Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Rogstanley]

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

That's the way it works in this country. The Tories get elected to sort out Labour's mess. They spend years putting the economy right ,making the hard choices,and as soon as we're doing well again people think they can afford to vote Labour again.

 

In short the Tories always inherit a shit economy, Labour always inherit a healthy one.

 

Edited 16 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Because they over spent during the boom, it’s not a coincidence in my view, that countries like Australia and Germany suffered the least damage from the global crash and they had their books well balanced before it. They were able to tackle from a position of strength. Labour saddled us with huge PFI contracts lasting decades for infrastructure (which isnt included in the national debt figures conveniently) and a huge budget deficit. It’s great they spent all that money, it’s doing us wonders now and you want them to be given an open cheque book again? 

Eventually you have to pay the money back. 

Youve mentioned on here that personal debt is reaching crisis and that people are borrowing to live etc etc, do you really think that it’s an appropriate time to piss away public finances when we might have yet another banking crisis?

The budget deficit came from tax income dropping off a cliff. It went up by well over £100billion in one year. Having a deficit of under 2.5% made no difference to the fact tax income dropped. Even with no deficit beforehand we'd have had a huge deficit in 2009. The correct response was to seek growth to reinflate tax takes. Instead the tory government cut expenditure which killed growth (which also went off a cliff from the 3.1% under labour just prior to the coalition government coming in) as well as CUTTING taxes. Madness. Just leave tax levels alone and spend to get the economy moving. Jesus, Osbourne was trying to claim the country was booming only a couple of years ago as the public sector crumbled.

[Guest]

A fantastic piece by Jenkins. Nail. On. Head.

 

May needed to master the new politics that Brexit demands. But she’s failed

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/16/theresa-may-failed-new-politics-brexit?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[Strokes]

24 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The budget deficit came from tax income dropping off a cliff. It went up by well over £100billion in one year. Having a deficit of under 2.5% made no difference to the fact tax income dropped. Even with no deficit beforehand we'd have had a huge deficit in 2009. The correct response was to seek growth to reinflate tax takes. Instead the tory government cut expenditure which killed growth (which also went off a cliff from the 3.1% under labour just prior to the coalition government coming in) as well as CUTTING taxes. Madness. Just leave tax levels alone and spend to get the economy moving. Jesus, Osbourne was trying to claim the country was booming only a couple of years ago as the public sector crumbled.

Tax cutting has bought in more tax, you should read the laffer curve it’s far from madness.

If we had been running no deficit and we need £100 billion then we have a deficit of £100 billion, if we need an extra £100 billion and we have a deficit already of £100 billion then we are borrowing beyond control. It’s not difficult to understand. You can push figures round all day if you like but how do you explain why Australia and Germany had minimal consequences of a financial crash, while Britain’s Labour nearly burnt to the ground?

Edited 16 November 2017 by Strokes

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Tax cutting has bought in more tax, you should read the laffer curve it’s far from madness.

If we had been running no deficit and we need £100 billion then we have a deficit of £100 billion, if we need an extra £100 billion and we have a deficit already of £100 billion then we are borrowing beyond control. It’s not difficult to understand. You can push figures round all day if you like but how do you explain why Australia and Germany had minimal consequences of a financial crash, while Britain’s Labour nearly burnt to the ground?

We had a £40 billion deficit before the crash. At what point for our economy nearly burn to the ground in a way other economies didn't? That's just rubbish.

 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

We had a £40 billion deficit before the crash. At what point for our economy nearly burn to the ground in a way other economies didn't? That's just rubbish.

 

In the way we had to bail out banks to stop absolute chaos.

[Kopfkino]

29 minutes ago, Strokes said:

In the way we had to bail out banks to stop absolute chaos.

It wasn't really Labour's fault that RBS had become too big to manage and managed quite appallingly, nor was Lloyds' exposure to sub-prime mortgages. I'd have loved to have seen them all fail but, in reality, it couldn't happen. The UK is more exposed to financial crashes than either Germany or Australia, it's why sterling is the last thing you want to be holding just before one starts. 

 

Also, whilst Brown's deficit was dumb, let's not forget that Spain had a surplus prior to the crisis. It's not really much more useful to have a surplus before a global financial crisis for the same reason as just running a deficit doesn't solve it (despite what our Keynes General Theory swallowers tell us).

Edited 16 November 2017 by KingGTF

[Rogstanley]

51 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Tax cutting has bought in more tax, you should read the laffer curve it’s far from madness.

If we had been running no deficit and we need £100 billion then we have a deficit of £100 billion, if we need an extra £100 billion and we have a deficit already of £100 billion then we are borrowing beyond control. It’s not difficult to understand. You can push figures round all day if you like but how do you explain why Australia and Germany had minimal consequences of a financial crash, while Britain’s Labour nearly burnt to the ground?

