Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
Countdown said:
I understand it perfectly. Rather than continue repeating “structural deficit” as if it proves something have a read through the link below - it presents a slightly different view to yours.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/fina...
‘Huffington post’?!https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/fina...
How can you say they ran a structural deficit but didn’t spend ‘excessively’!!
sidicks said:
fblm said:
Countdown said:
I disagree that they couldn't spend within their means during the good times.
Do you know what a structural deficit is?It does not bode well for the next time they are in power, the recession in 2008-9 was caused by not spending enough...
Countdown said:
I understand it perfectly. Rather than continue repeating “structural deficit” as if it proves something...
Well then you'll perfectly understand that when Ed Balls admits to running a 73bn structural deficit before the financial crisis that they obviously weren't spending within their/your means. It's not difficult.gadgetmac said:
Gargamel said:
let us just once again recall, how Chancellor Gordon Brown, and subsequently Prime Minister Brown, introduced ‘working tax credits’
Essentially to disguise wage stagnation, the master forecaster, sold the policy to the UK population as ‘fully costed’ and around £1bn.
In 2018 it is just in excess of £26 bn, or the equivalent of paying 4.3 million people £6,400 each.
This policy, prevents capitalism from working effectively, people accept low wages, and companies exploit them. It is enabling low wages and should be scrapped.
There is always an alternate forecast though.Essentially to disguise wage stagnation, the master forecaster, sold the policy to the UK population as ‘fully costed’ and around £1bn.
In 2018 it is just in excess of £26 bn, or the equivalent of paying 4.3 million people £6,400 each.
This policy, prevents capitalism from working effectively, people accept low wages, and companies exploit them. It is enabling low wages and should be scrapped.
You shrink Tax Credits, Companies are forced to pay people more (although I don’t believe it would happen but lets go with it for now), Corporate Profit margins shrink due to rising wage costs, People get laid off. With higher unemployment comes lower wages as its a buyers (employers) market.
Not certain to happen I’ll grant you but it is one of many other possible outcomes.
Or spend a quarter of the money on child care schemes.
Whichever way, the point is it has grown out of all proportion to its original intent.
fblm said:
Well then you'll perfectly understand that when Ed Balls admits to running a 73bn structural deficit before the financial crisis that they obviously weren't spending within their/your means. It's not difficult.
You keep harping on about that as if it was unique to Labour. The UK had budget deficits for pretty much the entire duration of the Thatcher (PBUH) era as well as during Majors rule.Countdown said:
fblm said:
Well then you'll perfectly understand that when Ed Balls admits to running a 73bn structural deficit before the financial crisis that they obviously weren't spending within their/your means. It's not difficult.
You keep harping on about that as if it was unique to Labour. The UK had budget deficits for pretty much the entire duration of the Thatcher (PBUH) era as well as during Majors rule.Look I just posted the debt numbers for 'New Labour', I'm sorry if they are unpalatable, unless you've got a public sector pension.
Can we get back to laughing at EE Corbyn and his comedy communists?
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 7th May 23:10
sidicks said:
Countdown said:
You keep harping on about that as if it was unique to Labour. The UK had budget deficits for pretty much the entire duration of the Thatcher (PBUH) era as well as during Majors rule.
Budget deficits or structural deficits?(I) a budget deficit of x% for 6 years
(Ii) A “structural” deficit of x% for 6 years
ETA: Is a structural deficit NOT a budget deficit?
Edited by Countdown on Tuesday 8th May 07:50
WindyCommon said:
A budget deficit of x% for 6 years IS a structural deficit.
A structural deficit is what you have when budget deficits persist throughout an economic cycle.
I agree. So, would it be fair to say that the Tories had a "structural deficit" for most of the time that Thatcher was in power?A structural deficit is what you have when budget deficits persist throughout an economic cycle.
irocfan said:
quite possibly - then you have to look at the reasons why. In Maggie's case? Labour.
