Tory lies over borrowing
Discussion
It's been done to death on here about how Labour are the one's to borrow and borrow and that the country's finances were in a shocking state due to the level of their borrowing. However if you look at Government borrowing from 1997 when Labour took power, until today in 2014 you will notice it's jump from below 50% of GDP in 1997 to just over 50% in 2010 when the Tories/Libs took over to nearly 80% of GDP today in 2014. Yet public services budgets are still being slashed to the bone, how can they claim to being prudent with the nation's purse-strings?.....if spending now is at an all time high under their ineffectual, elitist policies.
Link - http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/7568/debt/govern...
Link - http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/7568/debt/govern...
pcvdriver said:
It's been done to death on here about how Labour are the one's to borrow and borrow and that the country's finances were in a shocking state due to the level of their borrowing. However if you look at Government borrowing from 1997 when Labour took power, until today in 2014 you will notice it's jump from below 50% of GDP in 1997 to just over 50% in 2010 when the Tories/Libs took over to nearly 80% of GDP today in 2014. Yet public services budgets are still being slashed to the bone, how can they claim to being prudent with the nation's purse-strings?.....if spending now is at an all time high under their ineffectual, elitist policies.
Link - http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/7568/debt/govern...
What's your point?Link - http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/7568/debt/govern...
The Tories should spend more?
The Tories aren't very good at making cuts?
Labour didn't spend too much?
Labour spent too much?
Labour should be brought back in to spend more money?
There isn't a problem with debt/deficit?
Austerity is a lie to take money from the poor and give to the rich?
None of the above?
None at all?
pcvdriver said:
It's been done to death on here about how Labour are the one's to borrow and borrow and that the country's finances were in a shocking state due to the level of their borrowing. However if you look at Government borrowing from 1997 when Labour took power, until today in 2014 you will notice it's jump from below 50% of GDP in 1997 to just over 50% in 2010 when the Tories/Libs took over to nearly 80% of GDP today in 2014.
You do know Labour's debts still have to be serviced, don't you?simoid said:
What's your point?
The Tories should spend more?
Yes, they should have. Especially on environmental issues....there was no need to have slashed the budgets so severely. The cut-backs caused everyone to panic and not spend like they were previously - further stifling the recovery of the economy.The Tories should spend more?
simoid said:
The Tories aren't very good at making cuts?
Hindsight would tend to agree. Cuts were too deep and too severe and did more damage than help.simoid said:
Labour didn't spend too much?
Not going by previous Government borrowing/spending levels, no they didn't. Where Labour let down the country badly was the relaxing banking regs. but who's to say the Tories wouldn't have done exactly the same if asked by their buddies in BIG business?simoid said:
Labour spent too much?
Not at all - quite modest spending by 20th Century standards.simoid said:
Labour should be brought back in to spend more money?
Preferable to the Tories, as long as someone more effective than Ed Miliband is at the helm.simoid said:
There isn't a problem with debt/deficit?
Obviously there are issues - but not as great as was claimed by Oily Dave and Oilier than thou Gidiot.simoid said:
Austerity is a lie to take money from the poor and give to the rich?
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. TheEnd said:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics was the phrase.
I'd always tend to measure borrowing in terms of £'s, not % of earnings.
If not taken as a percentage of what was actually earned - then relatively speaking, one cannot truly make a comparison as to what could be afforded, or not - as the case may be.I'd always tend to measure borrowing in terms of £'s, not % of earnings.
You seem rather conflicted in your views.
You tell us that the Tories cuts have been ineffectual, but also that public services have been slashed to the bone.
You also seem to complain that public spending is at an all time high, but also that the Tories should've spent MORE money.
And then you finish off there with a couple of nicknames for the Tory leaders.
Art thou at the windup?
You tell us that the Tories cuts have been ineffectual, but also that public services have been slashed to the bone.
You also seem to complain that public spending is at an all time high, but also that the Tories should've spent MORE money.
And then you finish off there with a couple of nicknames for the Tory leaders.