It has already been explained to you that Germany benefited from a weak Euro that your lot chose not to join. On another day you’d probably praise that decision but here you are effectively criticising it. Make your mind up.

 

Australia were sat on a continent of natural resources at precisely the time China required and were willing to pay big money for the same. Apples and oranges.

 

How does Portugal having reduced their deficit since ending austerity fit within your views?

 

Still waiting for you to explain how the government having more money and not spending it is good for your personally.

[SMX11]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

The budget deficit came from tax income dropping off a cliff. It went up by well over £100billion in one year. Having a deficit of under 2.5% made no difference to the fact tax income dropped. Even with no deficit beforehand we'd have had a huge deficit in 2009. The correct response was to seek growth to reinflate tax takes. Instead the tory government cut expenditure which killed growth (which also went off a cliff from the 3.1% under labour just prior to the coalition government coming in) as well as CUTTING taxes. Madness. Just leave tax levels alone and spend to get the economy moving. Jesus, Osbourne was trying to claim the country was booming only a couple of years ago as the public sector crumbled.

You make the fatal flaw of thinking all government creates growth. Tax cuts are far more stimulative in the long term as individuals spend on what they want and governments spend money based on the political winds of the time.

 

A flat tax on all income of around 20% and reworking corporate tax away from taxing profits to about 10% of net sales would bring in enough money to run 'essential' services. The problem is that the government constantly wants to increase their scope, sucking up more and more money which probably would be better spent by individuals.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

It wasn't really Labour's fault that RBS had become too big to manage and managed quite appallingly, nor was Lloyds' exposure to sub-prime mortgages. I'd have loved to have seen them all fail but, in reality, it couldn't happen. The UK is more exposed to financial crashes than either Germany or Australia, it's why sterling is the last thing you want to be holding just before one starts. 

 

Also, whilst Brown's deficit was dumb, let's not forget that Spain had a surplus prior to the crisis. It's not really much more useful to have a surplus before a global financial crisis for the same reason as just running a deficit doesn't solve it (despite what our Keynes General Theory swallowers tell us).

It might not solve it but reducing demand by cutting most definitely won't. 

 

Glad you back up my earlier points though.

 

Whatever people's slant, I did think the economy should be taught at school. How to do it in a politically neutral way might be the difficulty. Correct me if this has changed King but my understanding is that certainly unto very recently even on economics degrees the realities of the production of money isn't studied so it's no wonder nobody knows about it.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

You make the fatal flaw of thinking all government creates growth. Tax cuts are far more stimulative in the long term as individuals spend on what they want and governments spend money based on the political winds of the time.

 

A flat tax on all income of around 20% and reworking corporate tax away from taxing profits to about 10% of net sales would bring in enough money to run 'essential' services. The problem is that the government constantly wants to increase their scope, sucking up more and more money which probably would be better spent by individuals.

And I don't mind the argument of your second paragraph as at least it's an open and transparent right wing argument for a small state (presumably). What bothers me is when small state politics is hidden behind a veil of false economic arguments. 

 

We can debate this but in the end it's your opinion which differs from mine and we'd get nowhere. 

 

Re the first paragraph do you know of any evidence to back that up? Perhaps King does although is want to see actual evidence, not just theory.

 

I would argue that every pound spent by government gets recycled and taxed multiple times. You pay somebody £100 and get back 30% in tax and 20% of the remainder via VAT. The money they spend is taxed via corporation tax. Whatever the state got back is respent. This way you can respend the same pound (or parts of pounds, at least) multiple times, getting more bang for your, er, pound than private expenditure can.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

In the way we had to bail out banks to stop absolute chaos.

London is the financial centre of the world. Of course we did.

[Strokes]

Just now, toddybad said:

London is the financial centre of the world. Of course we did.

Sure.

It really worked out well for us didn’t it?

45 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

It wasn't really Labour's fault that RBS had become too big to manage and managed quite appallingly, nor was Lloyds' exposure to sub-prime mortgages. I'd have loved to have seen them all fail but, in reality, it couldn't happen. The UK is more exposed to financial crashes than either Germany or Australia, it's why sterling is the last thing you want to be holding just before one starts. 

 

Also, whilst Brown's deficit was dumb, let's not forget that Spain had a surplus prior to the crisis. It's not really much more useful to have a surplus before a global financial crisis for the same reason as just running a deficit doesn't solve it (despite what our Keynes General Theory swallowers tell us).

You can argue that Brown convincing/forcing  Lloyd’s into purchasing HBOS was key in them needing extra/endless funding but yes I would have loved to see them fail too, even if it would have cost me a fair bit.

[Guest]

If you lost your job today and claimed universal credit you would receive no money before Christmas.

Lovely government this.

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

If you lost your job today and claimed universal credit you would receive no money before Christmas.

Lovely government this.

That’s why you shouldn’t run a budget deficit at home and should put aside for forthcoming times of trouble.

 

[Rogstanley]

School in the pound shop Thatcher’s constituency can’t afford books or pens; issue desperate plea to parents for help to prevent their kids’ education grinding to a halt.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-42008669

 

Oh well at least businesses are making record profits.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

I wonder how much the 'Executive Head teacher' and her senior management team there are on?? They could each take a pay cut of say 5% and problem solved.

 

I don't see why we should increase taxes to fund excessive salaries for some public sector workers and labours inevitable backfilling with non jobs to keep the unions happy.

 

Just to be clear I fully support the lower paid public sector workers getting larger than inflation pay rises but we should not be increasing wages of people in the public sector earning more than 35k.

 

There have been and still are a large number of needless jobs being paid for by the public purse this needs to stop.

Edited 16 November 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That’s why you shouldn’t run a budget deficit at home and should put aside for forthcoming times of trouble.

 

I know you're joking but....

 

Tell that to Canada. Embarked on fiscal stimulation through expenditure last year, getting roasted worldwide for purposely increasing their deficit. Currently they are growing at their fastest rate for 15 years and are expected to top the G7 growth tables. We are currently scraping around near the bottom.

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I know you're joking but....

 

Tell that to Canada. Embarked on fiscal stimulation through expenditure last year, getting roasted worldwide for purposely increasing their deficit. Currently they are growing at their fastest rate for 15 years and are expected to top the G7 growth tables. We are currently scraping around near the bottom.

Yes there is no denying that borrowing and investing in the economy causes a boom........

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Yes there is no denying that borrowing and investing in the economy causes a boom........

It really is like he doesn't think we get it. We do. We just don't like it. 

 

There's nothing wrong with natural growth, we don't need to spaff borrowed money away to grow, so why do it. It's baffling. 

[Fox Ulike]

23 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I wonder how much the 'Executive Head teacher' and her senior management team there are on?? They could each take a pay cut of say 5% and problem solved.

 

I don't see why we should increase taxes to fund excessive salaries for some public sector workers and labours inevitable backfilling with non jobs to keep the unions happy.

 

Just to be clear I fully support the lower paid public sector workers getting larger than inflation pay rises but we should not be increasing wages of people in the public sector earning more than 35k.

 

There have been and still are a large number of needless jobs being paid for by the public purse this needs to stop.

 

A primary school teacher makes £24k a year. Is that an 'excessive salary??

 

https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Primary_School_Teacher/Salary

 

And how do you work out that it's Labour creating non jobs???

 

You do know that we've had a Conservative Government for the past seven years do ya?

 

 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

It really is like he doesn't think we get it. We do. We just don't like it. 

 

There's nothing wrong with natural growth, we don't need to spaff borrowed money away to grow, so why do it. It's baffling. 

There is a time when you need to do it, I do think that’s true. We might even be approaching it but It also has shortcomings and I think we should be wary of doing it.

[Rogstanley]

29 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I wonder how much the 'Executive Head teacher' and her senior management team there are on?? They could each take a pay cut of say 5% and problem solved.

 

I don't see why we should increase taxes to fund excessive salaries for some public sector workers and labours inevitable backfilling with non jobs to keep the unions happy.

 

Just to be clear I fully support the lower paid public sector workers getting larger than inflation pay rises but we should not be increasing wages of people in the public sector earning more than 35k.

 

There have been and still are a large number of needless jobs being paid for by the public purse this needs to stop.

 

The idea that teachers should pay out of their own pocket for essentials like pens is just unbelievable. It’s worse than asking parents to pay for it and even that is astonishing in what is supposed to be a somewhat developed country.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

There is a time when you need to do it, I do think that’s true. We might even be approaching it but It also has shortcomings and I think we should be wary of doing it.

Finally some sense.

Look, I'm not as far to the left as some economically, I would do much of the labour programme but I want to see checks and balances and a phased plan but I also put public services above low taxes. We can't let our public services wither and did. What's the pint in having no debt of your country is completely screwed up. The real underlying problem is the idea of low taxation.

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

That’s why you shouldn’t run a budget deficit at home and should put aside for forthcoming times of trouble.

 

Sorry Strokes I appreciate you put a little whistling smiley at the end there but the people most likely to sign on for UC are the ones who are the least likely to be coming from a position of being able to squirrel money away for rainy days... That's usually why they resort to signing on for state support.  If somebody was making sure their wages until that point had reflected the growth in cost of living over the past decade or so then that may not be the case but alas we play the hands we're dealt and sometimes that means applying for UC to avoid outright bankruptcy. Waiting 6 weeks in the winter when bills are at their highest is cruelty pure and simple.