In Blair/Brown's case.... errrrrmmmm
The Tories were in power for 18 years, during which time they had shedloads of income from North sea oil, yet they still had budget deficits for most of the 18 years. All down to Labour?In Blair/Brown's case.... errrrrmmmm
Countdown said:
irocfan said:
quite possibly - then you have to look at the reasons why. In Maggie's case? Labour.
In Blair/Brown's case.... errrrrmmmm
The Tories were in power for 18 years, during which time they had shedloads of income from North sea oil, yet they still had budget deficits for most of the 18 years. All down to Labour?In Blair/Brown's case.... errrrrmmmm
2xChevrons said:
So yes, I have questioned my assumptions a lot.
As for immigration, no, open borders is not a fundamental left-wing objective. It's supported by a lot of leftists for various reasons but you can also find 'socialism in one country' followers who see free immigration as unbeatable downward pressure on pay and working conditions largely to improve the profits of capital rather than to the benefit of either the immigrants or the native workers. That was the basis behind Labour's traditional Euroscepticism.
It's perfectly possible to reduce immigration by left-wing means (mostly by making it too difficult to undercut the existing labour pool, so by enforcing universal living wages, ensuring that working conditions and rights are applied to all workers regardless of origin or status, clamping down on 'slum' housing practices and so on). You can also reduce its impact by adequate provision of housing, services, infrastructure, jobs and welfare. But there was and is precious little evidence that the Blairites want to tackle 'legitimate concerns' this way. It's always been about pandering to the existing right-wing narratives that put the blame and pressure on the individual immigrants rather than the broader systems and forces that are behind the migration. New Labour's final years saw it accept that narrative wholesale and then just try and solve it 'nicely'. When you have Labour frontbenchers supporting the detention centres, swinging RoW immigration criteria and the 'hostile environment' you know that there's no hope of a left-wing solution there.
Fair enough As for immigration, no, open borders is not a fundamental left-wing objective. It's supported by a lot of leftists for various reasons but you can also find 'socialism in one country' followers who see free immigration as unbeatable downward pressure on pay and working conditions largely to improve the profits of capital rather than to the benefit of either the immigrants or the native workers. That was the basis behind Labour's traditional Euroscepticism.
It's perfectly possible to reduce immigration by left-wing means (mostly by making it too difficult to undercut the existing labour pool, so by enforcing universal living wages, ensuring that working conditions and rights are applied to all workers regardless of origin or status, clamping down on 'slum' housing practices and so on). You can also reduce its impact by adequate provision of housing, services, infrastructure, jobs and welfare. But there was and is precious little evidence that the Blairites want to tackle 'legitimate concerns' this way. It's always been about pandering to the existing right-wing narratives that put the blame and pressure on the individual immigrants rather than the broader systems and forces that are behind the migration. New Labour's final years saw it accept that narrative wholesale and then just try and solve it 'nicely'. When you have Labour frontbenchers supporting the detention centres, swinging RoW immigration criteria and the 'hostile environment' you know that there's no hope of a left-wing solution there.
I am also more centrist on economic matters with age and support, for example, a higher minimum wage and more welfare spending to reduce the rate of withdrawal of the universal credit and so reduce disincentives for people to work more and improve their lot.
I think personally you are very much underestimating the pull factor in immigration of a non-contributory welfare system with residency being the only requirement to access it. There are no easy decisions or trade offs in this area, much as many commentators would like to pretend otherwise.
The Tories are merely the best of a bad lot. Many of their leading politicians are in politics to enrich their friends in the expectation of a very well remunerated retirement from politics. There are others who don't fit that description and most of the rest know they need to offer something to ordinary working people which makes them just about worth voting for.
JagLover said:
The Tories are merely the best of a bad lot. Many of their leading politicians are in politics to enrich their friends in the expectation of a very well remunerated retirement from politics.
Can you blame them? There is no job security in being an MP. You have to refight for your job every 4-5 years ( or more ). If we want talented people to do the job ( which I think we should do ), then we should be realistic that they need an exit plan. Also for a job in central London £60k ( or whatever it is now ) is peanuts wage wise, there are contracting nurses getting more than that. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff