Tory lies over borrowing
Discussion
Cos the Tories are not actually in control.
duh.
There are the libdems in joined opposition.
There are the courts
and largely there are EU rules they dare not break
Just out (stats from one year ago, so more now):
Taxpayers fund benefits for 400,000 immigrants
THE growing popularity of Britain as a haven for economic migrants has been exposed in figures showing the lives of almost 400,000 foreign-born residents are funded by the taxpayer.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/463965/Taxpayers-...
duh.
There are the libdems in joined opposition.
There are the courts
and largely there are EU rules they dare not break
Just out (stats from one year ago, so more now):
Taxpayers fund benefits for 400,000 immigrants
THE growing popularity of Britain as a haven for economic migrants has been exposed in figures showing the lives of almost 400,000 foreign-born residents are funded by the taxpayer.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/463965/Taxpayers-...
AJS- said:
The trouble is there isn't really a clear dividing line between investment and current expenditure with government. Any frivolous gimmicks for schools could be argued to be an investment in education. Overhead signs reminding us not to drive while humming could be infrastructure spending, thus an investment. Etc etc.
Well the reality is that none of it is investment, the use of the word in this context is kidology. Government spending virtually never generates an income or creates a resaleable asset, building a road is an example, unless there is a toll on it.
Siscar said:
AJS- said:
The trouble is there isn't really a clear dividing line between investment and current expenditure with government. Any frivolous gimmicks for schools could be argued to be an investment in education. Overhead signs reminding us not to drive while humming could be infrastructure spending, thus an investment. Etc etc.
Well the reality is that none of it is investment, the use of the word in this context is kidology. Government spending virtually never generates an income or creates a resaleable asset, building a road is an example, unless there is a toll on it.AJS- said:
Siscar said:
AJS- said:
The trouble is there isn't really a clear dividing line between investment and current expenditure with government. Any frivolous gimmicks for schools could be argued to be an investment in education. Overhead signs reminding us not to drive while humming could be infrastructure spending, thus an investment. Etc etc.
Well the reality is that none of it is investment, the use of the word in this context is kidology. Government spending virtually never generates an income or creates a resaleable asset, building a road is an example, unless there is a toll on it.AJS- said:
Siscar said:
AJS- said:
The trouble is there isn't really a clear dividing line between investment and current expenditure with government. Any frivolous gimmicks for schools could be argued to be an investment in education. Overhead signs reminding us not to drive while humming could be infrastructure spending, thus an investment. Etc etc.
Well the reality is that none of it is investment, the use of the word in this context is kidology. Government spending virtually never generates an income or creates a resaleable asset, building a road is an example, unless there is a toll on it.pcvdriver said:
No conflict in my views at all. The Tories cuts were infective DUE to them cutting budgets to the bone, further stifling growth, as people were panicked into spending less - meaning there was less cash floating around in the economy.
I'm not complaining that spending is at an all time high, I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Tories blaming Labour's spending and then going out to spend even more themselves.
And yet our GDP will be back to 2008 levels a year early according to a BBC report? Would seem the Tory policies are working to me.I'm not complaining that spending is at an all time high, I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Tories blaming Labour's spending and then going out to spend even more themselves.
sunoco69 said:
Would seem the Tory policies are working to me.
That's my impression, also. Labour are screaming that we're all still doomed as the rich are pocketing all the cash, UKIP assure us that immigrants and the EU are doing the same and the Liberals would have us believe the only reason you haven't had to donate your first born to Satan is because they're holding the tories back. Meanwhile I see the economy growing sustainably and public services improving despite the budgetary restraints.I really despair at a lot of the Conservative's politics at the moment, but the economics seem spot on.
What that graph says to me, ignoring the con trick of capital investment spending and off the books PFI malarkey, is that Labour when they were in power tried to make a pretence of balancing the books.
However once they realised in the last couple of years that they were going to be ignominiously kicked into the boondocks at the next GE they deliberately set about enacting the one thing that any future government would have difficulty in undoing, namely huge quantities of debt and a huge running deficit.
In less liberal times such traitorous b
ds, and I make no apology for so referencing them, , those traitorous bds would have been dragged into the Tower through Traitor's Gate, hung drawn and quartered then beheaded and had their head displayed on a pike on London Bridge. Frankly that would have been too civilised for Blair and Brown.
However once they realised in the last couple of years that they were going to be ignominiously kicked into the boondocks at the next GE they deliberately set about enacting the one thing that any future government would have difficulty in undoing, namely huge quantities of debt and a huge running deficit.
In less liberal times such traitorous b
ds, and I make no apology for so referencing them, , those traitorous bds would have been dragged into the Tower through Traitor's Gate, hung drawn and quartered then beheaded and had their head displayed on a pike on London Bridge. Frankly that would have been too civilised for Blair and Brown. When trying to assess such things it's important to look at the trends leading up to a change in office. Most sane people would read the figures very differently if they did (though I agree with any sentiment that this current govt haven't cut hard enough, fast enough. Blame the need for coalition there IMO).
As another example of bullst politicking to fool those hard of thought, look at Labour's claims that the Tories cut taxes for the rich, a la the 50% rate being cut. Then look at what the highest rates of tax were under Labour and when they changed...
The saddest thing about this sort of crap is that people are dumb enough to fall for it (no matter what their voting preference).
As another example of bulls
t politicking to fool those hard of thought, look at Labour's claims that the Tories cut taxes for the rich, a la the 50% rate being cut. Then look at what the highest rates of tax were under Labour and when they changed... The saddest thing about this sort of crap is that people are dumb enough to fall for it (no matter what their voting preference).
Siscar said:
True, it all depends on what is meant by it, Labour (and others) seem to use it in the context that it can be taken off budget and the cost largely forgotten about when clearly it can't be. It can be really good expenditure but why can't they be open about it?
The last Labour government were like self help junkies or failed .com entrepreneurs convinced that the next seminar or load of internet advertising paid for on their credit card would be the one that got them into the big time. They there were allowed to run the country in this manner for so long is extraordinary.
If you look at the performance of previous governments over multiple terms in office what you realise is that in reality governments only make very small changes in public spending. The changes to the level of government debt are much more a factor of revenues. Every government spends more than the last, but they are terrible at making efficiencies and when they do voters punish them very harshly.
Edited by speedy_thrills on Monday 10th March 08:35
speedy_thrills said:
If you look at the performance of previous governments over multiple terms in office what you realise is that in reality governments only make very small changes in public spending. The changes to the level of government debt are much more a factor of revenues. Every government spends more than the last, but they are terrible at making efficiencies and when they do voters punish them very harshly.
Do you have any figures to back that up? pcvdriver said:
The late 40's and 50's was when the country really did have austere condition to live with - there was still rationing in 1952, 7 years after the end of the war. Strangely enough when we were at our "skintest" this was created the welfare state and the NHS. So to claim that the levels of austerity today were necessary was simply a piss take.
Rationing persisted that long because we pissed money away on the welfare state and the NHS, not despite it. simoid said:
pcvdriver said:
No conflict in my views at all. The Tories cuts were infective DUE to them cutting budgets to the bone, further stifling growth, as people were panicked into spending less - meaning there was less cash floating around in the economy.
I'm not complaining that spending is at an all time high, I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Tories blaming Labour's spending and then going out to spend even more themselves.
Could you please provide statistical evidence to support your claim that public spending is increasing under the Tories?I'm not complaining that spending is at an all time high, I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the Tories blaming Labour's spending and then going out to spend even more themselves.
Is that in real terms, nominal, or a percentage of GDP?
FiF said:
In less liberal times such traitorous bds, and I make no apology for so referencing them, , those traitorous bds would have been dragged into the Tower through Traitor's Gate, hung drawn and quartered then beheaded and had their head displayed on a pike on London Bridge. Frankly that would have been too civilised for Blair and Brown.
And I, personally, would of severed their testicles, just prior to them being drawn and quartered. I would then of lightly fried them in a little oil and force fed them there own nads.ds, and I make no apology for so referencing them, , those traitorous bds would have been dragged into the Tower through Traitor's Gate, hung drawn and quartered then beheaded and had their head displayed on a pike on London Bridge. Frankly that would have been too civilised for Blair and Brown. You are what you eat in reveres. They talk b
ks so they get to eat bks! I would of allowed them some HP sauce, I am not a cruel man.andy43 said:
IIRC we are still spending 50 billion a year on interest payments, mostly to cover the last shower's lunacy.
A definite slash and burn policy before the last election didn't help either...
And that picture says all I will ever need to know about Labours real attitude to working people and the good of the nation!!!! wA definite slash and burn policy before the last election didn't help either...
kers!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff