centre, as policies. It is normally where the money is spent that is the issue, public or private sector." The national debt was £434bn in 1997, then doubled to £878bn by 2010 by Blair/brown (add all the PFI and would be a lot higher) then trebled by tories to £2.6trn. These six fold increases in national debt are accumulated over just 28 years. We’ve had the financial crash ( I believe bank bail outs repaid), Iraq war £25bn, and covid (range £300-400bn). If we had not had austerity the national debt would be in the range £3.5-4 trillion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't believe measuring a government on their borrowing is a fair target, local and global influences will dictate the necessity. However economic growth is a better measure. Labour have had periods of heavy borrowing, rebuilding the UK post WW2, the NHS and when they basically blew the economy in the 70's and needed an IMF bailout keep the lights on a few hours a day. The tories have also had periods of heavy borrowing and so the cycle continues. As for austerity measures, they were needed and they did a job, 2 things upset the stabilisation; some measures were in place longer than needed, not all but some and covid, which basically wiped out the work the gains. Policy decisions, rather than borrowing, is what creates partisan disagreement, as an example the taxation of private schools, and the over inflation public sector pay rises will not sit well with those on the right of centre, as policies. It is normally where the money is spent that is the issue, public or private sector. The national debt was £434bn in 1997, then doubled to £878bn by 2010 by Blair/brown (add all the PFI and would be a lot higher) then trebled by tories to £2.6trn. These six fold increases in national debt are accumulated over just 28 years. We’ve had the financial crash ( I believe bank bail outs repaid), Iraq war £25bn, and covid (range £300-400bn). If we had not had austerity the national debt would be in the range £3.5-4 trillion. " There are those who say if the country had invested in the infrastructure when we had historically low interest rates we could have returned far better growth than what austerity gave us. So you final figures could be far lower. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't believe measuring a government on their borrowing is a fair target, local and global influences will dictate the necessity. However economic growth is a better measure. Labour have had periods of heavy borrowing, rebuilding the UK post WW2, the NHS and when they basically blew the economy in the 70's and needed an IMF bailout keep the lights on a few hours a day. The tories have also had periods of heavy borrowing and so the cycle continues. As for austerity measures, they were needed and they did a job, 2 things upset the stabilisation; some measures were in place longer than needed, not all but some and covid, which basically wiped out the work the gains. Policy decisions, rather than borrowing, is what creates partisan disagreement, as an example the taxation of private schools, and the over inflation public sector pay rises will not sit well with those on the right of centre, as policies. It is normally where the money is spent that is the issue, public or private sector. The national debt was £434bn in 1997, then doubled to £878bn by 2010 by Blair/brown (add all the PFI and would be a lot higher) then trebled by tories to £2.6trn. These six fold increases in national debt are accumulated over just 28 years. We’ve had the financial crash ( I believe bank bail outs repaid), Iraq war £25bn, and covid (range £300-400bn). If we had not had austerity the national debt would be in the range £3.5-4 trillion. " Our trading deficit is way out, and until we see a resurgence in manufacturing output, we will continue to see our debt rise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't believe measuring a government on their borrowing is a fair target, local and global influences will dictate the necessity. However economic growth is a better measure. Labour have had periods of heavy borrowing, rebuilding the UK post WW2, the NHS and when they basically blew the economy in the 70's and needed an IMF bailout keep the lights on a few hours a day. The tories have also had periods of heavy borrowing and so the cycle continues. As for austerity measures, they were needed and they did a job, 2 things upset the stabilisation; some measures were in place longer than needed, not all but some and covid, which basically wiped out the work the gains. Policy decisions, rather than borrowing, is what creates partisan disagreement, as an example the taxation of private schools, and the over inflation public sector pay rises will not sit well with those on the right of centre, as policies. It is normally where the money is spent that is the issue, public or private sector. The national debt was £434bn in 1997, then doubled to £878bn by 2010 by Blair/brown (add all the PFI and would be a lot higher) then trebled by tories to £2.6trn. These six fold increases in national debt are accumulated over just 28 years. We’ve had the financial crash ( I believe bank bail outs repaid), Iraq war £25bn, and covid (range £300-400bn). If we had not had austerity the national debt would be in the range £3.5-4 trillion. Our trading deficit is way out, and until we see a resurgence in manufacturing output, we will continue to see our debt rise. " Could it ever be paid off? It's getting beyond control now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't believe measuring a government on their borrowing is a fair target, local and global influences will dictate the necessity. However economic growth is a better measure. Labour have had periods of heavy borrowing, rebuilding the UK post WW2, the NHS and when they basically blew the economy in the 70's and needed an IMF bailout keep the lights on a few hours a day. The tories have also had periods of heavy borrowing and so the cycle continues. As for austerity measures, they were needed and they did a job, 2 things upset the stabilisation; some measures were in place longer than needed, not all but some and covid, which basically wiped out the work the gains. Policy decisions, rather than borrowing, is what creates partisan disagreement, as an example the taxation of private schools, and the over inflation public sector pay rises will not sit well with those on the right of centre, as policies. It is normally where the money is spent that is the issue, public or private sector. The national debt was £434bn in 1997, then doubled to £878bn by 2010 by Blair/brown (add all the PFI and would be a lot higher) then trebled by tories to £2.6trn. These six fold increases in national debt are accumulated over just 28 years. We’ve had the financial crash ( I believe bank bail outs repaid), Iraq war £25bn, and covid (range £300-400bn). If we had not had austerity the national debt would be in the range £3.5-4 trillion. Our trading deficit is way out, and until we see a resurgence in manufacturing output, we will continue to see our debt rise. Could it ever be paid off? It's getting beyond control now" Short answer no. Our reliance on imports and our poor manufacturing output (exports) makes paying off close to impossible. We don't actually need to pay it off, what we need is an economy (Debt to GDP) that can sustain the loan burden and provide enough for reinvestment into infrastructure projects, new tech and social improvements across the board. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no answers to the questions you have raised but doesn't mean that it's not true. Well, your claim that "every Labour government since WW2 has borrowed less and repaid more than the Tories" is definitely not true. Murphy's own figures only claim that Labour has borrowed less and repaid more on average. But even that is a massive claim, given that the received wisdom is that Labour are bigger spenders that the Tories. Big claims require solid evidence. Ask him, he might tell you I have asked him. Like most of his critics, I got banned instead of answered. Murphy does not like people asking him for evidence of his claims. Nope I got this from Murphy, he's written tons of stuff, he's been advising on documentaries on main stream TV, been on Radio 2 for over a decade giving advice on Vines show, as well as articles written about him in the national press. Not bad for a crank who cannot back up his claims. Also don't the media have fact checking done on them so why is he asked to come back on and give more interviews and advice, even in advisory roles if he cannot back up what he's saying. That's what I find strange about what you are claiming. Mrs x Murphy is a failed accountant and a left wing loon! Not doing bad for it though is he, Mrs x Grifters grift, some get away with it for longer than others. He is still going strong it would appear. So why has he got you so riled up? Mrs x" Riled up, LMAO. He’s a pathetic joke, I only laugh at him… I’m just a little frustrated by the morons who believe his dopy half baked bullsh1t | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Prime Minister Keir Starmer recommits to £3 billion a year of military support for Ukraine until 2030/31 and for as long as needed.” Source gov.uk I believe charity begins at home." 1 billion of that could be used to help stabilise this country. Usually something comes out of a blackhole so it would interesting to know where the money is going. In the treasury perhaps, vaults of gold bars. Idris Elba will tell about that. When a mother is stuck in a mould ridden flat. Shame on Labour using a blackhole for political points. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Prime Minister Keir Starmer recommits to £3 billion a year of military support for Ukraine until 2030/31 and for as long as needed.” Source gov.uk I believe charity begins at home. 1 billion of that could be used to help stabilise this country. Usually something comes out of a blackhole so it would interesting to know where the money is going. In the treasury perhaps, vaults of gold bars. Idris Elba will tell about that. When a mother is stuck in a mould ridden flat. Shame on Labour using a blackhole for political points. " £11.8 Billion has been put aside for compensation of Infected Blood I guess you could have a slice of that Cash.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
