McDonnell's la la land economics- Don't need no number$
Discussion
sidicks said:
Serious question, do you understand the extent of the damage - £150bn deficit - that was inherited?
Yes, those flipping labour politicians who caused the global financial crisis..... I would suggest that they had drunk the UK financial sector's kool aid though, and believed we'd entered a wonderful age of risk free high returns from the city. Just the same failings as they bought into PFI - & note who made money out of that scam? Nothing was opposed by the tories as far as I recall.
Wasn't a 150bn structural deficit as suggested above btw.
edh said:
Yes, those flipping labour politicians who caused the global financial crisis...
Did anyone suggest they they did cause the global financial crisis? I don’t think so. However, they certainly took various actions which contributed to it!Maybe you mean the Labour government who inherited a strong economy in surplus and who managed to borrow record amounts on and off balance sheet despite record tax receipts, leading to the country being woefully prepared for any sort of downturn?
Or the Labour government who encouraged the banks credit policy as it allowed them to mask their poor handling of the economy.
Or the Labour government who decided to take bank regulation away from the Bank of England (who were then unable to assess the systemic risk building up in the system.
Or are you referring to some other Labour government?
edh said:
.. I would suggest that they had drunk the UK financial sector's kool aid though, and believed we'd entered a wonderful age of risk free high returns from the city. Just the same failings as they bought into PFI - & note who made money out of that scam? Nothing was opposed by the tories as far as I recall.
Labour used PFI to hide debt, pure and simply. They were the ones scamming the general public / taxpayer.edh said:
Wasn't a 150bn structural deficit as suggested above btw.
Agreed.Edited by sidicks on Sunday 19th November 22:34
del mar said:
say we decided to clear 150billion in 1 year - could it be done ?
No schools for a year, no armed forces, no road building, reduce benefits.
Yesit would be a miserable and chaotic year, but could it be done ?
To what end ? The present deficit is around £ 60bn, that is the gap between what we spend and what we earn, every year. No schools for a year, no armed forces, no road building, reduce benefits.
Yesit would be a miserable and chaotic year, but could it be done ?
So even if you saved it this year you would owe it next year if you did nothing different.
Of course you could cut spending by £60 Bn in one year, but I think there would be riots and the 'nasty party' stuff would make the party unelectable.
Corbyn is dangerous, Abbot is useless but it's McDonnell who is the truly scary one out of the bunch. Lest we forget, this is the man who is on record as calling himself a Marxist, being overjoyed at the global financial crisis and wants all armed police and MI5 abolished. The thought of him being anywhere near our economy is utterly terrifying and yet large portions of the general public still don't see it.
del mar said:
say we decided to clear 150billion in 1 year - could it be done ?
No schools for a year, no armed forces, no road building, reduce benefits.
Yesit would be a miserable and chaotic year, but could it be done ?
No, because it would bring the UK as we know it economically and socially to a juddering halt (it would make the 2008 financial crisis, the Winter of Discontent, the Great Depression and probably the Black Death, all rolled into one, look like a minor daily dip in the FTSE 100 by comparison). If you really did just put a literal freeze on state spending for one year and one year only you'd then be faced with a huge backlog of things that needed sorting out the next year to make up for the zero-year you've just had. No schools for a year, no armed forces, no road building, reduce benefits.
Yesit would be a miserable and chaotic year, but could it be done ?
A huge amount of expense is already being incurred to the state by an unwillingness to tackle problems at their root so they don't become major problems later, or to provide the social, economic and practical infrastructure the UK needs to generate, circulate and distribute economic benefits. And that's with annually-increasing gross spending that is (in many cases) barely keeping up with demand.
Just shutting off the tap will not save any money at all - the complete opposite in fact.
The man is a god damn lunatic who I wouldn't put in charge of the village tombola never mind the countries finances.
People, well educated people at that seem to be able to look past the horrendous figures that labour are planning to borrow, lapping up the promises of free s
t being dished out like confetti. It's either sheer ignorance or selfishness, not giving a st about the country, just what benefits them.
People, well educated people at that seem to be able to look past the horrendous figures that labour are planning to borrow, lapping up the promises of free s
t being dished out like confetti. It's either sheer ignorance or selfishness, not giving a st about the country, just what benefits them.del mar said:
say we decided to clear 150billion in 1 year - could it be done ?
No schools for a year, no armed forces, no road building, reduce benefits.
Yesit would be a miserable and chaotic year, but could it be done ?
How do you mean "clear" it? It's not a debt, it's an ongoing, annual gap between what we pay in tax and what we spend on public services.No schools for a year, no armed forces, no road building, reduce benefits.
Yesit would be a miserable and chaotic year, but could it be done ?
You could cut spending by £150bn in a year (with probably severe impacts, you'd need to lay off thousands of public sector staff, shrink defence, NHS, everything), but then you'd have to keep it cut indefinitely, only able to grow it in line with any increase in tax receipts.
I think the Tories biggest mistake is not educating people better about the difference between debt and deficit. I've spoken to a few people who seem to think the Tories are worse than Labour because we now have loads more debt (although in the next breath complain about "cuts"), totally unable to comprehend that all the austerity has done is reduce the rate at which the debt piles up.
amgmcqueen said:
sidicks said:
amgmcqueen said:
The tories numbers don't add up either. How much have they borrowed since 2010...?
Did you miss the massive inherited deficit?The Tories have been trying to get the budget deficit down - but have been fought against and massively criticised for doing so.
Until the budget deficit turns into a surplus - the amount of money the country is in debt by will continue to climb - that's kinda how it works.
In answer to you question though - less than Labour. The Tories have managed to reduce the budget deficit pretty much year on year since they gained power.
Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 20th November 07:28
amgmcqueen said:
Serious question....how long can we keep blaming it on Blair and Brown before the tories take responsibility for their own actions?
What we need to do is stop blaming the Tories and Labour. And start blaming ourselves. We all want a better NHS, better schools, better police, better roads etc. As long as someone else pays for it.
If a figure I saw on here is correct - that 43% of people pay no income tax - then I don't see any party ever being able to get the magical surplus sorted. Let alone one that will actually allow meaningful pay down of the national debt.
All that said, Gordon Brown was a cretin.
del mar said:
say we decided to clear 150billion in 1 year - could it be done ?
Probably not. The country has only run a budget surplus in 6 of the past 40+ years. The average surplus over those 6 years was around £7.5 billion - so you are talking about running a surplus 20 times higher than most people have seen in their lifetime. Even if we could generate such a high surplus - we'd have to sustain that surplus for 13 years to clear the current level of public debt.
If we could generate an average surplus of £7.5 billion, comparable to the 6 years we have seen a budget surplus - it would take almost 250 years to clear the public debt.
Lance Catamaran said:
Corbyn is dangerous, Abbot is useless but it's McDonnell who is the truly scary one out of the bunch. Lest we forget, this is the man who is on record as calling himself a Marxist, being overjoyed at the global financial crisis and wants all armed police and MI5 abolished. The thought of him being anywhere near our economy is utterly terrifying and yet large portions of the general public still don't see it.
These are the front men/women. What will be pulling the strings in the background with this lots consent is where the scary bit is.Blue Oval84 said:
I've spoken to a few people who seem to think the Tories are worse than Labour because we now have loads more debt (although in the next breath complain about "cuts"), totally unable to comprehend that all the austerity has done is reduce the rate at which the debt piles up.
+1Usually the same people who complain that tax cuts only benefit 'the rich' while in the next breath complaining that the rich get away without paying any tax.
Murph7355 said:
amgmcqueen said:
Serious question....how long can we keep blaming it on Blair and Brown before the tories take responsibility for their own actions?
What we need to do is stop blaming the Tories and Labour. And start blaming ourselves. We all want a better NHS, better schools, better police, better roads etc. As long as someone else pays for it.
If a figure I saw on here is correct - that 43% of people pay no income tax - then I don't see any party ever being able to get the magical surplus sorted. Let alone one that will actually allow meaningful pay down of the national debt.
All that said, Gordon Brown was a cretin.
There is an inherent culture of wanting a certain standard of living in this country and a proportion who believe it is their right to have access to free this and free that, and that their lifestyle should be paid for by state.
The hard working, tax paying citizen base is shrinking.
In addition to this, as more people give up work and take up buy-to-let business, this also adds a further burden to the economy. The income of buy-to-let is rental costs for someone else working in the country. So the working person ends up taking more of the burden to fund the economy.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Why is it madness?
Looking at it simply.
Say the Government borrows £500bn over say 15 years to buy all the utility companies, They then use the profits of them over the next 15 years to repay the borrowing and interest.
After 15 years we are quits in.
Quits or quids?Looking at it simply.
Say the Government borrows £500bn over say 15 years to buy all the utility companies, They then use the profits of them over the next 15 years to repay the borrowing and interest.
After 15 years we are quits in.
leef44 said:
There is an inherent culture of wanting a certain standard of living in this country and a proportion who believe it is their right to have access to free this and free that, and that their lifestyle should be paid for by state.
Yep - I think this idea that stuff is "free" and 'the government will pay for it' needs stamping on.The NHS isn't "free", state schools aren't "free" and 'the government' doesn't pay for s
t.If you claim for something you don't need, even if you think you are 'entitled' to it. If you abuse a public service (whether by misusing it - or working it in but taking the piss) - when taxes go up, or public spending has to be cut - that's your fault.
I honestly think McDonnell's economic plan goes as follows:
1. Borrow
2. Borrow
3. Borrow
4. ?????
5. Profit
6. Default
7. Blame Tories for 5 years after default
He keeps going on about "borrow to invest" and all that which is fine if your economy isn't in the toilet to begin with. How the hell do you base your entire economic strategy on borrowing far more than the 150bn gap we have currently?
1. Borrow
2. Borrow
3. Borrow
4. ?????
5. Profit
6. Default
7. Blame Tories for 5 years after default
He keeps going on about "borrow to invest" and all that which is fine if your economy isn't in the toilet to begin with. How the hell do you base your entire economic strategy on borrowing far more than the 150bn gap we have currently?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff