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 |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When Labour came to power they gave the doctors and train drivers massive pay rises that they previous government hadn’t accounted for then claimed there was a £20 billion black hole in the public finances. It’s just been reported by the Daily Mirror that Rachel Reeves says there’s now a £40 billion black hole and she has to raise taxes. Baring in mind the previous budget was to fill the £20 billion black hole, this must be a new black hole? So they’ve somehow managed to misplace £40 billion quid since the last budget? " I have dusted off my skid lid ready for the announcement of the harley riding super black hole. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have been warning about this for a while and that the Autumn budget is going to bite. We have: Weaker economic growth than forecast. Higher borrowing costs and inflation. Policy reversals on planned welfare cuts. Lower tax revenues through poor policy. Overspend on public sector pay rises. Reeves has tied herself and the economy in knots. Starmer put his hand up to being part of the decision making and fully backed her policies. Reeves needs to go. Starmer should stay because replacing him now would open the door to the hard left, and that would only make the mess worse." More wool. Why do you never give any numbers? For instance on inflation - two years ago 6.4%, now 4.1%. Cost of government borrowing 2 years ago 4.527%, now 4.533% (an increase of 0.006%). Tax revenue 2022/23 £762 billion, 2024/25 £857 billion. I'm not sure what the growth forecast was, perhaps you can tell us? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have been warning about this for a while and that the Autumn budget is going to bite. We have: Weaker economic growth than forecast. Higher borrowing costs and inflation. Policy reversals on planned welfare cuts. Lower tax revenues through poor policy. Overspend on public sector pay rises. Reeves has tied herself and the economy in knots. Starmer put his hand up to being part of the decision making and fully backed her policies. Reeves needs to go. Starmer should stay because replacing him now would open the door to the hard left, and that would only make the mess worse. More wool. Why do you never give any numbers? For instance on inflation - two years ago 6.4%, now 4.1%. Cost of government borrowing 2 years ago 4.527%, now 4.533% (an increase of 0.006%). Tax revenue 2022/23 £762 billion, 2024/25 £857 billion. I'm not sure what the growth forecast was, perhaps you can tell us?" I'm going to repeat this once more... The figures from X are not relevant to the situation we find ourselves in today. If you can’t focus on the policy context that got us here now, not where we were two years ago, then we are not having a serious conversation, and it tells me a lot about your economic understanding | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm going to repeat this once more... The figures from X are not relevant to the situation we find ourselves in today. If you can’t focus on the policy context that got us here now, not where we were two years ago, then we are not having a serious conversation, and it tells me a lot about your economic understanding" You were literally making an argument that the present is worse than the past and are now trying to say that the past is irrelevant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm going to repeat this once more... The figures from X are not relevant to the situation we find ourselves in today. If you can’t focus on the policy context that got us here now, not where we were two years ago, then we are not having a serious conversation, and it tells me a lot about your economic understanding You were literally making an argument that the present is worse than the past and are now trying to say that the past is irrelevant." I'm not sure how you arrived at that understanding I really don't. Economics is not everyones cup of tea. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not sure how you arrived at that understanding I really don't. Economics is not everyones cup of tea." Whether economics is anyones cup of tea has nothing to do with the meaning of words. You said "We have: Weaker economic growth than forecast. Higher borrowing costs and inflation. Policy reversals on planned welfare cuts. Lower tax revenues through poor policy. Overspend on public sector pay rises." Let's just focus on "Higher borrowing costs and inflation". What do these word mean? They can only mean that borrowing costs and inflation now are higher than they were in the past. If that's not what you meant then what did you mean? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not sure how you arrived at that understanding I really don't. Economics is not everyones cup of tea. Whether economics is anyones cup of tea has nothing to do with the meaning of words. You said "We have: Weaker economic growth than forecast. Higher borrowing costs and inflation. Policy reversals on planned welfare cuts. Lower tax revenues through poor policy. Overspend on public sector pay rises." Let's just focus on "Higher borrowing costs and inflation". What do these word mean? They can only mean that borrowing costs and inflation now are higher than they were in the past. If that's not what you meant then what did you mean? " Okay this makes more sense. You’re missing how the recent budget decisions and fiscal rules have directly led to the outcomes I listed. I won’t go line by line detail you can look it up, but the key point is, but the cost of borrowing has increased due to a number of policy u-turns, poor policy, which has led to economic forecasting failure and fiscal rules that Reeves applied to not borrow for day to day. In a nutshell, the cost of government borrowing has risen off the back of these issues driven by policy and poor judgement. The latest projections indicate that tax rises will be needed to meet fiscal rules a direct result of weak growth, poor forecasting, and the policy U-turns, which is what I and many have been calling out since the budget. Remember me saying lets talk about this in October? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When Labour came to power they gave the doctors and train drivers massive pay rises that they previous government hadn’t accounted for then claimed there was a £20 billion black hole in the public finances. It’s just been reported by the Daily Mirror that Rachel Reeves says there’s now a £40 billion black hole and she has to raise taxes. Baring in mind the previous budget was to fill the £20 billion black hole, this must be a new black hole? So they’ve somehow managed to misplace £40 billion quid since the last budget? " If this is a new black hole then who is to blame? Surely this can be put down to the previous government as per standard procedure for all governments. She is very limited, especially if she is to avoid extra tax on working people and told businesses last time that the previous tax rises were a one off and she won't be back for more | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Okay this makes more sense. You’re missing how the recent budget decisions and fiscal rules have directly led to the outcomes I listed. I won’t go line by line detail you can look it up, but the key point is, but the cost of borrowing has increased due to a number of policy u-turns, poor policy, which has led to economic forecasting failure and fiscal rules that Reeves applied to not borrow for day to day. In a nutshell, the cost of government borrowing has risen off the back of these issues driven by policy and poor judgement. The latest projections indicate that tax rises will be needed to meet fiscal rules a direct result of weak growth, poor forecasting, and the policy U-turns, which is what I and many have been calling out since the budget. Remember me saying lets talk about this in October?" The problem I have is that what you say has happened and what the actual data says don't match up. Compared with the situation under the previous government inflation hasn't gone up. The cost of borrowing hasn't gone up. Tax revenue hasn't fallen. To put it bluntly you are saying things that aren't true and expecting us to take you seriously. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Okay this makes more sense. You’re missing how the recent budget decisions and fiscal rules have directly led to the outcomes I listed. I won’t go line by line detail you can look it up, but the key point is, but the cost of borrowing has increased due to a number of policy u-turns, poor policy, which has led to economic forecasting failure and fiscal rules that Reeves applied to not borrow for day to day. In a nutshell, the cost of government borrowing has risen off the back of these issues driven by policy and poor judgement. The latest projections indicate that tax rises will be needed to meet fiscal rules a direct result of weak growth, poor forecasting, and the policy U-turns, which is what I and many have been calling out since the budget. Remember me saying lets talk about this in October? The problem I have is that what you say has happened and what the actual data says don't match up. Compared with the situation under the previous government inflation hasn't gone up. The cost of borrowing hasn't gone up. Tax revenue hasn't fallen. To put it bluntly you are saying things that aren't true and expecting us to take you seriously. " Maybe read the NIESR projections. The issue isn’t where inflation or borrowing costs were, it’s where they are heading due to poor policy decisions. This isn’t about past stats or governments. It’s about the consequences of recent decisions and where they are taking us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe read the NIESR projections. The issue isn’t where inflation or borrowing costs were, it’s where they are heading due to poor policy decisions. This isn’t about past stats or governments. It’s about the consequences of recent decisions and where they are taking us." OK, I have no problem with you bringing up projections of what might happen in the future. I just object to you making false statements about what has actually happened. I just took a quick glance at NIESR projections and they are predicting inflation to average 3.3% over the year and for interest rates to drop from 4.24% to 3.75%. I'll dig into the detail more when I have an hour or two to spare. BTW I quoted inflation at 4.1% earlier but that was CPIH not CPI which is currently 3.6%. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"£20bn doubled to £41bn black hole, reported today construction sector fallen to 5 year low, unemployment rate at 4 year high. House prices see biggest July drop in over 20 years (rightmove), highest inflation in G7, government borrowing up again, company CVA’s up 41%. What a mess" They've delivered economic stability you fool  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Starmer is quoted as saying he doesn’t believe the figures being publicised are accurate, which is just about as close as you’ll ever get to confirming they are. Might have to buy a dingy and jump on the next Eurostar to France " Predictably the economists and actuaries are all wrong and Starmer now competent to comment on the £1trn treasury budget, after he’s employed a person as chancellor without the adequate experience and faux CV to boot. It’s clear the wheels are coming off for Labour in just a year. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The result of living beyond our means as a nation. To be fair, the Tories highlighted the dilemma and started to reduce national debt levels. But nobody wanted to know, and it got labelled as 'austerity' - a Tory plan to impoverish working people at the expense of the rich. So now, no politician dare broach the subject, and we have eye-watering repayment levels just to service the debt. Bonkers!" Of course it's bonkers. I've been saying for years that Britain has been living way beyond its means and one day it will hit the buffers. The so called Tory austerity was a myth. Like downgrading from a 5 star hotel to a 4 star yet the left screamed like stuck pigs. But the over spending goes on like that demented pools winner from the 60's. Spend spend spend. Austerity, you ain't seen nothing yet, just wait until the IMF get called in again. Mark my words, they will before the next GE. Those buffers are getting awfully close. BTW. If you put Rachel's "headroom" back into the equation the black hole is actually 50 billion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The result of living beyond our means as a nation. To be fair, the Tories highlighted the dilemma and started to reduce national debt levels. But nobody wanted to know, and it got labelled as 'austerity' - a Tory plan to impoverish working people at the expense of the rich. So now, no politician dare broach the subject, and we have eye-watering repayment levels just to service the debt. Bonkers!" Yes. But the doubling of this black hole is 100% on reeves policies. Business contraction and rising unemployment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Their own MPs won’t let them cut spending. Their own rules and manifesto won’t let them increase any of the big 3 taxes that could raise this type of money and you can’t get £50 billion by tinkering with inheritance tax or capitol gains etc and any increases in corporation tax will just damage the economy further. Even a wealth tax which was debated in here quite vigorously would have to be a lot higher than the 1-2% that the socialist in here say everyone else can afford. And the threshold would have to be set quite low. And their own fiscal rules prevent them fron just borrowing it all. Not to mention the massive public sector pay demands that are flooding in. The doctors have made their position clear, the nurses are due to demand a big rise well above inflation and the teachers are watching with interest. But Reeves attitude might well be “who cares about adding another £10 billion to the black hole, let Reform be the bad guys in 4 years time when they have no choice but to cut spending massively”. The government have literally painted themselves into a corner. I can see well above inflation increases on alcohol, and tobacco with justification that they cost the NHS billions. Same for petrol and vehicle excise duty. 5% increase in the top rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate and 1% on the basic rate. Instead of the basic rate change they might reverse the reduction in national insurance that the previous government actioned and that way they can blame it on them. But they do love their stealth type taxes so an increase in VAT wouldn’t surprise me. A 1% change in VAT, basic rate of income tax or national insurance all equate to roughly £8 billion in revenue. But they will borrow a big chunk of it as well I would have thought, which of course is just passing the problem to the next government. How can they possibly now hold their heads high while introducing anything that’s gonna cost more money? " Yes all ways to raise more money. But here's a novel idea. Why not just stop chucking money around like a d*unken sailor. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Astonishing ineptitude...but,of course, who on the left will admit that? It'll all be the fault of someone else, truss, Brexit (conveniently forgetting that the numerous labour MPs supported it not to mention shit loads of labour voters), Thatcher.... it'll be my fault soon "It was bidens fault of course, just ask trumpy  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"£18bn gone to Ukraine, plus another £4.5bn this year £10bn foreign aid, some to countries with human rights abuses and supporting Russias war £6bn at home on migrants £26bn a year on housing benefit because they’ve sold off half the social housing stock £40bn a year spent by nhs treating self inflicted obesity, smoking diseases, drug and alcohol abuse £9.6m on House of Lords front doors £319m a day national debt interest £80bn nhs PFI that delivered £13bn investment £39bn a year uncollected taxes " On the up.side, there's jobs going as train drivers  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes all ways to raise more money. But here's a novel idea. Why not just stop chucking money around like a d*unken sailor." Absolutely. There was little to no due diligence behind many of these policies, billions wasted, only to reverse out later, with massive disruption and costs. Some on the left bizarrely praised Starmer’s u-turns as signs of “strong leadership,” completely oblivious to the costs involved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Correct me of I'm wrong, but the UK is the only one of the g7 to have completely phased out coal How much did that cost ? We banned fracking how much would that have generated As usual, people want everything but "not in my backyard" No ?" Yes Britain phased out the coal under our feet and replaced it with wood pellets shipped halfway round the world. 
Britain refuses to issue oil and gas licences in the North Sea but buys the same oil and gas from the same North Sea from Norway.
Britain banned fracking because of earthquakes that no-one ever felt
And people wonder why the country is skint. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Correct me of I'm wrong, but the UK is the only one of the g7 to have completely phased out coal How much did that cost ? We banned fracking how much would that have generated As usual, people want everything but "not in my backyard" No ?" The “not in my back yard” is definitely a significant thing. Shouting in favour of nuclear power stations and wind turbines but objecting to them being built. As for coal, I’m not sure who’s still burning it at power stations and who isn’t. But it’s a particularly dirty fuel and became cost prohibitive to mine ourselves. But I’d be interested in the ratios of cost and co2 emissions between importing coal from say Poland and importing liquefied natural gas from the gulf. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe read the NIESR projections. The issue isn’t where inflation or borrowing costs were, it’s where they are heading due to poor policy decisions. This isn’t about past stats or governments. It’s about the consequences of recent decisions and where they are taking us. OK, I have no problem with you bringing up projections of what might happen in the future. I just object to you making false statements about what has actually happened. I just took a quick glance at NIESR projections and they are predicting inflation to average 3.3% over the year and for interest rates to drop from 4.24% to 3.75%. I'll dig into the detail more when I have an hour or two to spare. BTW I quoted inflation at 4.1% earlier but that was CPIH not CPI which is currently 3.6%. " I missed this... Once again, you are accusing me of making false claims while failing to grasp the fundamentals of what’s actually happening. You asked why borrowing costs are high, I answered with facts and in the spirit of trying I will explain again.. Reeves recent policy decisions, labours u-turns, and fiscal rules have dented market confidence. I will be clear what this means.. The government’s overall performance have pushed gilt prices down, raising yields, which directly increases borrowing costs. Poor policy decisions lead to financial consequences, fact. I hope this helps. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is anyone really surprised that a socialist Governement is tanking the economy?" It's been tanked for years  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Crikey I see most of the fab right-wing are having a jolly picnic slagging off the UK economy. This is a long post but there's a lot to cover. Just to be clear I don't think the economy is in great shape, but the basic message all you guys are putting forward is that the UK economy has gone completely off the rails, we're doomed and it's all down to Reeves and Starmer. If this isn't what you're saying then let me know but otherwise I'll assume that's what you are asserting. So how do we test this proposition? I'd say by comparing the current situation to the past. By doing so we can get a facts based picture of how the UK economy is now compared with how it's done historically. Projections of what might happen in the future can be useful but projections aren't facts. For the proposition that the UK economy is tanked, in knots, a mess, bonkers, hitting the buffers etc to be true one would expect various measures of economic performance to be much worse now than they were at any point in recent history. At least anyone rational would expect this. What are the main parameters for judging the state of the economy? Inflation, unemployment, BofE interest rates, government debt, government borrowing costs and GDP. So the lower all of these except GDP are, the better the state of the economy. Obviously we want growth so the higher the GDP the better. Although for savers high interest rates are good, for most of the economy lower interest rates are better. Let's look at the data for these parameters in turn. Remembering that the Starmer adminstration began 5th July 2024. --- Inflation (ONS dataset CPI annual rate) Latest figure: 3.6% June 2025 Figure at end of previous government: 2% June 2024 So (apart from it dropping to 1.7% last Sept) inflation has indeed risen in the past year. However, inflation was above the current level from Oct 2021 through Jan 2024 - so for well over two years, until the beginning of last year, inflation was higher than it is now. And when I say higher I mean much higher. It was 11.1% in October 2022. So Is inflation worse now than it has been in the recent past? I'd say no. --- Unemployment (ONS dataset LMS) Latest figure: 4.7% Mar-May 2025 Figure at end of previous government: 4.4% Mar-May 2024 So unemployment is worse now than when Laboour came to power. But in historic terms 4.7% unemployment is pretty good. It's lower now that it was for the entire 37 year period between from 1979 to 2016 (apart from summer 2005 when it was also 4.7%). Recent spikes were to 8.4% 2011 and 5.3% 2020. So is unemployment worse now than it has been in the recent past? I'd say no. --- Interest rates (Bank of England dataset). Current rate: 4% Figure at end of previous government: 5.25% I believe on a variable/tracker mortgage a 0.25% change equates to about £40 a month on an average mortgage, so some people could be paying £200 a month less in interest than when the Tories were in. So are interest rates worse now than they've been in the recent past? I'd say no. --- Government debt (ONS dataset PUSF Net Debt excluding public sector banks as a % of GDP Current figure: 96.3% Figure at end of previous government: 95.8% So although the absolute amount of debt is obviously increasing at a scary rate the ratio to GDP is now 0.5% worse than when the Toried were in. This parameter has basically been flat and in the mid to high 90's% for the past five years with a slight spike to 99.1% in 2020 due to covid. One of the main levers for governments to create growth is infrastrucutre investment but debt is so high that there's limited scope for this. It's a bit of a Catch 22 as we need growth to get the debt down but one of the few ways to create growth is to increase debt. Yeah, I know that's a bit simplistic but hopefully you get my drift. So is government debt worse now than it's been in the recent past? In absolute terms yes but as a percentage of GDP no. But it's still far too high than is comfortable. I'd say debt is the biggest problem facing the government. --- Government borrowing costs (Trading Economic dataset 10 year gilt yield) Current figure: 4.55% Figure at end of previous government: 4.17% So as with inflation it's risen over the last year but it was 4.65% in Oct 2023 and above the current level several times in 2023. The main increase in the cost of government borrowing occurred between 2021 and 2023 when it shot up from 0.52% to 4.67%. So is the cost of government borrowing worse now than it's been in the past? I'd say it's about the same. --- I'll cover GDP and a few other topics later. " a country mile away from what is being discussed. However top marks for more whataboutery.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"a country mile away from what is being discussed. However top marks for more whataboutery." You've obviously forgotten that it was you who introduced economic growth, borrowing costs and inflation into the debate. And the OP later added unemployment. When I have time I'm also going to talk about pay rises, u-turns and housing costs. All things that have been brought up by other posters. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Crikey I see most of the fab right-wing are having a jolly picnic slagging off the UK economy. This is a long post but there's a lot to cover. Just to be clear I don't think the economy is in great shape, but the basic message all you guys are putting forward is that the UK economy has gone completely off the rails, we're doomed and it's all down to Reeves and Starmer. If this isn't what you're saying then let me know but otherwise I'll assume that's what you are asserting. So how do we test this proposition? I'd say by comparing the current situation to the past. By doing so we can get a facts based picture of how the UK economy is now compared with how it's done historically. Projections of what might happen in the future can be useful but projections aren't facts. For the proposition that the UK economy is tanked, in knots, a mess, bonkers, hitting the buffers etc to be true one would expect various measures of economic performance to be much worse now than they were at any point in recent history. At least anyone rational would expect this. What are the main parameters for judging the state of the economy? Inflation, unemployment, BofE interest rates, government debt, government borrowing costs and GDP. So the lower all of these except GDP are, the better the state of the economy. Obviously we want growth so the higher the GDP the better. Although for savers high interest rates are good, for most of the economy lower interest rates are better. Let's look at the data for these parameters in turn. Remembering that the Starmer adminstration began 5th July 2024. --- Inflation (ONS dataset CPI annual rate) Latest figure: 3.6% June 2025 Figure at end of previous government: 2% June 2024 So (apart from it dropping to 1.7% last Sept) inflation has indeed risen in the past year. However, inflation was above the current level from Oct 2021 through Jan 2024 - so for well over two years, until the beginning of last year, inflation was higher than it is now. And when I say higher I mean much higher. It was 11.1% in October 2022. So Is inflation worse now than it has been in the recent past? I'd say no. --- Unemployment (ONS dataset LMS) Latest figure: 4.7% Mar-May 2025 Figure at end of previous government: 4.4% Mar-May 2024 So unemployment is worse now than when Laboour came to power. But in historic terms 4.7% unemployment is pretty good. It's lower now that it was for the entire 37 year period between from 1979 to 2016 (apart from summer 2005 when it was also 4.7%). Recent spikes were to 8.4% 2011 and 5.3% 2020. So is unemployment worse now than it has been in the recent past? I'd say no. --- Interest rates (Bank of England dataset). Current rate: 4% Figure at end of previous government: 5.25% I believe on a variable/tracker mortgage a 0.25% change equates to about £40 a month on an average mortgage, so some people could be paying £200 a month less in interest than when the Tories were in. So are interest rates worse now than they've been in the recent past? I'd say no. --- Government debt (ONS dataset PUSF Net Debt excluding public sector banks as a % of GDP Current figure: 96.3% Figure at end of previous government: 95.8% So although the absolute amount of debt is obviously increasing at a scary rate the ratio to GDP is now 0.5% worse than when the Toried were in. This parameter has basically been flat and in the mid to high 90's% for the past five years with a slight spike to 99.1% in 2020 due to covid. One of the main levers for governments to create growth is infrastrucutre investment but debt is so high that there's limited scope for this. It's a bit of a Catch 22 as we need growth to get the debt down but one of the few ways to create growth is to increase debt. Yeah, I know that's a bit simplistic but hopefully you get my drift. So is government debt worse now than it's been in the recent past? In absolute terms yes but as a percentage of GDP no. But it's still far too high than is comfortable. I'd say debt is the biggest problem facing the government. --- Government borrowing costs (Trading Economic dataset 10 year gilt yield) Current figure: 4.55% Figure at end of previous government: 4.17% So as with inflation it's risen over the last year but it was 4.65% in Oct 2023 and above the current level several times in 2023. The main increase in the cost of government borrowing occurred between 2021 and 2023 when it shot up from 0.52% to 4.67%. So is the cost of government borrowing worse now than it's been in the past? I'd say it's about the same. --- I'll cover GDP and a few other topics later. " The OP related to the £40 bn expected gap in government finances and that's what is being discussed. Labour are in the driver's seat so it's reasonable to speculate if their policies are to blame in full or part, no? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The rate cut today has paved the way for more tax rises No idea where this all goes moving forward, everybody on Main Street is skint, record high rents, home ownership fallen, businesses closing, rising unemployment. Labours big plans have collapsed in 13 months." Could you explain how a cut in interest rates will pave the way for tax rises or how it will increase rents or lower home ownership? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I make that £1205 more needed from each taxpayer. " I'm happy to donate the fiver, leave the rest to you, better start the overtime this week.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP related to the £40 bn expected gap in government finances and that's what is being discussed. Labour are in the driver's seat so it's reasonable to speculate if their policies are to blame in full or part, no? Yes, and as I've already said government debt is probably the biggest problem the UK is facing. But this thread has expanded to become a general attack on the economy so I though it worthwhile to bring my perspective to the discussion. And while £40 billion is a huge sum of money it's not when compared to the overall debt which stands at £2.8 trillion. I'm all for analysis of UK governemnt polices and constructive criticism, but many of the comments here don't amount to much more than partisan moaning. So forgive me for pushing back a little, even though I'm not a Labour supporter. " So you think they should just put the £40 - £50 billion on the company credit card so to speak? After all, what’s an extra £50 billion for the next government to have to pay back? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The OP related to the £40 bn expected gap in government finances and that's what is being discussed. Labour are in the driver's seat so it's reasonable to speculate if their policies are to blame in full or part, no? Yes, and as I've already said government debt is probably the biggest problem the UK is facing. But this thread has expanded to become a general attack on the economy so I though it worthwhile to bring my perspective to the discussion. And while £40 billion is a huge sum of money it's not when compared to the overall debt which stands at £2.8 trillion. I'm all for analysis of UK governemnt polices and constructive criticism, but many of the comments here don't amount to much more than partisan moaning. So forgive me for pushing back a little, even though I'm not a Labour supporter. " Calling it a drop in the ocean misses how policy choices and u-turns directly affect economic confidence and fiscal outcomes. Which is what we are discussing, now in the present. The 40 billion is on top of everything that was budgeted for, and she has lot 9 billion in headroom, hence the lack of confidence in the government and the repercussions that follow. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When Labour came to power they gave the doctors and train drivers massive pay rises that they previous government hadn’t accounted for then claimed there was a £20 billion black hole in the public finances. It’s just been reported by the Daily Mirror that Rachel Reeves says there’s now a £40 billion black hole and she has to raise taxes. Baring in mind the previous budget was to fill the £20 billion black hole, this must be a new black hole? So they’ve somehow managed to misplace £40 billion quid since the last budget? " Housing, feeding, clothing etc all the illegals ain't cheap! I'm not saying it's all gone there but a hell of a lot has. Wouldn't be such a big deal for most if it wasn't people who entered illegally and don't want to fit in and live by UK law's etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Crikey I see most of the fab right-wing are having a jolly picnic slagging off the UK economy. This is a long post but there's a lot to cover. Just to be clear I don't think the economy is in great shape, but the basic message all you guys are putting forward is that the UK economy has gone completely off the rails, we're doomed and it's all down to Reeves and Starmer. If this isn't what you're saying then let me know but otherwise I'll assume that's what you are asserting. So how do we test this proposition? I'd say by comparing the current situation to the past. By doing so we can get a facts based picture of how the UK economy is now compared with how it's done historically. Projections of what might happen in the future can be useful but projections aren't facts. For the proposition that the UK economy is tanked, in knots, a mess, bonkers, hitting the buffers etc to be true one would expect various measures of economic performance to be much worse now than they were at any point in recent history. At least anyone rational would expect this. What are the main parameters for judging the state of the economy? Inflation, unemployment, BofE interest rates, government debt, government borrowing costs and GDP. So the lower all of these except GDP are, the better the state of the economy. Obviously we want growth so the higher the GDP the better. Although for savers high interest rates are good, for most of the economy lower interest rates are better. Let's look at the data for these parameters in turn. Remembering that the Starmer adminstration began 5th July 2024. --- Inflation (ONS dataset CPI annual rate) Latest figure: 3.6% June 2025 Figure at end of previous government: 2% June 2024 So (apart from it dropping to 1.7% last Sept) inflation has indeed risen in the past year. However, inflation was above the current level from Oct 2021 through Jan 2024 - so for well over two years, until the beginning of last year, inflation was higher than it is now. And when I say higher I mean much higher. It was 11.1% in October 2022. So Is inflation worse now than it has been in the recent past? I'd say no. --- Unemployment (ONS dataset LMS) Latest figure: 4.7% Mar-May 2025 Figure at end of previous government: 4.4% Mar-May 2024 So unemployment is worse now than when Laboour came to power. But in historic terms 4.7% unemployment is pretty good. It's lower now that it was for the entire 37 year period between from 1979 to 2016 (apart from summer 2005 when it was also 4.7%). Recent spikes were to 8.4% 2011 and 5.3% 2020. So is unemployment worse now than it has been in the recent past? I'd say no. --- Interest rates (Bank of England dataset). Current rate: 4% Figure at end of previous government: 5.25% I believe on a variable/tracker mortgage a 0.25% change equates to about £40 a month on an average mortgage, so some people could be paying £200 a month less in interest than when the Tories were in. So are interest rates worse now than they've been in the recent past? I'd say no. --- Government debt (ONS dataset PUSF Net Debt excluding public sector banks as a % of GDP Current figure: 96.3% Figure at end of previous government: 95.8% So although the absolute amount of debt is obviously increasing at a scary rate the ratio to GDP is now 0.5% worse than when the Toried were in. This parameter has basically been flat and in the mid to high 90's% for the past five years with a slight spike to 99.1% in 2020 due to covid. One of the main levers for governments to create growth is infrastrucutre investment but debt is so high that there's limited scope for this. It's a bit of a Catch 22 as we need growth to get the debt down but one of the few ways to create growth is to increase debt. Yeah, I know that's a bit simplistic but hopefully you get my drift. So is government debt worse now than it's been in the recent past? In absolute terms yes but as a percentage of GDP no. But it's still far too high than is comfortable. I'd say debt is the biggest problem facing the government. --- Government borrowing costs (Trading Economic dataset 10 year gilt yield) Current figure: 4.55% Figure at end of previous government: 4.17% So as with inflation it's risen over the last year but it was 4.65% in Oct 2023 and above the current level several times in 2023. The main increase in the cost of government borrowing occurred between 2021 and 2023 when it shot up from 0.52% to 4.67%. So is the cost of government borrowing worse now than it's been in the past? I'd say it's about the same. --- I'll cover GDP and a few other topics later. " So judging by the results you have listed, interest rates have improved (and reduced again today) since labour took over. Everything else you list has gotten worse since labour took over. We can pick points in history where things were even worse, like high inflation when Russia invaded Ukraine but that does not alter the fact that since labour took over all but one item of your list has got worse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When Labour came to power they gave the doctors and train drivers massive pay rises that they previous government hadn’t accounted for then claimed there was a £20 billion black hole in the public finances. It’s just been reported by the Daily Mirror that Rachel Reeves says there’s now a £40 billion black hole and she has to raise taxes. Baring in mind the previous budget was to fill the £20 billion black hole, this must be a new black hole? So they’ve somehow managed to misplace £40 billion quid since the last budget? Housing, feeding, clothing etc all the illegals ain't cheap! I'm not saying it's all gone there but a hell of a lot has. Wouldn't be such a big deal for most if it wasn't people who entered illegally and don't want to fit in and live by UK law's etc." My understanding (and may be incorrect) is that the money spent on those arriving by dingies comes from the overseas aid budget. So possibly if this money was not spent on the arrivals it may have just been given to various countries instead. Ps you may hear references to daily mail or daily express or GB news consumer at some point | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The reason the Bank of England is reducing interest rates is because the economy is weak. The MPC voted 5-4 to lower rates after a second vote as they were so split on what to do. Anyone who thinks this is a vote of confidence in the Labour government is kidding themselves. With inflation running at 3.6 % and heading upwards lower interest rates are arguably an odd thing to do. On balance it looks like the MPC is more worried about the sluggish economy than they are about stoking further inflation. The BOE inflation target is 2% so we are way above that. And the UK inflation rate is above average for bigger economies caused of course by higher taxes leading to higher prices. " The BoE is moving in parallel to stimulate the economy, but there is a real risk of inflationary spillover if market confidence takes another dip in October. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"UK needs Milei-like leader to create a turnaround. Or else, we will just be on a downward spiral of trying to tax our way out of the problems only to make the problems even bigger." Taxing our way out is the only option now. I have said this before, I'm so disappointed with this government, they should have thrived the first 24 months, not fell apart. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"UK needs Milei-like leader to create a turnaround. Or else, we will just be on a downward spiral of trying to tax our way out of the problems only to make the problems even bigger. Taxing our way out is the only option now. I have said this before, I'm so disappointed with this government, they should have thrived the first 24 months, not fell apart." Pensioners, farmers, the disabled, allotment holders, and now higher taxes that will reduce the economic prospects. The only good outcome is they will be for one term | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"UK needs Milei-like leader to create a turnaround. Or else, we will just be on a downward spiral of trying to tax our way out of the problems only to make the problems even bigger. Taxing our way out is the only option now. I have said this before, I'm so disappointed with this government, they should have thrived the first 24 months, not fell apart. Pensioners, farmers, the disabled, allotment holders, and now higher taxes that will reduce the economic prospects. The only good outcome is they will be for one term " The labour party have just carried on from 2010. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"UK needs Milei-like leader to create a turnaround. Or else, we will just be on a downward spiral of trying to tax our way out of the problems only to make the problems even bigger. Taxing our way out is the only option now. I have said this before, I'm so disappointed with this government, they should have thrived the first 24 months, not fell apart." They should have ideally reduced the spending. But given the backlash they got over the winter fuel changes, they were too scared to do any other budget cuts. Giving everything the unions asked doesn't help either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"UK needs Milei-like leader to create a turnaround. Or else, we will just be on a downward spiral of trying to tax our way out of the problems only to make the problems even bigger. Taxing our way out is the only option now. I have said this before, I'm so disappointed with this government, they should have thrived the first 24 months, not fell apart. They should have ideally reduced the spending. But given the backlash they got over the winter fuel changes, they were too scared to do any other budget cuts. Giving everything the unions asked doesn't help either." The groups attacked by Labour were to raise trivial sums: WFA. £1.7bn before the u turn Farmers £520m from iht Disabled £5bn before u turn And now the homelessness minister resigning over profiteering £700 a month and getting caught. They really are shortsighted and taking political risks for minor gains. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"UK needs Milei-like leader to create a turnaround. Or else, we will just be on a downward spiral of trying to tax our way out of the problems only to make the problems even bigger. Taxing our way out is the only option now. I have said this before, I'm so disappointed with this government, they should have thrived the first 24 months, not fell apart. They should have ideally reduced the spending. But given the backlash they got over the winter fuel changes, they were too scared to do any other budget cuts. Giving everything the unions asked doesn't help either. The groups attacked by Labour were to raise trivial sums: WFA. £1.7bn before the u turn Farmers £520m from iht Disabled £5bn before u turn And now the homelessness minister resigning over profiteering £700 a month and getting caught. They really are shortsighted and taking political risks for minor gains. " I agree whatever they did wasn't worth the risk. It didn't save much anyway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It'll still be blamed on the Tories " Yes but Labour are going the same way as Brexit. All bad news and people regretting it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It'll still be blamed on the Tories Yes but Labour are going the same way as Brexit. All bad news and people regretting it. " And we have four more years of ineptitude and blaming it on someone, anyone else because the foundations are now stable... FFS | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Noone on the frontbench has any business experience. Enough said." Not quite true. I believe that one, recently resigned, had experience in the property rental market. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Noone on the frontbench has any business experience. Enough said. Not quite true. I believe that one, recently resigned, had experience in the property rental market. "At least she has a good income to fall back on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a quick post to add GDP to my earlier analysis... GDP (Trading Economics dataset MOM % change) Latest figure: -0.1% May 2025 Figure at end of previous government: -0.1% June 2024 It's a pity we can't post graphics on here but if you look at the 10 year view you'll see it's basically a straight line with random wiggles of an amplitude of about 1% peak-to-peak centred on roughly 0.25% growth but with a massive ringing oscillation caused by covid were it dropped to -19% and rebounded up to 9% before slowly going back to the established pattern. So Is growth worse now than it has been in the recent past? I'd say no, it's roughly the same if we filter out the covid effects (it would be unfair to blame covid on the previous government and I think on balance they did a reasonable job of managing the economy during the crisis)." I'm really unsure why you keep trying to compare apples to oranges... The economy we have now is what we are talking about, and how policy is leading us into another u-turn, and all available headroom has been lost. Do you have any thoughts on the current chancellors policies, u-turns by labour and where we are headed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have been warning about this for a while and that the Autumn budget is going to bite. We have: Weaker economic growth than forecast. Higher borrowing costs and inflation. Policy reversals on planned welfare cuts. Lower tax revenues through poor policy. Overspend on public sector pay rises. Reeves has tied herself and the economy in knots. Starmer put his hand up to being part of the decision making and fully backed her policies. Reeves needs to go. Starmer should stay because replacing him now would open the door to the hard left, and that would only make the mess worse. More wool. Why do you never give any numbers? For instance on inflation - two years ago 6.4%, now 4.1%. Cost of government borrowing 2 years ago 4.527%, now 4.533% (an increase of 0.006%). Tax revenue 2022/23 £762 billion, 2024/25 £857 billion. I'm not sure what the growth forecast was, perhaps you can tell us?" Curious, why do you pick numbers from exactly 2 years ago? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just a quick post to add GDP to my earlier analysis... GDP (Trading Economics dataset MOM % change) Latest figure: -0.1% May 2025 Figure at end of previous government: -0.1% June 2024 It's a pity we can't post graphics on here but if you look at the 10 year view you'll see it's basically a straight line with random wiggles of an amplitude of about 1% peak-to-peak centred on roughly 0.25% growth but with a massive ringing oscillation caused by covid were it dropped to -19% and rebounded up to 9% before slowly going back to the established pattern. So Is growth worse now than it has been in the recent past? I'd say no, it's roughly the same if we filter out the covid effects (it would be unfair to blame covid on the previous government and I think on balance they did a reasonable job of managing the economy during the crisis)." For growth you would probably need to look pre and post 2008 for most European countries as that is when they have started to diverge from the US and the rest of the world. It’s the financial crisis of 2008 that Europe has never recovered from. But your position seems to be that the Labour government is no better or worse than the government that suffered a massive defeat in July 2024. So even if we accept your position, electors were wrong to place any faith in Labour (or believe its pack of lies if one is being less generous)? We may as well have stuck with the failed Tories? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reeves is a political liability we can't afford. If Starmer forces her out ahead of the Autumn budget it could settle the markets if the replacement can reshape and show credibility. If he waits until after the budget he is playing with fire economically, but would show him as taking action if it goes wrong. I would like to see her do the right thing and resign now. " Neither Reeves, Starmer or Rayner will ever resign. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reeves is a political liability we can't afford. If Starmer forces her out ahead of the Autumn budget it could settle the markets if the replacement can reshape and show credibility. If he waits until after the budget he is playing with fire economically, but would show him as taking action if it goes wrong. I would like to see her do the right thing and resign now. Neither Reeves, Starmer or Rayner will ever resign. " Reeves will need to, Starmer gave his word she was going nowhere. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Reeves is a political liability we can't afford. If Starmer forces her out ahead of the Autumn budget it could settle the markets if the replacement can reshape and show credibility. If he waits until after the budget he is playing with fire economically, but would show him as taking action if it goes wrong. I would like to see her do the right thing and resign now. Neither Reeves, Starmer or Rayner will ever resign. Reeves will need to, Starmer gave his word she was going nowhere." Then again it could be "football chairman syndrome" When the chairman gives his 100% backing to the manager 24 hours before firing him. I've no sympathy for Reeves. She is between a rock and a hard place but it is of her own making. She is hemmed in on one side by her unrealistic manifesto pledges (AKA lies) and from the other side by her own fiscal rules. Something has to give and ultimately she will bear the responsibility. I don't know if she will jump or be pushed or exactly when. But I doubt she will be chancellor at Christmas. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pretty much every economist will tell you the biggest threat to any economy is inflation. Inflation may 2024 was 2.8% Inflation currently 3.6% and rising One of the most significant indicators of a stable economy are the unemployment figures. The number of people out of work has risen by 120,000 in the last 12 months So do we have sound fiscal management at least? Public borrowing in June 2024 was £14 billion June 2025 the figure is £20.68 billion During this period taxes have also increased. And yet the labour friendly media are saying we might be £40 billion short. That’s 5% on the basic rate of tax to raise that kinda money, and if they did that it would trigger an instant recession. Please tell how things are better." Inflation now isn't actually that high compared with what it was in the recent past. OK it's risen over the last year but the variation isn't particularly unusual. As I said it was 11.1% in October 2022. So the notion that we are f*cked now because it's 3.6% but it was OK at 11.1% back then because the Tories were in control is, well, what is it? I'd say Tories being detached from reality. Again on unemployment at 4.7%. Not a good number but it was 5.3% a couple of years ago. Was the economy tanked then? Government debt to GDP ratio has been more or less flat for the past five years. It's actually a bit lower now than it was. But to be fair I'd say it's the same as it was under the Tories. Have taxes increased? NI for employers yes. But not for regular folk. You complain about increase in government debt but don't want tax increases. Where is the money going to come from? I'm not saying that Reeves or Starmer are doing a fantastic job but they don't have magic money trees growing in their back gardens. We need growth but that is not easy to achieve. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pretty much every economist will tell you the biggest threat to any economy is inflation. Inflation may 2024 was 2.8% Inflation currently 3.6% and rising One of the most significant indicators of a stable economy are the unemployment figures. The number of people out of work has risen by 120,000 in the last 12 months So do we have sound fiscal management at least? Public borrowing in June 2024 was £14 billion June 2025 the figure is £20.68 billion During this period taxes have also increased. And yet the labour friendly media are saying we might be £40 billion short. That’s 5% on the basic rate of tax to raise that kinda money, and if they did that it would trigger an instant recession. Please tell how things are better. Inflation now isn't actually that high compared with what it was in the recent past. OK it's risen over the last year but the variation isn't particularly unusual. As I said it was 11.1% in October 2022. So the notion that we are f*cked now because it's 3.6% but it was OK at 11.1% back then because the Tories were in control is, well, what is it? I'd say Tories being detached from reality. Again on unemployment at 4.7%. Not a good number but it was 5.3% a couple of years ago. Was the economy tanked then? Government debt to GDP ratio has been more or less flat for the past five years. It's actually a bit lower now than it was. But to be fair I'd say it's the same as it was under the Tories. Have taxes increased? NI for employers yes. But not for regular folk. You complain about increase in government debt but don't want tax increases. Where is the money going to come from? I'm not saying that Reeves or Starmer are doing a fantastic job but they don't have magic money trees growing in their back gardens. We need growth but that is not easy to achieve. " That 11.1% in Oct 2022 is very selective, just a few months after Russia invaded Ukraine and world oil and gas prices rocketed. Why didn't you pick Oct '21 or Oct '23? Not suit your narrative? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely. There was little to no due diligence behind many of these policies, billions wasted, only to reverse out later, with massive disruption and costs. Some on the left bizarrely praised Starmer’s u-turns as signs of “strong leadership,” completely oblivious to the costs involved." Can you give details of the billions wasted on u-turns. You know actual data rather than wool. I find the Tory u-turn argument curious. You disagree with a policy and the government eventually change their policy to something much closer to what you wanted and then you complain. It's like a young kid being given chocolate flavoured ice cream and saying they'd prefer strawberry flavoured and then when given strawberry flavoured ice cream they still complain. I can see if the chocolate flavoured ice cream gets thrown away this is wasteful but I'd like to see real data on the actual cost of u-turning on things like the winter fuel allowance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pretty much every economist will tell you the biggest threat to any economy is inflation. Inflation may 2024 was 2.8% Inflation currently 3.6% and rising One of the most significant indicators of a stable economy are the unemployment figures. The number of people out of work has risen by 120,000 in the last 12 months So do we have sound fiscal management at least? Public borrowing in June 2024 was £14 billion June 2025 the figure is £20.68 billion During this period taxes have also increased. And yet the labour friendly media are saying we might be £40 billion short. That’s 5% on the basic rate of tax to raise that kinda money, and if they did that it would trigger an instant recession. Please tell how things are better. Inflation now isn't actually that high compared with what it was in the recent past. OK it's risen over the last year but the variation isn't particularly unusual. As I said it was 11.1% in October 2022. So the notion that we are f*cked now because it's 3.6% but it was OK at 11.1% back then because the Tories were in control is, well, what is it? I'd say Tories being detached from reality. Again on unemployment at 4.7%. Not a good number but it was 5.3% a couple of years ago. Was the economy tanked then? Government debt to GDP ratio has been more or less flat for the past five years. It's actually a bit lower now than it was. But to be fair I'd say it's the same as it was under the Tories. Have taxes increased? NI for employers yes. But not for regular folk. You complain about increase in government debt but don't want tax increases. Where is the money going to come from? I'm not saying that Reeves or Starmer are doing a fantastic job but they don't have magic money trees growing in their back gardens. We need growth but that is not easy to achieve. " What money? I don’t want spending to increase I want it to decrease. We don’t need extra taxes or extra borrowing, we need to live within our means. Not have this fantasy that we can spend as much as we want with no consequences. We can all select dates for figures that best support our narrative. What’s wrong with the figures immediately before Labour came into power? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You asked why borrowing costs are high" No I didn't. I presented data that showed that government borrowing costs now are more or less the same as in the recent past. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So you think they should just put the £40 - £50 billion on the company credit card so to speak? After all, what’s an extra £50 billion for the next government to have to pay back?" Let's say there really is a £50 billion shortfall in government finances and there are no other mechanisms available to fill the gap. Debt is currently about £2.8 trillion. So £50 billion is about 1.8% of the debt. Imagine you had a credit card debt of £100 and you needed something that cost £1.80 and you were short of funds so you increased the debt to £101.80. That's the scale of the hypothetical problem. Our goal is to pay off the credit card but perspective is useful when looking at numbers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So judging by the results you have listed, interest rates have improved (and reduced again today) since labour took over. Everything else you list has gotten worse since labour took over. We can pick points in history where things were even worse, like high inflation when Russia invaded Ukraine but that does not alter the fact that since labour took over all but one item of your list has got worse." The proposition being put forward by right-wingers in this echo chamber isn't that things have deteriorated relative to July 2024. Instead you're posting an absolutist proposition that the economy is tanked, in knots, a mess, bonkers, hitting the buffers, wheels coming off, etc. I'm simply pointing out that the economy today isn't radically different to the economy in the past and you guys are basically all just having a good old moan because of your political proclivities rather than presenting arguments based on economic realities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So judging by the results you have listed, interest rates have improved (and reduced again today) since labour took over. Everything else you list has gotten worse since labour took over. We can pick points in history where things were even worse, like high inflation when Russia invaded Ukraine but that does not alter the fact that since labour took over all but one item of your list has got worse. The proposition being put forward by right-wingers in this echo chamber isn't that things have deteriorated relative to July 2024. Instead you're posting an absolutist proposition that the economy is tanked, in knots, a mess, bonkers, hitting the buffers, wheels coming off, etc. I'm simply pointing out that the economy today isn't radically different to the economy in the past and you guys are basically all just having a good old moan because of your political proclivities rather than presenting arguments based on economic realities. " All of your argument has been based on you as usual handpicking data from a specific year to make it look like Labour improved things, the year where the country saw the effects of Ukraine war, gas price increase and COVID free money. You still haven't explained why you choose data 2 years back specifically. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pretty much every economist will tell you the biggest threat to any economy is inflation. Inflation may 2024 was 2.8% Inflation currently 3.6% and rising One of the most significant indicators of a stable economy are the unemployment figures. The number of people out of work has risen by 120,000 in the last 12 months So do we have sound fiscal management at least? Public borrowing in June 2024 was £14 billion June 2025 the figure is £20.68 billion During this period taxes have also increased. And yet the labour friendly media are saying we might be £40 billion short. That’s 5% on the basic rate of tax to raise that kinda money, and if they did that it would trigger an instant recession. Please tell how things are better. Inflation now isn't actually that high compared with what it was in the recent past. OK it's risen over the last year but the variation isn't particularly unusual. As I said it was 11.1% in October 2022. So the notion that we are f*cked now because it's 3.6% but it was OK at 11.1% back then because the Tories were in control is, well, what is it? I'd say Tories being detached from reality. Again on unemployment at 4.7%. Not a good number but it was 5.3% a couple of years ago. Was the economy tanked then? Government debt to GDP ratio has been more or less flat for the past five years. It's actually a bit lower now than it was. But to be fair I'd say it's the same as it was under the Tories. Have taxes increased? NI for employers yes. But not for regular folk. You complain about increase in government debt but don't want tax increases. Where is the money going to come from? I'm not saying that Reeves or Starmer are doing a fantastic job but they don't have magic money trees growing in their back gardens. We need growth but that is not easy to achieve. " You say that growth isn’t easy to achieve but even a cursory look at recent GDP figures suggests that in many countries growth is being achieved. Here is some data from 2024 summarising GDP growth: India 7% Indonesia 5.1% China 4.8% Russia 3.2% USA 3% Turkey 3% Saudi 2.8% Brazil 2.5% Canada 1.3% UK 1.2% Japan 0.9% Italy 0.7% Germany 0.4% France 0.3% Even Russia which we are told is an international pariah and on the verge of economic collapse by far outperforms European countries. The question that any intelligent person should probably be trying to answer is why the bottom end of this table is dominated by Europe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The reason the Bank of England is reducing interest rates is because the economy is weak. The MPC voted 5-4 to lower rates after a second vote as they were so split on what to do. Anyone who thinks this is a vote of confidence in the Labour government is kidding themselves. With inflation running at 3.6 % and heading upwards lower interest rates are arguably an odd thing to do. On balance it looks like the MPC is more worried about the sluggish economy than they are about stoking further inflation. The BOE inflation target is 2% so we are way above that. And the UK inflation rate is above average for bigger economies caused of course by higher taxes leading to higher prices." I agree that the BofE interest rate decision was based on worrying more about growth than inflation. NotMe66's recommended NIESR projection is for inflation to average 3.3% across the year so if that projection is accurate growth is more important than inflation. I think the BofE also recognise that they overcooked the 14 interest rate increases they made a few years back To be fair it must be extremely difficult not to oversteer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm really unsure why you keep trying to compare apples to oranges... The economy we have now is what we are talking about, and how policy is leading us into another u-turn, and all available headroom has been lost. Do you have any thoughts on the current chancellors policies, u-turns by labour and where we are headed?" I'm comparing the state of the economy now with the state of the economy in the past. I don't see any other way to assess the health of the economy, other than by international comparisons but they are extremely complex as there are so many differences between countries. As I've said multiple times I don't think Reeves is doing a particularly good job, but I'm also sure that neither you nor I would do any better. Steering an economy is more art than science. On u-turns I don't think they're a big problem. Anyone who disagrees with a policy and then complains when that policy is overturned looks like an idiot to me. I don't know where we are heading, I don't spend all my waking hours polishing a crystal ball. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely. There was little to no due diligence behind many of these policies, billions wasted, only to reverse out later, with massive disruption and costs. Some on the left bizarrely praised Starmer’s u-turns as signs of “strong leadership,” completely oblivious to the costs involved. Can you give details of the billions wasted on u-turns. You know actual data rather than wool. I find the Tory u-turn argument curious. You disagree with a policy and the government eventually change their policy to something much closer to what you wanted and then you complain. It's like a young kid being given chocolate flavoured ice cream and saying they'd prefer strawberry flavoured and then when given strawberry flavoured ice cream they still complain. I can see if the chocolate flavoured ice cream gets thrown away this is wasteful but I'd like to see real data on the actual cost of u-turning on things like the winter fuel allowance." I have told you so many times... There is a physical cost of reversing out, and there has been borrowing cost increases because of market nervousness as policies fell apart. This is 101 stuff. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not saying that Reeves or Starmer are doing a fantastic job but they don't have magic money trees growing in their back gardens. We need growth but that is not easy to achieve. " This is what you need to be concentrating on.. Labour’s growth plans are no longer feasible, Reeves has already lost £9 billion in fiscal headroom and now faces a projected shortfall of £51 billion just to meet her own fiscal rules. This is where the pushback is coming from, and why you comparing previous economic stats is irrelevant. All of labours plans are now collapsing, they have lost control. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Anyone who disagrees with a policy and then complains when that policy is overturned looks like an idiot to me." But that’s not what happens. People don’t complain that it’s reversed, they comment about a leader that once clung to an opinion like a life raft, realises they were wrong to do that. Admitting you were wrong is a good thing. Not seeing that you were wrong in the first place is a bad thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm really unsure why you keep trying to compare apples to oranges... The economy we have now is what we are talking about, and how policy is leading us into another u-turn, and all available headroom has been lost. Do you have any thoughts on the current chancellors policies, u-turns by labour and where we are headed? I'm comparing the state of the economy now with the state of the economy in the past. " But the "past" you mentioned is 2 years back that is hand-picked to make it looked like Labour improved things | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pretty much every economist will tell you the biggest threat to any economy is inflation. Inflation may 2024 was 2.8% Inflation currently 3.6% and rising One of the most significant indicators of a stable economy are the unemployment figures. The number of people out of work has risen by 120,000 in the last 12 months So do we have sound fiscal management at least? Public borrowing in June 2024 was £14 billion June 2025 the figure is £20.68 billion During this period taxes have also increased. And yet the labour friendly media are saying we might be £40 billion short. That’s 5% on the basic rate of tax to raise that kinda money, and if they did that it would trigger an instant recession. Please tell how things are better. Inflation now isn't actually that high compared with what it was in the recent past. OK it's risen over the last year but the variation isn't particularly unusual. As I said it was 11.1% in October 2022. So the notion that we are f*cked now because it's 3.6% but it was OK at 11.1% back then because the Tories were in control is, well, what is it? I'd say Tories being detached from reality. Again on unemployment at 4.7%. Not a good number but it was 5.3% a couple of years ago. Was the economy tanked then? Government debt to GDP ratio has been more or less flat for the past five years. It's actually a bit lower now than it was. But to be fair I'd say it's the same as it was under the Tories. Have taxes increased? NI for employers yes. But not for regular folk. You complain about increase in government debt but don't want tax increases. Where is the money going to come from? I'm not saying that Reeves or Starmer are doing a fantastic job but they don't have magic money trees growing in their back gardens. We need growth but that is not easy to achieve. " do you agree that going by your figures in that long list you posted, that apart from interest rates, everything else has gotten worse ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Curious, why do you pick numbers from exactly 2 years ago?" It was pretty arbitary. One year ago would be inside the term of the current administration and this whole argument is predicated on right-wingers complaining that the Labour government's policies are absolutely terrible compared with the Tories. I could have gone for three, four or five years ago but the closer to the covid crisis the more skewed and unfair it would have been. My argument isn't dependent on selecting special dates or manipulating data. I'm looking at the data and talking about its features. So for instance I mentioned 11.1% inflation because it was the highest recent value, but I'm not saying this was typical. Although it's an obvious aspect of the data as is the fact that inflation was above its current level for over two years. Your argument is in essence that the current economic situation is f*cking terrible, so I'm looking back and seeing that the current situation isn't much different to the past. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Curious, why do you pick numbers from exactly 2 years ago? It was pretty arbitary. One year ago would be inside the term of the current administration " By a month. I don't think Labour did anything within that month that would have affected the economy of the country already. " I could have gone for three, four or five years ago but the closer to the covid crisis the more skewed and unfair it would have been. " The inflationary effect of COVID was seen only after COVID because people who got free money during COVID didn't really spend them until the lockdown was lifted. Not to mention the effect of war two years back and the ban on Russian oil. " My argument isn't dependent on selecting special dates or manipulating data. I'm looking at the data and talking about its features. So for instance I mentioned 11.1% inflation because it was the highest recent value, but I'm not saying this was typical. Although it's an obvious aspect of the data as is the fact that inflation was above its current level for over two years. " You are using statistics in the worst possible way. There are so many things going on around the world. Evaluating a government's performance in an isolated way like this by arbitrarily picking dates and getting the stats doesn't tell you anything. This is why A/B testing is an important concept in statistics. If you take the statistics for the same years for every European country, the current statistics will look better for every country. It doesn't tell you anything about their current government's performance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For growth you would probably need to look pre and post 2008 for most European countries as that is when they have started to diverge from the US and the rest of the world. It’s the financial crisis of 2008 that Europe has never recovered from. But your position seems to be that the Labour government is no better or worse than the government that suffered a massive defeat in July 2024. So even if we accept your position, electors were wrong to place any faith in Labour (or believe its pack of lies if one is being less generous)? We may as well have stuck with the failed Tories?" I'm already spending a lot of time and effort on discussing the UK economy in this thread. I have opinions on international economics, especially about the US but I'll leave that for another time. Broadly speaking the Labour government is continuing the same kind of policies as the previous government. I'm not in the least bit suprised about this. I don't think there's much room for manoeuvre | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think what’s significant is Labour blamed the previous government for “the state of the economy”, a year of their policies and things are worse. The counter argument will no doubt be “you can’t undo 14 years of bad management in _________” and then fill in the blank with how long they have had. Currently a year, in 2 years time it will be 3 years and come the next election it will be “you can’t fix things in 5 years” But it’s worse and the trend is it’s getting worse. Pretty much all the metrics by which we could measure economic success or strength are on a downward trend. The fact that the BofE lowered interest rates at a time of rising inflation says it all." If you remember the discussion about the Thatcher economic miracle some people were posting that even several years into a Tory government the disasterous stats should be ignored as it takes time to turn things around. I think a year at most is enough to judge things and Labour are obviously not doing a brilliant job. But I'm not sure a Tory government would have done any better I don't blame all macro economic changes on national governments. Policies that affect only the local situation are of course fair game for criticism. I see the role of governments in a world economic arena as being a bit like captains of old fashioned sailing ships. They can vary the configuration of the sails and steer in different directions but they are still at the mercy of tides and the weather. Much of the talk on this thread has just been hyperbolic "I hate Labour" steam being vented without much consideration for reality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Much of the talk on this thread has just been hyperbolic "I hate Labour" steam being vented without much consideration for reality. " Much of the talk on this thread has been long drawn out posts with no economic references of merit, and nothing to do with party hate. It has been said many times on these threads that the health of the economy is paramount to us all, regardless of the colour of the rosette. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Much of the talk on this thread has just been hyperbolic "I hate Labour" steam being vented without much consideration for reality. Much of the talk on this thread has been long drawn out posts with no economic references of merit, and nothing to do with party hate. It has been said many times on these threads that the health of the economy is paramount to us all, regardless of the colour of the rosette. " Good to know that country before party means fuck all | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That 11.1% in Oct 2022 is very selective, just a few months after Russia invaded Ukraine and world oil and gas prices rocketed. Why didn't you pick Oct '21 or Oct '23? Not suit your narrative?" Your logic is all back to front. I'm trying to show that the current economic situation is not unprecedented. To prove my claim all I need to do is show that at ANY time in recent history the economy was worse than or the same as now. To disprove my claim you need to show that at ALL times in recent history the economy has been in better shape than it is now. Also I've already said that international events beyond the government's control have an impact on our economy. This is true now just as much as it was in the past. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That 11.1% in Oct 2022 is very selective, just a few months after Russia invaded Ukraine and world oil and gas prices rocketed. Why didn't you pick Oct '21 or Oct '23? Not suit your narrative? Your logic is all back to front. I'm trying to show that the current economic situation is not unprecedented. To prove my claim all I need to do is show that at ANY time in recent history the economy was worse than or the same as now. To disprove my claim you need to show that at ALL times in recent history the economy has been in better shape than it is now. Also I've already said that international events beyond the government's control have an impact on our economy. This is true now just as much as it was in the past. " Who said that the current economic situation is "unprecedented"? Scrolling above, I see the first time you brought up these numbers was in reply to a post saying our economic statistics don't look good and Reeves policy has put us in a difficult situation. No one claimed it's unprecedented. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What money? I don’t want spending to increase I want it to decrease. We don’t need extra taxes or extra borrowing, we need to live within our means. Not have this fantasy that we can spend as much as we want with no consequences." You want the debt to be paid off right? We need money to do that. You say you want spending cuts. What are we going to cut that will pay off £2.8 trillion? The Tory and Labour governments between them borrowed £131 billion in 2024. So just to stop the debt increasing you need to come up with cuts in the region of £130 billion a year. Any ideas on how to achieve that without consequences? "We can all select dates for figures that best support our narrative. What’s wrong with the figures immediately before Labour came into power?" I've already dealt with this, the notion being put forward by the right-wingers here is that the economy now is tanked, in knots, a mess, bonkers, hitting the buffers, wheels coming off etc. Well if it's terrible now don't you think it was in at least as bad a state two, three or four years ago? Looking at the best data for the Tory term while ignoring the rest of the data isn't being objective. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What money? I don’t want spending to increase I want it to decrease. We don’t need extra taxes or extra borrowing, we need to live within our means. Not have this fantasy that we can spend as much as we want with no consequences. You want the debt to be paid off right? We need money to do that. You say you want spending cuts. What are we going to cut that will pay off £2.8 trillion? The Tory and Labour governments between them borrowed £131 billion in 2024. So just to stop the debt increasing you need to come up with cuts in the region of £130 billion a year. Any ideas on how to achieve that without consequences? We can all select dates for figures that best support our narrative. What’s wrong with the figures immediately before Labour came into power? I've already dealt with this, the notion being put forward by the right-wingers here is that the economy now is tanked, in knots, a mess, bonkers, hitting the buffers, wheels coming off etc. Well if it's terrible now don't you think it was in at least as bad a state two, three or four years ago? Looking at the best data for the Tory term while ignoring the rest of the data isn't being objective. " Not quite right.. Labour’s policies are in knots and are impacting the economy to the extent that Rachel Reeves has lost the £9 billion fiscal headroom she previously had, and now faces a projected £51 billion shortfall to deliver the position she set out in her last Budget. **This is what we are talking about** | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I've already dealt with this, the notion being put forward by the right-wingers here is that the economy now is tanked, in knots, a mess, bonkers, hitting the buffers, wheels coming off etc. Well if it's terrible now don't you think it was in at least as bad a state two, three or four years ago? " Because what happened three years ago was the effect of a war and sanctions, something from which countries usually recover from in a short period. What we have now is a long term issue plaguing the country with no solution in sight. " Looking at the best data for the Tory term while ignoring the rest of the data isn't being objective. " Handpicking the worst data isn't objective either. If someone picked the data right after the 2008 recession to prove that the Tories weren't bad, will you accept it? Honestly it's quite funny watching you do these gymnastics to defend your choice of data which anyone can see is biased. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"do you agree that going by your figures in that long list you posted, that apart from interest rates, everything else has gotten worse ?" Gotten worse since when is the question? If we are talking about the last 13 months then inflation has risen from 2% to 3.6%, unemployment has risen from 4.4% to 4.7%, interest rates have dropped from 5.25% to 4%, debt to GDP has risen from 95.58% to 96.3% and government borrowing costs have risen from 4.17% to 4.55%. If we are talking about recent years then inflation has dropped from 11.1% to 3.6%, unemployment has dropped from 5.3% to 4.7%, interest rates have dropped from 5.25% to 4%, debt to GDP has dropped from 99.1% to 96.3% and government borrowing costs have dropped from 4.65% to 4.55%. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who said that the current economic situation is "unprecedented"? Scrolling above, I see the first time you brought up these numbers was in reply to a post saying our economic statistics don't look good and Reeves policy has put us in a difficult situation. No one claimed it's unprecedented." Cool, if you are saying that the current economic situation isn't unprecedented then you are agreeing with my argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who said that the current economic situation is "unprecedented"? Scrolling above, I see the first time you brought up these numbers was in reply to a post saying our economic statistics don't look good and Reeves policy has put us in a difficult situation. No one claimed it's unprecedented. Cool, if you are saying that the current economic situation isn't unprecedented then you are agreeing with my argument. " It's not unprecedented. But it's still bad because the ruling party seems to have no idea how to handle it and all signs say it's going to get worse. So you conveniently handpicking economic statistics from one point of time doesn't say anything against that argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Handpicking the worst data isn't objective either. If someone picked the data right after the 2008 recession to prove that the Tories weren't bad, will you accept it? Honestly it's quite funny watching you do these gymnastics to defend your choice of data which anyone can see is biased." As I explained earlier my goal was to show that the current economic situation isn't anything unusual. All we had to do was look back a few years to see it was worse then. All this talk of the economy being tanked, in knots, a mess, bonkers, hitting the buffers, wheels coming off etc is patently hyperbolic nonsense when one steps back just a tiny bit to see the bigger picture. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Handpicking the worst data isn't objective either. If someone picked the data right after the 2008 recession to prove that the Tories weren't bad, will you accept it? Honestly it's quite funny watching you do these gymnastics to defend your choice of data which anyone can see is biased. As I explained earlier my goal was to show that the current economic situation isn't anything unusual. All we had to do was look back a few years to see it was worse then. All this talk of the economy being tanked, in knots, a mess, bonkers, hitting the buffers, wheels coming off etc is patently hyperbolic nonsense when one steps back just a tiny bit to see the bigger picture. " As I explained above, the other situations had known causes and had a clear path to recovery. What we have now doesn't seem to have one. The Labour government hasn't told us what their plans are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not unprecedented. But it's still bad because the ruling party seems to have no idea how to handle it and all signs say it's going to get worse. So you conveniently handpicking economic statistics from one point of time doesn't say anything against that argument." Finally some measured thinking. Yes the economy is moving in the wrong direction. We can all see this but rather than all the bollocks talk about how f*cking terrible the economy is, let's recognise that it's actually a bit better than it was a few years ago and focus on realistic adult conversations about how the economy might be improved. I see little from the Tory benches. I mean can anyone even tell me what Tory economic policy is? I've been open that I don't have a clue how to improve the economy. Whenever I ask anyone else they haven't a clue either. But I do know that cutting public spending by £130 billion a year ain't the answer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Finally some measured thinking. " This is what everyone has been saying in this thread. You are the one who made wrong assumptions and have been making strawman arguments. No one says that today is worse than the recession time or say the winter of discontent. " Yes the economy is moving in the wrong direction. We can all see this but rather than all the bollocks talk about how f*cking terrible the economy is, let's recognise that it's actually a bit better than it was a few years ago and focus on realistic adult conversations about how the economy might be improved. " The adult conversation is what we are having now. In the previous times when the situations were terrible, we had ruling parties who were clear about their plans for recovery. Labour on the other hand seems to have no clue about how to handle this. And people are criticising that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Handpicking the worst data isn't objective either. If someone picked the data right after the 2008 recession to prove that the Tories weren't bad, will you accept it? Honestly it's quite funny watching you do these gymnastics to defend your choice of data which anyone can see is biased. As I explained earlier my goal was to show that the current economic situation isn't anything unusual. All we had to do was look back a few years to see it was worse then. All this talk of the economy being tanked, in knots, a mess, bonkers, hitting the buffers, wheels coming off etc is patently hyperbolic nonsense when one steps back just a tiny bit to see the bigger picture. As I explained above, the other situations had known causes and had a clear path to recovery. What we have now doesn't seem to have one. The Labour government hasn't told us what their plans are. " Those that celebrated government u-turns as the grown up thing to do and clearly not fully understanding the implications of actual costs and loss of market confidence costs, actually reflect the government itself, hence not a plan or clue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Finally some measured thinking." This is what everyone has been saying in this thread. You are the one who made wrong assumptions and have been making strawman arguments. No one says that today is worse than the recession time or say the winter of discontent." For just a moment then I thought you might not be lost in dreams. The winter of discontent!?! I've been talking about the past few years not something that happened 47 years ago. ""Yes the economy is moving in the wrong direction. We can all see this but rather than all the bollocks talk about how f*cking terrible the economy is, let's recognise that it's actually a bit better than it was a few years ago and focus on realistic adult conversations about how the economy might be improved." The adult conversation is what we are having now. In the previous times when the situations were terrible, we had ruling parties who were clear about their plans for recovery. Labour on the other hand seems to have no clue about how to handle this. And people are criticising that. " So what is the Tory plan for recovery? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The winter of discontent!?! I've been talking about the past few years not something that happened 47 years ago. " Does the word "unprecedented" cover only the last few years? " So what is the Tory plan for recovery?" The usual right wing view on these problems is "Don't spend money that you don't have". This means spending cuts. Labour was going to do that but decided to take a U-turn. Will the conservatives do it? Not sure. One of the spending cuts must be the pension triple lock. But Tories won't cut it because that's their biggest voter base. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does the word "unprecedented" cover only the last few years?" It looked like bringing up the 1970's was an attempt to deflect away from the 2020's. "The usual right wing view on these problems is "Don't spend money that you don't have". This means spending cuts. Labour was going to do that but decided to take a U-turn. Will the conservatives do it? Not sure. One of the spending cuts must be the pension triple lock. But Tories won't cut it because that's their biggest voter base." Don't spend money that you don't have is a phrase that comes easily to people who have enough money to be comfortable. In reality we've had decades of tight control over spending and where has it got us? I realistically don't see how a government could cut £130 billion a year to freeze debt without it having disasterous effects on society. I agree the triple lock will need adjustment eventually, but it made a huge amount of sense when it was introduced as the state pension was a pittance. Ultimately we need to increase growth and productivity but that requires investment. But there'll be little money to invest without increasing tax, increasing debt or both. We are, like many mature economies, in a pickle because there aren't any easy answers. The Tories and Reform certainly don't have any answers, so focusing on slagging off Labour for the same reason doesn't seem rational to me. Then we have multiple wars and the idiot Trump randomly throwing spanners into the machinery of international capitalism just for added fun. It's going to be a long haul with lots of treading water and bits of tinkering as far as I can see. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" All this talk of the economy being tanked, in knots, a mess, bonkers, hitting the buffers, wheels coming off etc is patently hyperbolic nonsense when one steps back just a tiny bit to see the bigger picture. " I’d be confident that you don’t run a business. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It looked like bringing up the 1970's was an attempt to deflect away from the 2020's. " You are the one who used the word "unprecedented" when everyone was arguing about something else. If anyone here has to be blamed for deflection, that's you. " Don't spend money that you don't have is a phrase that comes easily to people who have enough money to be comfortable. " It's not just a phrase. It's reality. You can't spend money you don't have. If you borrow and spend, you need to have a clear plan to pay it back. If not, you won't be able to borrow either. It applies to the government too. Otherwise, we will just become another Argentina. " In reality we've had decades of tight control over spending and where has it got us? " Our economy was doing fine until COVID happened when the same party that implemented tight spending decided to throw away all the money. " I realistically don't see how a government could cut £130 billion a year to freeze debt without it having disasterous effects on society. " If you don't do it now, when you default the loans later, the effects would be even worse. " Ultimately we need to increase growth and productivity but that requires investment. But there'll be little money to invest without increasing tax, increasing debt or both. " If UK population is productive, there are enough people who will happily make private investments. End of the day, it's a stable democracy. You increase the tax and what exactly do you want to invest in? " We are, like many mature economies, in a pickle because there aren't any easy answers. " Milei's reforms seem to be working well so far. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’d be confident that you don’t run a business." Well you'd be wrong. I started my first business at the age of 16 and have been a freelancer, consultant, partner and a director of several very successful businesses. I was so successful that I went in to semi-retirement 25 years ago at the age of 40. I now just dabble exporting my intellectual property around the world. Just because I'm a left-winger doesn't mean I don't know anything about capitalism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"do you agree that going by your figures in that long list you posted, that apart from interest rates, everything else has gotten worse ? Gotten worse since when is the question? If we are talking about the last 13 months then inflation has risen from 2% to 3.6%, unemployment has risen from 4.4% to 4.7%, interest rates have dropped from 5.25% to 4%, debt to GDP has risen from 95.58% to 96.3% and government borrowing costs have risen from 4.17% to 4.55%. If we are talking about recent years then inflation has dropped from 11.1% to 3.6%, unemployment has dropped from 5.3% to 4.7%, interest rates have dropped from 5.25% to 4%, debt to GDP has dropped from 99.1% to 96.3% and government borrowing costs have dropped from 4.65% to 4.55%. " When I first asked this the first time, I was a little clearer than this latest post so I will clarify. Do you agree that using your figures and with the exception of interest rates, everything you listed has gotten worse since labour took office? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When I first asked this the first time, I was a little clearer than this latest post so I will clarify. Do you agree that using your figures and with the exception of interest rates, everything you listed has gotten worse since labour took office?" Yes. You even quoted the post where I listed in great detail the changes since July 2024. Did you not read it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
The left crack me up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up."Sorry? Can you explain your post to a simple lefty | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up."So are you saying that the original plan by Labour to reduce winter fuel payments should have been kept in place? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up."I guess there was nothing left and they even lost more money after handing out everything the unions asked for | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up."Taxes then changes what policy? Jes incoherent | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
Taxes then changes what policy?
Jes incoherent "Of course I am.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
Taxes then changes what policy?
Jes incoherent "*He's | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
Taxes then changes what policy?
Jes incoherent
Of course I am.... "What taxes has she raised then to reverse? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
I guess there was nothing left and they even lost more money after handing out everything the unions asked for "It was only 24 days after winning the election that Labour awarded junior doctors a 22% pay rise. That was their first mistake and made without a clear understanding of their budgetary starting point or the wider implications to the rest of the finances. That decision, combined with the slowdown in tax receipts following their NI rises, has contributed to Rachel Reeves losing her £9 billion fiscal headroom and facing a projected £51 billion shortfall to deliver the position she set out in her first Budget. I wont repeat the other decisions that have cost us billions because of u-turns and a lack of due diligence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
Taxes then changes what policy?
Jes incoherent
Of course I am....
What taxes has she raised then to reverse?"I didn't say she reversed tax rises  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
I guess there was nothing left and they even lost more money after handing out everything the unions asked for
It was only 24 days after winning the election that Labour awarded junior doctors a 22% pay rise. That was their first mistake and made without a clear understanding of their budgetary starting point or the wider implications to the rest of the finances. That decision, combined with the slowdown in tax receipts following their NI rises, has contributed to Rachel Reeves losing her £9 billion fiscal headroom and facing a projected £51 billion shortfall to deliver the position she set out in her first Budget. I wont repeat the other decisions that have cost us billions because of u-turns and a lack of due diligence. "I see, crumbling infrastructure, and malaise in the country is all the doctors fault | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
I guess there was nothing left and they even lost more money after handing out everything the unions asked for
It was only 24 days after winning the election that Labour awarded junior doctors a 22% pay rise. That was their first mistake and made without a clear understanding of their budgetary starting point or the wider implications to the rest of the finances. That decision, combined with the slowdown in tax receipts following their NI rises, has contributed to Rachel Reeves losing her £9 billion fiscal headroom and facing a projected £51 billion shortfall to deliver the position she set out in her first Budget. I wont repeat the other decisions that have cost us billions because of u-turns and a lack of due diligence.
I see, crumbling infrastructure, and malaise in the country is all the doctors fault "No, labours poor decision making. That is as clear as I can be, they have lost the money we had for the big growth plans through their incompetence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
Taxes then changes what policy?
Jes incoherent
Of course I am....
What taxes has she raised then to reverse?
I didn't say she reversed tax rises "Do you go to European countries? Will you admit that they have better infrastructure and higher taxes? We can't have that on American taxes. Either you want American level of inequality or European level of services. Be honest, if higher inequality for the poor is your thing say it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When I first asked this the first time, I was a little clearer than this latest post so I will clarify. Do you agree that using your figures and with the exception of interest rates, everything you listed has gotten worse since labour took office? Yes. You even quoted the post where I listed in great detail the changes since July 2024. Did you not read it? " Yes I read the list but in that particular post or since I had not seen where you said, that apart from interest rates, everything else has gotten worse since labour took office. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
Taxes then changes what policy?
Jes incoherent
Of course I am....
What taxes has she raised then to reverse?
I didn't say she reversed tax rises
Do you go to European countries?
Will you admit that they have better infrastructure and higher taxes?
We can't have that on American taxes.
Either you want American level of inequality or European level of services.
Be honest, if higher inequality for the poor is your thing say it "What is the point of Reeves or Labour hiking taxes if they lose the money? The need to raise a projected £51 billion to cover the loses so far. If we need to pay more tax, I want to know that the money is being looked after and not simply filling the holes of poor policy decisions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
Taxes then changes what policy?
Jes incoherent
Of course I am....
What taxes has she raised then to reverse?
I didn't say she reversed tax rises
Do you go to European countries?
Will you admit that they have better infrastructure and higher taxes?
We can't have that on American taxes.
Either you want American level of inequality or European level of services.
Be honest, if higher inequality for the poor is your thing say it
What is the point of Reeves or Labour hiking taxes if they lose the money? The need to raise a projected £51 billion to cover the loses so far.
If we need to pay more tax, I want to know that the money is being looked after and not simply filling the holes of poor policy decisions. "The country needs what the country needs. So long as she taxes the rich and gets the country moving! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
Taxes then changes what policy?
Jes incoherent
Of course I am....
What taxes has she raised then to reverse?
I didn't say she reversed tax rises
Do you go to European countries?
Will you admit that they have better infrastructure and higher taxes?
We can't have that on American taxes.
Either you want American level of inequality or European level of services.
Be honest, if higher inequality for the poor is your thing say it
What is the point of Reeves or Labour hiking taxes if they lose the money? The need to raise a projected £51 billion to cover the loses so far.
If we need to pay more tax, I want to know that the money is being looked after and not simply filling the holes of poor policy decisions.
The country needs what the country needs.
So long as she taxes the rich and gets the country moving!"You know the Scandinavian countries which have the best welfare system that you talk about do not tax the rich alone right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
Taxes then changes what policy?
Jes incoherent
Of course I am....
What taxes has she raised then to reverse?
I didn't say she reversed tax rises
Do you go to European countries?
Will you admit that they have better infrastructure and higher taxes?
We can't have that on American taxes.
Either you want American level of inequality or European level of services.
Be honest, if higher inequality for the poor is your thing say it
What is the point of Reeves or Labour hiking taxes if they lose the money? The need to raise a projected £51 billion to cover the loses so far.
If we need to pay more tax, I want to know that the money is being looked after and not simply filling the holes of poor policy decisions.
The country needs what the country needs.
So long as she taxes the rich and gets the country moving!"You do know that she is losing money through NI uplifts, WFA u-turns, Welfare u-turns and now she will need to tax working people to make up the shortfall. Repeating the socialist mantra of taxing the rich isn't going to cut it, you will be paying.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
Taxes then changes what policy?
Jes incoherent
Of course I am....
What taxes has she raised then to reverse?
I didn't say she reversed tax rises
Do you go to European countries?
Will you admit that they have better infrastructure and higher taxes?
We can't have that on American taxes.
Either you want American level of inequality or European level of services.
Be honest, if higher inequality for the poor is your thing say it
What is the point of Reeves or Labour hiking taxes if they lose the money? The need to raise a projected £51 billion to cover the loses so far.
If we need to pay more tax, I want to know that the money is being looked after and not simply filling the holes of poor policy decisions.
The country needs what the country needs.
So long as she taxes the rich and gets the country moving!
You do know that she is losing money through NI uplifts, WFA u-turns, Welfare u-turns and now she will need to tax working people to make up the shortfall. Repeating the socialist mantra of taxing the rich isn't going to cut it, you will be paying.."I see because this, trickle down is really working well. How much longer does the Tesco worker have to wait for that trickle? If this worked, why has the billionaire class grown along the same lines as the growth of food banks. The rich get richer the poor get poorer. But, please ne equality here | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
Taxes then changes what policy?
Jes incoherent
Of course I am....
What taxes has she raised then to reverse?
I didn't say she reversed tax rises
Do you go to European countries?
Will you admit that they have better infrastructure and higher taxes?
We can't have that on American taxes.
Either you want American level of inequality or European level of services.
Be honest, if higher inequality for the poor is your thing say it
What is the point of Reeves or Labour hiking taxes if they lose the money? The need to raise a projected £51 billion to cover the loses so far.
If we need to pay more tax, I want to know that the money is being looked after and not simply filling the holes of poor policy decisions.
The country needs what the country needs.
So long as she taxes the rich and gets the country moving!
You do know that she is losing money through NI uplifts, WFA u-turns, Welfare u-turns and now she will need to tax working people to make up the shortfall. Repeating the socialist mantra of taxing the rich isn't going to cut it, you will be paying.."You don't have to go that far. Ask the socialists if they will be happy adapting Swedish/Danish tax rates: No tax free allowance 30% flat tax for anyone earning less than £55,000 52% tax for anyone earning over £55,000 Watch them do all the mental gymnastics to explain why we shouldn't adapt that tax system and we should focus only on taxing the rich | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
Taxes then changes what policy?
Jes incoherent
Of course I am....
What taxes has she raised then to reverse?
I didn't say she reversed tax rises
Do you go to European countries?
Will you admit that they have better infrastructure and higher taxes?
We can't have that on American taxes.
Either you want American level of inequality or European level of services.
Be honest, if higher inequality for the poor is your thing say it
What is the point of Reeves or Labour hiking taxes if they lose the money? The need to raise a projected £51 billion to cover the loses so far.
If we need to pay more tax, I want to know that the money is being looked after and not simply filling the holes of poor policy decisions.
The country needs what the country needs.
So long as she taxes the rich and gets the country moving!
You do know that she is losing money through NI uplifts, WFA u-turns, Welfare u-turns and now she will need to tax working people to make up the shortfall. Repeating the socialist mantra of taxing the rich isn't going to cut it, you will be paying..
You don't have to go that far. Ask the socialists if they will be happy adapting Swedish/Danish tax rates:
No tax free allowance
30% flat tax for anyone earning less than £55,000
52% tax for anyone earning over £55,000
Watch them do all the mental gymnastics to explain why we shouldn't adapt that tax system and we should focus only on taxing the rich "No such problem. Yes. However, we also need to ensure that companies pay that wage not subsiding by the gov | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The naivety is outstanding! We need money to invest in growth, Reeves taxes and changes policy to make the money needed for the labour big growth plan. The polices then get reversed losing the money and 9 billion more that was earmarked for the growth. But lets not talk about how the money she once had has been lost overnight without a penny being invested in the growth plans...
The left crack me up.
Taxes then changes what policy?
Jes incoherent
Of course I am....
What taxes has she raised then to reverse?
I didn't say she reversed tax rises
Do you go to European countries?
Will you admit that they have better infrastructure and higher taxes?
We can't have that on American taxes.
Either you want American level of inequality or European level of services.
Be honest, if higher inequality for the poor is your thing say it
What is the point of Reeves or Labour hiking taxes if they lose the money? The need to raise a projected £51 billion to cover the loses so far.
If we need to pay more tax, I want to know that the money is being looked after and not simply filling the holes of poor policy decisions.
The country needs what the country needs.
So long as she taxes the rich and gets the country moving!
You do know that she is losing money through NI uplifts, WFA u-turns, Welfare u-turns and now she will need to tax working people to make up the shortfall. Repeating the socialist mantra of taxing the rich isn't going to cut it, you will be paying..
You don't have to go that far. Ask the socialists if they will be happy adapting Swedish/Danish tax rates:
No tax free allowance
30% flat tax for anyone earning less than £55,000
52% tax for anyone earning over £55,000
Watch them do all the mental gymnastics to explain why we shouldn't adapt that tax system and we should focus only on taxing the rich
No such problem.
Yes.
However, we also need to ensure that companies pay that wage not subsiding by the gov "Sure, but that also means there's no minimum wage because Sweden/Denmark don't have one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They also subsidise childcare and transport, so which is it sport?" As long as the tax model is "Tax everyone" and not "Tax the rich", the way Scandinavian countries do, I am fine. Try fielding a candidate who says "We will tax everyone, not just the rich" and let me know how many socialist clowns vote for that candidate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They also subsidise childcare and transport, so which is it sport? As long as the tax model is "Tax everyone" and not "Tax the rich", the way Scandinavian countries do, I am fine. Try fielding a candidate who says "We will tax everyone, not just the rich" and let me know how many socialist clowns vote for that candidate." Progressive taxation is the way, the poor are already taxed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They also subsidise childcare and transport, so which is it sport? As long as the tax model is "Tax everyone" and not "Tax the rich", the way Scandinavian countries do, I am fine. Try fielding a candidate who says "We will tax everyone, not just the rich" and let me know how many socialist clowns vote for that candidate. Progressive taxation is the way, the poor are already taxed " You complained above that we can't follow American tax model and get Scandinavian type welfare. American tax rates and UK tax rates are more progressive than Denmark/Sweden. So why don't we use Denmark/Sweden's tax rates? 30% for everyone and an additional 25% for people earning more than £55,000 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Because the level of inequality in Britain is Dickensian In order to level up you need loosen the taxation on the poor and str@ngle the rich to equal things up from where it is " Here comes the excuses that I mentioned above that socialists will come up with
So as usual, it's always about pretending like you care about the poor by taking money off someone else's pockets? Not out of your own pockets? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If I fall in to the bracket that needs a higher taxation I'm happy to do so. But to try and say that a person earning 25k should be taxed the same as some one worth over 10 million is insane " That's exactly what the Scandinavian countries do. Worked for them right? To fund such a welfare system, taxing only the rich is not going to help. You need to take money from everyone. Also, social welfare systems need social trust to sustain. If everyone contributes to the pot, there will be social trust. If only very few who contribute to the pot, there won't be social trust or responsibility. So why don't we follow Sweden/Denmark, who by your own admittance are doing well? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If I fall in to the bracket that needs a higher taxation I'm happy to do so. But to try and say that a person earning 25k should be taxed the same as some one worth over 10 million is insane That's exactly what the Scandinavian countries do. Worked for them right? To fund such a welfare system, taxing only the rich is not going to help. You need to take money from everyone. Also, social welfare systems need social trust to sustain. If everyone contributes to the pot, there will be social trust. If only very few who contribute to the pot, there won't be social trust or responsibility. So why don't we follow Sweden/Denmark, who by your own admittance are doing well?" Bro, you need to chill. Britain is it's own country the same as you are your own person the same as I am, one size doesn't fit all. History will play a role, the current situation will play a role. As an over all picture who are the happiest people on earth? The Scandinavians. In my opinion that's the goal to be happy. How do we get there, by making the poorest peoples less hellish!! Now called me the devil but that seems like a logical and kind beginning | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If I fall in to the bracket that needs a higher taxation I'm happy to do so. But to try and say that a person earning 25k should be taxed the same as some one worth over 10 million is insane That's exactly what the Scandinavian countries do. Worked for them right? To fund such a welfare system, taxing only the rich is not going to help. You need to take money from everyone. Also, social welfare systems need social trust to sustain. If everyone contributes to the pot, there will be social trust. If only very few who contribute to the pot, there won't be social trust or responsibility. So why don't we follow Sweden/Denmark, who by your own admittance are doing well? Bro, you need to chill. Britain is it's own country the same as you are your own person the same as I am, one size doesn't fit all. History will play a role, the current situation will play a role. As an over all picture who are the happiest people on earth? The Scandinavians. In my opinion that's the goal to be happy. How do we get there, by making the poorest peoples less hellish!! Now called me the devil but that seems like a logical and kind beginning " Lol... Why don't you socialists admit that you do not give a fuck about poor and are only driven by envy towards high earners? Scandinavian model costs a LOT of money. You can't achieve that only by taxing the rich. Everyone has to pay high tax to achieve that. Your marvelous plan to "tax those rich people" to sustain that model just won't work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If I fall in to the bracket that needs a higher taxation I'm happy to do so. But to try and say that a person earning 25k should be taxed the same as some one worth over 10 million is insane That's exactly what the Scandinavian countries do. Worked for them right? To fund such a welfare system, taxing only the rich is not going to help. You need to take money from everyone. Also, social welfare systems need social trust to sustain. If everyone contributes to the pot, there will be social trust. If only very few who contribute to the pot, there won't be social trust or responsibility. So why don't we follow Sweden/Denmark, who by your own admittance are doing well? Bro, you need to chill. Britain is it's own country the same as you are your own person the same as I am, one size doesn't fit all. History will play a role, the current situation will play a role. As an over all picture who are the happiest people on earth? The Scandinavians. In my opinion that's the goal to be happy. How do we get there, by making the poorest peoples less hellish!! Now called me the devil but that seems like a logical and kind beginning Lol... Why don't you socialists admit that you do not give a fuck about poor and are only driven by envy towards high earners? Scandinavian model costs a LOT of money. You can't achieve that only by taxing the rich. Everyone has to pay high tax to achieve that. Your marvelous plan to "tax those rich people" to sustain that model just won't work. " Obviously, you have to become a high tax economy. That goes without saying, but to get us on the road the rich have to level the poor up | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If I fall in to the bracket that needs a higher taxation I'm happy to do so. But to try and say that a person earning 25k should be taxed the same as some one worth over 10 million is insane That's exactly what the Scandinavian countries do. Worked for them right? To fund such a welfare system, taxing only the rich is not going to help. You need to take money from everyone. Also, social welfare systems need social trust to sustain. If everyone contributes to the pot, there will be social trust. If only very few who contribute to the pot, there won't be social trust or responsibility. So why don't we follow Sweden/Denmark, who by your own admittance are doing well? Bro, you need to chill. Britain is it's own country the same as you are your own person the same as I am, one size doesn't fit all. History will play a role, the current situation will play a role. As an over all picture who are the happiest people on earth? The Scandinavians. In my opinion that's the goal to be happy. How do we get there, by making the poorest peoples less hellish!! Now called me the devil but that seems like a logical and kind beginning Lol... Why don't you socialists admit that you do not give a fuck about poor and are only driven by envy towards high earners? Scandinavian model costs a LOT of money. You can't achieve that only by taxing the rich. Everyone has to pay high tax to achieve that. Your marvelous plan to "tax those rich people" to sustain that model just won't work. Obviously, you have to become a high tax economy. That goes without saying, but to get us on the road the rich have to level the poor up " We can always borrow and pay it back once we have collected enough taxes by taxing everyone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can't high tax people with nothing. That's the sum of fuck all!! That's where your Britain has us, people have nothing to tax they eat in food banks " That's not how % works | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes it is!! People earning 25k pay less than people on 50k so we already do it What we now do, which is complicated but doable is tax wealth A nurse shouldn't be taxed more than Rishi Sunak " That would still be the case if we follow Scandinavian countries tax rates. You know how % works right? Also the Scandinavian countries got rid of wealth taxes a decade back because they found out it doesn't work. You are once again proving that socialists do not care about poor people or improving the society, they are driven only by envy of the rich. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes it is!! People earning 25k pay less than people on 50k so we already do it What we now do, which is complicated but doable is tax wealth A nurse shouldn't be taxed more than Rishi Sunak That would still be the case if we follow Scandinavian countries tax rates. You know how % works right? Also the Scandinavian countries got rid of wealth taxes a decade back because they found out it doesn't work. You are once again proving that socialists do not care about poor people or improving the society, they are driven only by envy of the rich." You keep trotting that line and blanket comparisons. Some have and some haven't, nothing is permanent. We don't have to tax people forever. Nothing is forever, we have ta act in the moment. But you seem to think that you'll solve everything at once or not all. Which is sad because that's not life | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes it is!! People earning 25k pay less than people on 50k so we already do it What we now do, which is complicated but doable is tax wealth A nurse shouldn't be taxed more than Rishi Sunak That would still be the case if we follow Scandinavian countries tax rates. You know how % works right? Also the Scandinavian countries got rid of wealth taxes a decade back because they found out it doesn't work. You are once again proving that socialists do not care about poor people or improving the society, they are driven only by envy of the rich. You keep trotting that line and blanket comparisons. Some have and some haven't, nothing is permanent. We don't have to tax people forever. Nothing is forever, we have ta act in the moment. But you seem to think that you'll solve everything at once or not all. Which is sad because that's not life " You are pretending like ideas which have failed all over the world will somehow work when we implement it here. The only explanation for this is that you aren't trying to make lives better for the poor. You just hate/envy the rich, just like every other socialist | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Right so stick with nurse in fear of worse. Even if she has you in calipers!! Come on man! It's a new age, the post world war is breaking down!! It's time to take a leap " Like USSR? Pretty sure socialism will work better than that this time? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Right so stick with nurse in fear of worse. Even if she has you in calipers!! Come on man! It's a new age, the post world war is breaking down!! It's time to take a leap Like USSR? Pretty sure socialism will work better than that this time?" Pathetic!! Red I see red trots the lot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Resort to communism when argument fails " USSR wasn't communism. It was Marxist socialism. And that's not the only socialist system that killed tens of millions of people. Mao in China too did. Both on par with Hitler. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
