Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PMQT. Badenoch just asked Starmer if he would stand by his _anifesto commitment not to raise these taxes. The reply (paraphrased) "Retail sales are up,more spending on roads,houses built" more waffle and he sat down. Badenoch stood up again and said in July she had asked the same question word for word,Starmer had stood up, said "Yes" and sat back down. Huge tax rises incoming!" I’m no economist; how do tax rises stimulate economic growth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PMQT. Badenoch just asked Starmer if he would stand by his _anifesto commitment not to raise these taxes. The reply (paraphrased) "Retail sales are up,more spending on roads,houses built" more waffle and he sat down. Badenoch stood up again and said in July she had asked the same question word for word,Starmer had stood up, said "Yes" and sat back down. Huge tax rises incoming! I’m no economist; how do tax rises stimulate economic growth. " I think most average man/woman in the street knows it does not. Given Liebour have always been the party of tax and spend when they inherited a decent economy,no one should have expected any better this time around. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country was broken long before Labour were elected, some by brexit, some by covid, some by poor government planning Labour had no idea the effect the orange clown would have on world economics, what person is going to invest in growth in the current There's two options Increase tax Reduce spending What happens each time they try to reduce spending ? " After over a decade of Tory austerity, there’s not much ‘fat’ left to cut — just services people rely on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country was broken long before Labour were elected, some by brexit, some by covid, some by poor government planning Labour had no idea the effect the orange clown would have on world economics, what person is going to invest in growth in the current There's two options Increase tax Reduce spending What happens each time they try to reduce spending ? " Reeves is an orange clown, whatever next | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The country was broken long before Labour were elected, some by brexit, some by covid, some by poor government planning Labour had no idea the effect the orange clown would have on world economics, what person is going to invest in growth in the current There's two options Increase tax Reduce spending What happens each time they try to reduce spending ? After over a decade of Tory austerity, there’s not much ‘fat’ left to cut — just services people rely on." Do you know why the tories introduced austerity measures in the first place? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you know why the tories introduced austerity measures in the first place? " Because they chose to, not because they had to. After the 2008 financial crash, most economists — including the IMF and Nobel laureates like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz — advised governments to maintain spending until recovery stabilised. The UK’s debt was high, but still historically manageable, and borrowing costs were near record lows. The Conservatives framed austerity as “balancing the books,” but in practice it was an ideological decision: shrink the state, weaken public services, and open the door to privatisation. The result wasn’t growth — it was the slowest recovery in 300 years, collapsing infrastructure, and the NHS pushed toward outsourcing to fill the gaps. Cutting investment after a crash doesn’t fix an economy. It stifles it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you know why the tories introduced austerity measures in the first place? Because they chose to, not because they had to. After the 2008 financial crash, most economists — including the IMF and Nobel laureates like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz — advised governments to maintain spending until recovery stabilised. The UK’s debt was high, but still historically manageable, and borrowing costs were near record lows. The Conservatives framed austerity as “balancing the books,” but in practice it was an ideological decision: shrink the state, weaken public services, and open the door to privatisation. The result wasn’t growth — it was the slowest recovery in 300 years, collapsing infrastructure, and the NHS pushed toward outsourcing to fill the gaps. Cutting investment after a crash doesn’t fix an economy. It stifles it." 
Why were borrowing costs so low, and do you know what the deficit was as a percentage of GDP at the time? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"
Why were borrowing costs so low, and do you know what the deficit was as a percentage of GDP at the time?"Honestly I don’t really care about the statistics, and here’s why. They don’t change the simple fact that austerity was never necessary. Borrowing costs were low because interest rates were near zero and investors trusted UK debt. Other countries used that to invest in recovery. We chose to cut instead. The deficit was high after the crash, but that was normal for a global recession and would have fallen faster with growth. The Tories used it as an excuse to slash services they didn’t like and push more of the NHS toward privatisation. Other nations with the same problems recovered quicker because they didn’t target the poor or gut public investment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Other nations with the same problems recovered quicker because they didn’t target the poor or gut public investment." Which countries? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Other nations with the same problems recovered quicker because they didn’t target the poor or gut public investment. Which countries?" Countries like the US, Germany, and France — all ran comparable deficits after 2008, but focused on stimulus and protection of public services. Their recoveries were faster and more stable. It’s not obscure data — IMF and OECD reports have covered it for years. If you’re genuinely curious, the information’s easy to find. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Other nations with the same problems recovered quicker because they didn’t target the poor or gut public investment. Which countries? Countries like the US, Germany, and France — all ran comparable deficits after 2008, but focused on stimulus and protection of public services. Their recoveries were faster and more stable. It’s not obscure data — IMF and OECD reports have covered it for years. If you’re genuinely curious, the information’s easy to find." The OBR says a different story: https://obr.uk/box/comparing-the-uks-recession-and-recovery-after-blue-book-revisions/ "Following the onset of the financial crisis, the UK experienced a relatively sharp contraction of 6.0 per cent, which was similar to the euro area as a whole. Of the G7 economies, Germany, Italy and Japan experienced deeper recessions, with milder recessions in France, the US and Canada (Chart C). The UK recovery was initially subdued, only keeping pace with Japan and the euro area as a whole, while growth in Germany, the US and Canada was significantly stronger. However, over the past two years UK growth has gathered pace. As a result, relative to the pre-crisis peak, the UK now lags behind only the US and Canada within the G7." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The OBR says a different story: https://obr.uk/box/comparing-the-uks-recession-and-recovery-after-blue-book-revisions/ "Following the onset of the financial crisis, the UK experienced a relatively sharp contraction of 6.0 per cent, which was similar to the euro area as a whole. Of the G7 economies, Germany, Italy and Japan experienced deeper recessions, with milder recessions in France, the US and Canada (Chart C). The UK recovery was initially subdued, only keeping pace with Japan and the euro area as a whole, while growth in Germany, the US and Canada was significantly stronger. However, over the past two years UK growth has gathered pace. As a result, relative to the pre-crisis peak, the UK now lags behind only the US and Canada within the G7." " That supports exactly what I said. The UK recovery was “initially subdued” and only “kept pace with Japan and the euro area” — meaning we fell behind the nations that avoided heavy austerity. Germany, the US, and Canada recovered faster precisely because they invested rather than cut. Catching up years later doesn’t undo the decade of lost growth, wage stagnation, and service collapse. Even the OBR’s own wording confirms the early damage austerity caused. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" That supports exactly what I said. The UK recovery was “initially subdued” and only “kept pace with Japan and the euro area” — meaning we fell behind the nations that avoided heavy austerity. Germany, the US, and Canada recovered faster precisely because they invested rather than cut. Catching up years later doesn’t undo the decade of lost growth, wage stagnation, and service collapse. Even the OBR’s own wording confirms the early damage austerity caused." We caught up and started performing better than those countries. And it didn't take a decade to catch up either. We caught up by 2014. The delay makes sense because UK productivity was primarily dependent on financial sector which took longer to recover around the world. Germany on the other hand primarily relied on manufacturing which recovered faster. Even Germany had austerity measures though not as big as UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We caught up and started performing better than those countries. And it didn't take a decade to catch up either. We caught up by 2014. The delay makes sense because UK productivity was primarily dependent on financial sector which took longer to recover around the world. Germany on the other hand primarily relied on manufacturing which recovered faster. Even Germany had austerity measures though not as big as UK." Catching up on paper GDP doesn’t erase what happened in real terms. By 2014, sure, headline growth looked better — but living standards, public services, and regional investment hadn’t recovered. Real wages were still below pre-crash levels, productivity growth was flat, and austerity’s social damage was already baked in. Germany’s restraint wasn’t the same as the UK’s cuts — their safety net and infrastructure investment stayed intact, which is why their recovery was more balanced. The UK’s rebound was concentrated in London finance, not in the lives of ordinary people. That’s the cost of turning policy into punishment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"— just services people rely on." Isn’t this the crux of the problem? We have become a nation of malingerers who depend on state benefits rather than the go-getting productive people we once were? The benefits system is unsustainable and is being exploited by people who are over diagnosed with mental health and education needs. The huge increase in cases must be due to over diagnosis unless there is an environmental cause (e.g. additives in diet or over use of social media). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We caught up and started performing better than those countries. And it didn't take a decade to catch up either. We caught up by 2014. The delay makes sense because UK productivity was primarily dependent on financial sector which took longer to recover around the world. Germany on the other hand primarily relied on manufacturing which recovered faster. Even Germany had austerity measures though not as big as UK. Catching up on paper GDP doesn’t erase what happened in real terms. By 2014, sure, headline growth looked better — but living standards, public services, and regional investment hadn’t recovered. Real wages were still below pre-crash levels, productivity growth was flat, and austerity’s social damage was already baked in. Germany’s restraint wasn’t the same as the UK’s cuts — their safety net and infrastructure investment stayed intact, which is why their recovery was more balanced. The UK’s rebound was concentrated in London finance, not in the lives of ordinary people. That’s the cost of turning policy into punishment." are you always Gina blame the torys or do you think you will realise labour are just as shit at some point? Probably not as there the ones who reinforce your delusion | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We caught up and started performing better than those countries. And it didn't take a decade to catch up either. We caught up by 2014. The delay makes sense because UK productivity was primarily dependent on financial sector which took longer to recover around the world. Germany on the other hand primarily relied on manufacturing which recovered faster. Even Germany had austerity measures though not as big as UK. Catching up on paper GDP doesn’t erase what happened in real terms. By 2014, sure, headline growth looked better — but living standards, public services, and regional investment hadn’t recovered. Real wages were still below pre-crash levels, productivity growth was flat, and austerity’s social damage was already baked in. Germany’s restraint wasn’t the same as the UK’s cuts — their safety net and infrastructure investment stayed intact, which is why their recovery was more balanced. " But all the studies you mentioned about how other countries recovered better than UK relied on GDP. Now that you have seen UK GDP recovering well only after some delay, GDP is suddenly not a great metric to measure recovery?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But all the studies you mentioned about how other countries recovered better than UK relied on GDP. Now that you have seen UK GDP recovering well only after some delay, GDP is suddenly not a great metric to measure recovery? "I never said GDP was unimportant — I said it isn’t the only measure of recovery. You can have growth on paper while real wages fall and public services collapse. That’s what happened here. Other countries recovered faster and spread the gains more evenly because they didn’t cut into the foundations their economies rely on. GDP can rise while people get poorer. That’s not recovery; it’s redistribution upward. In short, without austerity we likely would have recovered faster — and without pushing parts of our society into poverty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Other countries recovered faster and spread the gains more evenly because they didn’t cut into the foundations their economies rely on. " Where did you get this information from? You mentioned IMF originally. But they also talked mostly about GDP and not the other things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" did you get this information from? You mentioned IMF originally. But they also talked mostly about GDP and not the other things. " The IMF, OECD, and World Bank all published analyses on post-2008 recovery showing that early fiscal tightening slowed growth, especially in the UK and southern Europe. The IMF even issued a public mea culpa in 2013 admitting it had underestimated how damaging austerity would be for growth and employment. Countries like the US and Germany used stimulus spending and targeted support rather than deep cuts — and their recoveries were faster and less unequal. The point isn’t about GDP headlines; it’s about policy choices. The UK used austerity as a cure-all when most of the world had already realised it was part of the disease. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" did you get this information from? You mentioned IMF originally. But they also talked mostly about GDP and not the other things. The IMF, OECD, and World Bank all published analyses on post-2008 recovery showing that early fiscal tightening slowed growth, especially in the UK and southern Europe. " Yes, when they talked about growth, they meant GDP. At least, that's what they have measured in the papers they published. But when I showed GDP in UK recovered only with a delay and even started doing better than other countries except US and Canada, you said that GDP isn't the only measure and other countries spread the gains more evenly. Where did you get the information that other countries spread the gains more evenly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"yes, when they talked about growth, they meant GDP. At least, that's what they have measured in the papers they published. But when I showed GDP in UK recovered only with a delay and even started doing better than other countries except US and Canada, you said that GDP isn't the only measure and other countries spread the gains more evenly. Where did you get the information that other countries spread the gains more evenly? " From multiple sources — OECD inequality reports, World Bank income-distribution data, and Eurostat living-standards comparisons. Those show that post-crash income inequality and poverty rates in the UK rose faster and stayed higher than in most comparable economies through the 2010s. Germany and France, for example, saw modest wage growth and lower increases in relative poverty over the same period. So yes, the IMF focused on GDP. Others measured what that growth meant for ordinary people — and that’s where the UK’s austerity experiment stands out. I’m not arguing the numbers don’t exist; I’m arguing that we chose to balance them on the backs of the people least able to carry them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Those show that post-crash income inequality and poverty rates in the UK rose faster and stayed higher than in most comparable economies through the 2010s. " Gini index is used to measure inequality by these organisations. UK Gini index 2007 - 34.4 2020 - 32.6 Germany 2007 - 31.2 2020 - 32.4 France 2007 - 32.4 2020 - 30.7 UK reduced income equality by 1.8 percentage points, Germany increased it by 1.2 percentage points and France reduced it by 1.7 percentage points. The data says the opposite story to your claims. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gini index is used to measure inequality by these organisations. UK Gini index 2007 - 34.4 2020 - 32.6 Germany 2007 - 31.2 2020 - 32.4 France 2007 - 32.4 2020 - 30.7 UK reduced income equality by 1.8 percentage points, Germany increased it by 1.2 percentage points and France reduced it by 1.7 percentage points. The data says the opposite story to your claims. " That’s the problem with cherry-picking headline Gini figures — they flatten context. The UK’s Gini fell slightly because everyone got poorer, not because the gap truly closed. Real incomes across most deciles dropped after 2010, so inequality narrowed on paper while living standards fell across the board. In contrast, Germany and France maintained or raised lower- and middle-income earnings, so their smaller Gini shifts reflect stability, not shared decline. If your measure of success is “we equalised misery,” that’s not a defence of austerity. It’s proof of how distorted the metric becomes when you ignore how the numbers got there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gini index is used to measure inequality by these organisations. UK Gini index 2007 - 34.4 2020 - 32.6 Germany 2007 - 31.2 2020 - 32.4 France 2007 - 32.4 2020 - 30.7 UK reduced income equality by 1.8 percentage points, Germany increased it by 1.2 percentage points and France reduced it by 1.7 percentage points. The data says the opposite story to your claims. That’s the problem with cherry-picking headline Gini figures — they flatten context. The UK’s Gini fell slightly because everyone got poorer, not because the gap truly closed. Real incomes across most deciles dropped after 2010, so inequality narrowed on paper while living standards fell across the board. " But you said that income inequality in UK rose post crash compared to France and Germany. Was that a lie? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But you said that income inequality in UK rose post crash compared to France and Germany. Was that a lie? " No lie — it depends when you look. Inequality spiked in the early austerity years, then the Gini dipped only because middle incomes fell too. That’s not progress; that’s shared decline. When austerity eased, the gap widened again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But you said that income inequality in UK rose post crash compared to France and Germany. Was that a lie? No lie — it depends when you look. Inequality spiked in the early austerity years, then the Gini dipped only because middle incomes fell too. " The Gini index fell during the austerity years too in UK 2008 - 35.4 2009 - 35.1 2010 - 33.7 2011 - 33.2 2012 - 33.1 2013 - 32.7 It went to 33.3 in 2015 before going down again. Do you just make shit up on the fly when you post here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Inequality spiked in the early austerity years, then the Gini dipped only because middle incomes fell too. The Gini index fell during the austerity years too in UK 2008 - 35.4 2009 - 35.1 2010 - 33.7 2011 - 33.2 2012 - 33.1 2013 - 32.7 It went to 33.3 in 2015 before going down again. Do you just make shit up on the fly when you post here? " No, I just read the data in context. Those numbers support what I said — the index dropped because incomes across most brackets fell, not because inequality meaningfully improved. If you think “everyone got poorer together” counts as success, that says more about your argument than mine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"PMQT. Badenoch just asked Starmer if he would stand by his _anifesto commitment not to raise these taxes. The reply (paraphrased) "Retail sales are up,more spending on roads,houses built" more waffle and he sat down. Badenoch stood up again and said in July she had asked the same question word for word,Starmer had stood up, said "Yes" and sat back down. Huge tax rises incoming!" Prior to the GE labour focused on convincing people that they were not like others portrayed them, of putting up taxes as the answer to everything. The pledge not to raise income tax, NI or VAT was part of that exercise. I feel the political damage done by breaking this pledge would be extremely damaging, not just now but in the future when once again they will be trying to convince people to vote for them. Of course this could also be a stage managed diversion so the actual rises are overlooked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Prior to the GE labour focused on convincing people that they were not like others portrayed them, of putting up taxes as the answer to everything. The pledge not to raise income tax, NI or VAT was part of that exercise. I feel the political damage done by breaking this pledge would be extremely damaging, not just now but in the future when once again they will be trying to convince people to vote for them. Of course this could also be a stage managed diversion so the actual rises are overlooked." You’re right — they did make promises they’re now breaking. But that’s hardly unique to Labour; every government in the last fifty years has done the same, nationally and locally. The problem isn’t one party’s honesty, it’s a political culture where short-term messaging matters more than long-term policy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Prior to the GE labour focused on convincing people that they were not like others portrayed them, of putting up taxes as the answer to everything. The pledge not to raise income tax, NI or VAT was part of that exercise. I feel the political damage done by breaking this pledge would be extremely damaging, not just now but in the future when once again they will be trying to convince people to vote for them. Of course this could also be a stage managed diversion so the actual rises are overlooked. You’re right — they did make promises they’re now breaking. But that’s hardly unique to Labour; every government in the last fifty years has done the same, nationally and locally. The problem isn’t one party’s honesty, it’s a political culture where short-term messaging matters more than long-term policy." I agree it's not limited to any particular party but we are currently talking about this labour government in the here and now. Personally I feel that the economy in general and particularly tax has been labours Achilles heel for ages, probably long before my time. It's the go to argument for other parties to attack them and it's a reputation that labour have been trying to shake off. To break the tax promise in particular, proving the others were right all along seems far to damaging. It's just my personal opinion, I don't have data etc, just an option | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"— just services people rely on. Isn’t this the crux of the problem? We have become a nation of malingerers who depend on state benefits rather than the go-getting productive people we once were? The benefits system is unsustainable and is being exploited by people who are over diagnosed with mental health and education needs. The huge increase in cases must be due to over diagnosis unless there is an environmental cause (e.g. additives in diet or over use of social media)." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree it's not limited to any particular party but we are currently talking about this labour government in the here and now. Personally I feel that the economy in general and particularly tax has been labours Achilles heel for ages, probably long before my time. It's the go to argument for other parties to attack them and it's a reputation that labour have been trying to shake off. To break the tax promise in particular, proving the others were right all along seems far to damaging. It's just my personal opinion, I don't have data etc, just an option " I get that, and to be clear I’m just giving my own view too. I only highlighted the wider pattern to show it isn’t unique to Labour. As a leftist, what bothers me most isn’t the tax rise itself but the lie. If the money’s used properly to improve everyone’s quality of life, I’m fine with paying more. Personally, I’d start by closing the loopholes that let billions slip through before asking ordinary people to pay extra. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Inequality spiked in the early austerity years, then the Gini dipped only because middle incomes fell too. The Gini index fell during the austerity years too in UK 2008 - 35.4 2009 - 35.1 2010 - 33.7 2011 - 33.2 2012 - 33.1 2013 - 32.7 It went to 33.3 in 2015 before going down again. Do you just make shit up on the fly when you post here? No, I just read the data in context. Those numbers support what I said — the index dropped because incomes across most brackets fell, not because inequality meaningfully improved. If you think “everyone got poorer together” counts as success, that says more about your argument than mine." You said that income inequality increased during that period. That's clearly shown to be a lie. You should probably verify your facts before making statements like this. If your goal is to spread fake news, then you are on the right track. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You said that income inequality increased during that period. That's clearly shown to be a lie. You should probably verify your facts before making statements like this. If your goal is to spread fake news, then you are on the right track." How is that a lie. I said the damage hit when austerity bit and that the later Gini dip reflects shared income falls, not a healthy narrowing. Both can be true. A single headline index does not show how people got poorer or where the losses landed. Market-income gaps and poverty measures told a rougher story even while the Gini ticked down. My point hasn’t changed: austerity was not necessary, and it hurt people more than the alternatives would have. Arguing over one compressed number doesn’t fix the services that were cut or the wages that never recovered. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" How is that a lie. I said the damage hit when austerity bit and that the later Gini dip reflects shared income falls, not a healthy narrowing. " No. You said that income inequality increased. No matter how much mental gymnastics you do, anyone can see that you lied. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No. You said that income inequality increased. No matter how much mental gymnastics you do, anyone can see that you lied. " You’re proving my point again — you’re fixating on phrasing instead of the argument. The argument is that austerity hurt the population more than alternative policies would have. That remains true whether the Gini wobbled up, down, or sideways. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No. You said that income inequality increased. No matter how much mental gymnastics you do, anyone can see that you lied. You’re proving my point again — you’re fixating on phrasing instead of the argument. The argument is that austerity hurt the population more than alternative policies would have. That remains true whether the Gini wobbled up, down, or sideways." There is no way of knowing what an alternate policy would have returned. I asked a question further up what triggered austerity, you didn't really answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no way of knowing what an alternate policy would have returned. I asked a question further up what triggered austerity, you didn't really answer." I did answer — the trigger wasn’t necessity, it was ideology. The Conservatives used the post-crash deficit as justification for shrinking the state and cutting services they already wanted to cut. Plenty of economists at the time argued stimulus would have sped recovery, so yes, we do have a sense of what alternatives could have done — other countries proved it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no way of knowing what an alternate policy would have returned. I asked a question further up what triggered austerity, you didn't really answer. I did answer — the trigger wasn’t necessity, it was ideology. The Conservatives used the post-crash deficit as justification for shrinking the state and cutting services they already wanted to cut. Plenty of economists at the time argued stimulus would have sped recovery, so yes, we do have a sense of what alternatives could have done — other countries proved it." That is not answering the question again, it is saying the decision was wrong. What were the exact events that caused austerity measures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No. You said that income inequality increased. No matter how much mental gymnastics you do, anyone can see that you lied. You’re proving my point again — you’re fixating on phrasing instead of the argument. The argument is that austerity hurt the population more than alternative policies would have. That remains true whether the Gini wobbled up, down, or sideways." You started your argument about how IMF said UK recovered poorly compared to the rest. When I showed that UK started of slowly but later picked up quick and the growth rate increased compared to Germany and France. Then you moved the goal post and said income inequality increased and poverty rates also increased. You actually said OECD reports said so. You clearly did not see any OECD reports that said income inequality increased in UK compared to Germany or France. You made it up. About salary. UK's annual median disposable income dropped for a few years and recovered to same levels as pre-recession time. Germany did better there, yes. But France's disposable income also dropped the way UK did. France's performance pretty much matches UK's. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That is not answering the question again, it is saying the decision was wrong. What were the exact events that caused austerity measures. " The Tories were handed an excuse that let them do what they already wanted to do. The financial crash gave them cover to push an agenda of cuts and privatisation dressed up as “fiscal responsibility.” So yeah, my answer to what led to it — Tory greed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You started your argument about how IMF said UK recovered poorly compared to the rest. When I showed that UK started of slowly but later picked up quick and the growth rate increased compared to Germany and France. Then you moved the goal post and said income inequality increased and poverty rates also increased. You actually said OECD reports said so. You clearly did not see any OECD reports that said income inequality increased in UK compared to Germany or France. You made it up. About salary. UK's annual median disposable income dropped for a few years and recovered to same levels as pre-recession time. Germany did better there, yes. But France's disposable income also dropped the way UK did. France's performance pretty much matches UK's. " You’re still missing what I actually argued. I said austerity wasn’t necessary and it caused avoidable harm. Whether you measure GDP, wages, or inequality, the pattern’s the same — slower recovery, weaker services, and higher social costs than countries that didn’t follow the same path. You can nitpick details all day, but the overall outcome doesn’t change. And just because you’ve chosen to focus on one line doesn’t make it my central argument. It was a side comment, maybe imperfectly worded, but the core point hasn’t changed: austerity was unnecessary and caused more harm than it prevented. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You’re still missing what I actually argued. " Considering most of our arguments were made of lies, I think I didn't miss much. " You can nitpick details all day, but the overall outcome doesn’t change. And just because you’ve chosen to focus on one line doesn’t make it my central argument. " You started this by saying that other countries that didn't follow austerity did better than UK. And you mentioned France and Germany in the list. When I asked you for more information, you started making up one lie after another. And now you are pretending like you didn't make that argument at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree it's not limited to any particular party but we are currently talking about this labour government in the here and now. Personally I feel that the economy in general and particularly tax has been labours Achilles heel for ages, probably long before my time. It's the go to argument for other parties to attack them and it's a reputation that labour have been trying to shake off. To break the tax promise in particular, proving the others were right all along seems far to damaging. It's just my personal opinion, I don't have data etc, just an option I get that, and to be clear I’m just giving my own view too. I only highlighted the wider pattern to show it isn’t unique to Labour. As a leftist, what bothers me most isn’t the tax rise itself but the lie. If the money’s used properly to improve everyone’s quality of life, I’m fine with paying more. Personally, I’d start by closing the loopholes that let billions slip through before asking ordinary people to pay extra." I understand you highlighting this is not labour specific and feel your right to be concerned of their lying as this could cause long term serious damage and will taint not just this labour party but those in the future. This particular labour party are in the hot seat and used this pledge to get their. Breaking it will give any opposition parties and open goal. Hence the reason I am struggling to believe they will actually do it but we will find out soon enough I guess. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You started this by saying that other countries that didn't follow austerity did better than UK. And you mentioned France and Germany in the list. When I asked you for more information, you started making up one lie after another. And now you are pretending like you didn't make that argument at all." Lol of course that’s what happened — when someone can’t counter the argument, they just shout “liar” instead. Nothing I’ve said changes: austerity was a political choice that slowed recovery and hurt people who were already struggling. If you want to believe that was the best we could do, that’s on you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You started this by saying that other countries that didn't follow austerity did better than UK. And you mentioned France and Germany in the list. When I asked you for more information, you started making up one lie after another. And now you are pretending like you didn't make that argument at all. Lol of course that’s what happened — when someone can’t counter the argument, they just shout “liar” instead. Nothing I’ve said changes: austerity was a political choice that slowed recovery and hurt people who were already struggling. If you want to believe that was the best we could do, that’s on you." You can just scroll up and see the posts: You: Other nations with the same problems recovered quicker because they didn’t target the poor or gut public investment. Me: Which countries? You: Countries like the US, Germany, and France — all ran comparable deficits after 2008, but focused on stimulus and protection of public services. Their recoveries were faster and more stable. It’s not obscure data — IMF and OECD reports have covered it for years. If you’re genuinely curious, the information’s easy to find. You said the information is easy to find. I did find the information and questioned you about it only to get one lie after another in reply while you were confidently pretending like they were all facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