Art thou at the windup?
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.
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.
pcvdriver said:
and then going out to spend even more themselves.
They are spending too much?I thought you said they cut too much?
The way I see it, and pretty much everyone else from my chart I posted that isn't based on your odd metric, is that Labour was responsible for some shocking increases in the deficit, and the Coalition government cuts slowly reigning it in.
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?
TheEnd said:
They are spending too much?
I thought you said they cut too much?
The way I see it, and pretty much everyone else from my chart I posted that isn't based on your odd metric, is that Labour was responsible for some shocking increases in the deficit, and the Coalition government cuts slowly reigning it in.
The way I see it, there wasn't a problem with Labour's deficit per se, the problem was that they were borrowing more and more whilst the economy was growing.I thought you said they cut too much?
The way I see it, and pretty much everyone else from my chart I posted that isn't based on your odd metric, is that Labour was responsible for some shocking increases in the deficit, and the Coalition government cuts slowly reigning it in.
When we eventually hit an economic downturn, and confidence and spending took a hit, there'd be trouble - since we'd be faced with additional spending demands, and lower tax receipts, so having to borrow inordinately high amounts of money whilst bringing down spending, and attempting to keep the economy ticking over. Frankly it's miraculous to me that we got out as lightly as we did - to claim that things would've been better if we hadn't cut as much seems farcical to me.
If you can't pay down the national debt (or at least balance the books) in year upon year of consistent economic growth, when can you!?
Edited by simoid on Monday 10th March 02:32
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.
So on the first sentence you seem to be blaming them for making cuts and in the second for not making cuts.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.
What happened is that they didn't make massive cuts, they did what you should do in a recession which is to maintain fairly high public spending and as a result our economy, particularly growth, is now in a position that few countries in the world wouldn't opt for given the choice.
The question should be about why we were running a deficit through the boom years earlier in the century.
I think that is a problem per se, simoid.
It seemed relatively small at the time but a few people noticed early on that Brown's spending equated to a massive structural deficit. It all rested on the insane conceit of Labour and Gordon Brown in particular that they had abolished the business cycle. I can still hear him saying "no more boom and bust" in that irksome way.
It seemed relatively small at the time but a few people noticed early on that Brown's spending equated to a massive structural deficit. It all rested on the insane conceit of Labour and Gordon Brown in particular that they had abolished the business cycle. I can still hear him saying "no more boom and bust" in that irksome way.
Gordon Brown said:
My first rule – the golden rule – ensures that over the economic cycle the Government will borrow only to invest, and that current spending will be met from taxation.
I said that this would be a Budget based on prudence for a purpose and that guides us also in our approach to public spending.
Under this Government, Britain will not return to the boom and bust of the past.
If there is anyone out there who doesn't understand the lunacy of that first one, get irritated by the second and ridicule the third they need to go away and read up on economics.I said that this would be a Budget based on prudence for a purpose and that guides us also in our approach to public spending.
Under this Government, Britain will not return to the boom and bust of the past.
It doesn't in that he was only including current account spending, a bit like someone being happy that their income covers their weekly bills at Tesco, or wherever, but not taking the cost of their house or car into account.
Ed Balls is the same, he tells us he's going to balance the budget but only by not including capital expenditure. It's complete nonsense, a con trick on the electorate.
Ed Balls is the same, he tells us he's going to balance the budget but only by not including capital expenditure. It's complete nonsense, a con trick on the electorate.
True enough.
The thought is that if you borrow to build something like a road or an airport it produces a return in terms of increased efficiency, as opposed to borrowing to pay salaries or welfare. It's more like covering your food out of weekly salary but then borrowing to eg. insulate the attic and save on heating.
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.
The thought is that if you borrow to build something like a road or an airport it produces a return in terms of increased efficiency, as opposed to borrowing to pay salaries or welfare. It's more like covering your food out of weekly salary but then borrowing to eg. insulate the attic and save on heating.
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.
s, the lot of them.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff