Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Realist Guy In The Room]

12 hours ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

You know I love you really @toddybad but you're such a fvckin doom and gloom merchant sometimes.

 

Half the problem in this country is people trying to talk us into recession and Brexit failing and looking at everything from a glass half empty perspective.

The other half of the problem with this country is people thinking by saying everything is going to be fine, everything is going to be fine.

 

All economic forecasts look gash, our government is an absolute shambles and our main opposition is no better.

 

I’m pretty sick of seeing Government ministers using soundbites like, ‘stop doing this country down’ and ‘Brexit is a great opportunity’ blah blah blah.  I want them to get the **** on with it.  Pay whatever they want, start talking trade and deals and come up with something better for the country other than cuts and tightening of belts.

 

Just to take Cornwall as an example.  The EU money has helped industry here no end.  Businesses have started and wealth created.  Existing business have been able to access grants for training and improving their staff thus aiding their growth.

 

We need the government to gaurantee the funding and put measures in place now to give the county confidence.  In general, it’s a pretty low wage economy down here but the living costs are sky high.  

 

The country would be a hell of a lot more confident and optimistic if they actually had something concrete to hang their hat on.

 

Much as a shitter as it would be, this has to start with the Tory government.  People are expecting May to go.  The Tories should make his happen, put a credible leader in charge, call a GE, win it and end the uncertainty about the government.

[Guest]

On 17 October 2010, British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne told the nation it had been ‘on the brink of bankruptcy’. Four days later he revealed his rescue plan: £80 billion of government cuts. No country had ever volunteered such extreme austerity. The claim that there was an urgent need for deep cuts was part of a growing political consensus held together by a simple story: Britain was in an ‘economic mess’ thanks to the previous Labour government’s overspending and the economic priority had to be elimination of the deficit and reduction of the debt. Government spending on everything from unemployment benefit to disability living allowance would need to be slashed. It was going to be painful, but collective sacrifices had to be made.

Though the story had the virtue of simplicity, it was wrong on every count. According to Cameron and Osborne, bringing the debt – the total amount of money owed as a result of government borrowing – under control was ‘the most urgent task’ facing the Coalition. However, most economists disagreed and some had published a letter in The Guardian to provide some perspective: “History shows, first, that British public debt is not high by the standards of the last 200 years. It is rather low in comparison to the second half of the 18th century, the first three- quarters of the 19th century, and most of the inter-war and post-Second World War era in the 20th century. It is also low in the context of the developed world.” In 2010, the national debt was 57 per cent of GDP, lower than Italy, France, Germany, Japan, and the US. At the end of the Second World War – when the British government created the National Health Service, the welfare state, national pensions, a motorway network and council housing – government debt stood at 238 per cent of GDP. In other words, when Osborne became Chancellor, public debt was not a pressing issue.

Then there’s the deficit – the difference between the amount a government spends and the amount it raises through taxes. The Coalition’s austerity narrative blamed the rising deficit on Labour’s spending, but much of the rise could be explained by the global recession itself, not the unremarkable spending of the previous government. An economic downturn automatically increases dependency on social benefits and reduces tax revenue because people lose their jobs, wages drop and less tax is collected, all of which naturally increases the budget deficit. The recession was a global phenomenon, far beyond the control of the Labour government. Despite this fact, a banking crisis that had its origins in the irresponsible and illegal behaviour of the private sector was repackaged as a crisis of government finance.

When the Coalition came to power, neither history nor mainstream economic theory provided any support for the claim that cuts were the only way to reduce the deficit. Cutting spending in a recession has been tried many times and – without exception – failed. For instance, in the aftermath of the First World War, the US, Britain, Sweden, Germany, Japan and France all adopted austerity policies with devastating impacts on their economies. President Herbert Hoover’s austerity response to the 1929 economic crash was followed by the Great Depression.

The historical failure of austerity as a response to economic crises resulted in a widespread consensus among academic economists that, since recessions are caused by a reduction in demand (and when there is no room to offset cuts by reducing interest rates), cutting spending only makes the situation worse. The textbook response to economic downturns, as any student of the subject knows, is to increase spending. By spending more in the short term, a government can reduce public debt faster because smart spending creates jobs, increases tax revenues and releases more people more quickly from dependency on the state.

However, as governments began to embrace austerity, a handful of economists produced research telling them exactly what they wanted to hear. It was seized on by politicians and journalists alike to justify the unorthodox remedy. This research was ultimately discredited: questionable assumptions, dubious procedures and outright mistakes were exposed. As time passed, what little academic support for austerity existed, fell away. At the start of the Coalition’s time in power, twenty prominent economists sent a letter to the Sunday Timesurging Osborne to eliminate the budget deficit over the next five years. The letter was gratefully acknowledged by the Chancellor. Two years later, as the UK suffered a double-dip recession and Osborne was forced to borrow billions more than he had planned, the same group were asked if they stood by their initial advice. Only one out of the original twenty said they did: many were now in favour of ending austerity and increasing public spending.

By 2013, the economies of countries that had imposed severe spending cuts were experiencing slower growth than those that had increased their spending. The IMF, though it had recommended austerity in 2010, in effect conceded it had made a mistake by underestimating the damage of cutting government spending in a weak economy. Its own figures showed that austerity consistently undermined growth. Economist Paul Krugman observed that ‘since the global turn to austerity in 2010, every country that introduced significant austerity has seen its economy suffer, with the depth of the suffering closely related to the harshness of the austerity’. According to Simon Wren-Lewis, Professor of Economic Policy at Oxford University, the cost of austerity in delaying the UK economic recovery is about £100 billion. He points out that “If any other government department had wasted that amount, there would be a huge outcry from the media . . . [which] continues to misrepresent economic ideas even though it has access to academic expertise.” A government campaigning for re-election with that kind of performance, he continues, “should be trying to avoid talking about its economic record at all costs”. In fact, the opposite was the case. In the lead-up to the 2015 election, David Cameron boasted that austerity had rescued the economy and created jobs. This was a deception that only 15 per cent of economists agreed with. Simon Wren-Lewis explains why:

To see how absurd this claim is, imagine that a government on a whim decided to close down half the economy for a year. That would be a crazy thing to do, and with only half as much produced, everyone would be much poorer. However, a year later when that half of the economy started up again, economic growth would be around 100 per cent. The government could claim that this miraculous recovery vindicated its decision to close half the economy down the previous year. That would be absurd, but it is a pretty good analogy to claiming that the recovery of 2013 vindicated the austerity of 2010.

In fact, the recovery only began once austerity policies were relaxed two years into the Coalition’s term. The original plan had been to eliminate the deficit in the first five years, but by 2012 – with no hint of a recovery, lower tax revenues than expected, and waning academic support – Osborne quietly backtracked. From then on, there was much less deficit reduction. The predictable result was that in 2013 the economy began to improve, three years later than it should have done. Of course, the recovery did not benefit everyone equally: real wages had fallen by 10 per cent, while top earners increased their share of the wealth. The majority of new jobs created were low-paid, lacked security and left people without enough paid hours. In 2015, inflation-adjusted GDP per capita was still lower than it had been before the crisis. On top of this, overall government debt had soared. In his first budget, Osborne claimed to have ‘set the course for a balanced budget and falling national debt by the end of this Parliament’. Yet his economic plan had increased the national debt by 80 per cent in just five years. In fact, Osborne borrowed more in five years than his predecessor did during a whole decade.

Even if we accept that reducing the government deficit was an immediate priority, there was more than one way to do it. Osborne opted for a strategy that harmed the most vulnerable, creating a cost-of-living crisis in the world’s seventh richest country. He forced a million people to rely on food banks, stripped disabled people of essential financial support and cut benefits to the low-paid and unemployed. Many people have died because of these policies. One study looked at the impact of the newly introduced Work Capability Assessment, designed to reassess the eligibility of disabled people for out-of-work benefits with the stated aim of getting more people ‘back to work’ so as to reduce the welfare bill. This programme, which declared many sick and severely disabled people ‘fit for work’, was associated with a significant increase in suicides, mental health problems and the prescription of anti-depressant drugs. In 2011, Mervyn King, then Governor of the Bank of England, summed the situation up when he said ‘The price of this financial crisis is being borne by people who absolutely did not cause it’ and ‘I’m surprised that the degree of public anger has not been greater than it has.’

The deficit could have been reduced by placing the burden on the wealthiest instead of the poorest. Rather than cuts to public services, the British government could have raised taxes on the wealthiest individuals and corporations; introduced a financial transaction tax (the so-called Robin Hood tax); eliminated tax loopholes that benefit the top earners; and ensured that corporations paid the full value for using national resources. ‘These revenue raisers would not only make for a more efficient economy’ writes Joseph Stiglitz, they would ‘substantially reduce the deficit [and] also inequality.’ But the rich did not bear the burden of reducing the deficit. Instead, the Conservatives cut the top rate of tax – a policy so unpopular that even the majority of their own voters were against it.

If austerity is bad economics, why did business leaders and politicians support it? The simple answer is ideology. It is an article of faith for neoliberals that the state must shrink, welfare and social security must be cut, and everything from healthcare to prisons must be privatised. The focus on deficit reduction provided a convenient cover to lay waste to the welfare state. Speaking candidly at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet in 2013, David Cameron revealed that spending cuts were ultimately about ‘building a leaner, more efficient state . . . Not just now, but permanently.’ In addition, the austerity narrative also heightens the political bargaining power of business. As Krugman puts it, ‘Business leaders love the idea that the health of the economy depends on confidence, which in turn – or so they argue – requires making them happy.’

As soon as the financial crisis hit, the case against austerity was overwhelming. Given that the most vulnerable people in society were set to be punished for the failings of the financial sector, a free media in a functioning democracy would have torn the government’s austerity fairytale to shreds. This didn’t happen. In response to the Coalition’s plan, the Financial Times claimed ‘There are alternatives to UK austerity, just not good ones.’ Instead of challenging the need for cuts in the lead-up to the government’s Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2010, the BBC, Sky and ITV asked their viewers and listeners where they should fall. The Daily Telegraph celebrated George Osborne’s budget, calling it ‘fair and progressive’, one of ‘authority and intelligence’.

In interviews with government ministers, the assumption that cuts were needed went unchallenged. The BBC’s John Humphrys prefaced a question to the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg with ‘We know you need to make cuts, but . . .’. On BBC TV, Andrew Marr conceded to George Osborne ‘You clearly need to make the savings, the cuts . . .’. On Channel 4 News, Jon Snow grilled Labour leader Ed Miliband after he left out a section in his speech on the deficit, asking ‘How could you not mention paying off this appalling deficit? Surely it is the most important issue of all. It is the essence of our economic crisis.’

On 1 April 2015, the Centre for Macroeconomics at University College London had just published a survey showing that the vast majority of economists disagreed that austerity had boosted growth or employment. On the same day TheDaily Telegraph emblazoned its front page with a letter from a hundred businessmen expressing their enthusiastic support for austerity. Although a survey conducted by the Financial Times found that less than 20 per cent of economists believed that the beginnings of a recovery in 2013 were due to austerity measures, it still declared in September that: ‘Osborne wins the battle on austerity’ – a claim repeated across the media.

Research by Julien Mercille at University College Dublin examined the coverage of austerity after the 2010 election, looking at four leading national papers – The Daily Telegraph, The Times, the Financial Times and The Guardian. Mercille found a clear pro-austerity bias (The Guardian being the exception). Of 347 articles, only 21 per cent showed any opposition to austerity. When The Guardian is removed from the sample, the figure drops to 13 per cent. Another way of demonstrating press bias is to examine which ‘experts’ were invited to comment on the cuts. Almost all of them were bankers, economists and politicians. Only 1 per cent came from a trade union.

The preference for establishment sources is the norm. Cardiff University lecturer Mike Berry conducted a study into the impartiality of the BBC and found that ‘across all programming, business representatives received substantially more airtime on BBC network news . . . than they did on either ITV . . . or Channel 4 News’. On the BBC’s News at Six, the year the crisis hit, business representatives outnumbered labour union representatives by more than five to one. This ratio rose to nineteen to one in 2012. Another study focused on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme for the six weeks following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. The study found that the expert sources invited on were ‘almost completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices’. Thus the sector that had created the crisis ‘were given almost monopoly status to frame the debate’ to the complete exclusion of voices questioning the legitimacy, scale and value of the financial sector.

Of course, there were notable exceptions across the media. A number of high-profile journalists and economists did their best to voice opposition to Osborne’s cuts. But a look at public opinion over the period shows how influential the austerity narrative had become. In June 2009, a poll by The Daily Telegraph found that three-quarters of voters believed the cuts were necessary. Initially, there was some opposition to the way cuts were being made but, according to the YouGov polls tracking public opinion, this opposition steadily declined over the next few years. As this decline occurred, the proportion of people who believed the cuts were ‘too slow’, doubled. The most popular cuts were often those that targeted the most vulnerable: the disabled, the unemployed and those receiving housing benefit. By 2014, an ICM poll showed that the public, by a wide margin, trusted the Conservatives more – the party of austerity – ‘to manage the economy properly’.

Throughout this period, immigrants, criminals and welfare claimants were offered up by much of the press as scapegoats upon whom the public were invited to heap blame for the failing economy. An Ipsos MORI 2013 survey for the Royal Statistical Society and King’s College London compared public opinion on issues such as benefit fraud, crime and immigration. The public believed 24 per cent of welfare was claimed fraudulently – the actual figure is 0.7 per cent. Almost a third of respondents believed that more welfare goes to the unemployed than to pensioners. The reality is that fifteen times more is spent on pensions. The majority believed that crime was rising – in fact, the figures show it had dropped significantly. A majority thought that 31 per cent of the population were recent immigrants; the actual figure is 13 per cent. In each case, public perceptions mirrored the carefully constructed media narrative that deflected criticism from the Coalition’s failing experiment with austerity.

Throughout the Coalition’s time in government, the Labour Party did not oppose austerity. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband, Labour was committed to ‘austerity-lite’: cuts were needed, they claimed, but not quite as many or quite as fast as the Tories were planning. After losing the 2015 election, Miliband resigned, and the only anti-austerity candidate on the ballot, outsider Jeremy Corbyn, surged to victory on a wave of popular support, earning the largest mandate ever won by a party leader. The media onslaught that followed was remarkable. As subsequent research has shown, the British press ‘systematically undermined’ Corbyn ‘with a barrage of overwhelmingly negative coverage’. Analysing nearly 500 pieces across eight national newspapers, the Media Reform Coalition found that, in Corbyn’s first week as leader, for every positive article there were more than four times as many that were openly hostile or expressed animosity or ridicule. News articles, which are meant to be more balanced, demonstrated more bias than comment pieces or editorials, with 61 per cent judged to be negative. The ‘impartial’ BBC mirrored this pattern. When asked if he was ‘shocked’ at the way the BBC ‘rubbish Jeremy Corbyn’, former BBC political editor Nick Robinson – one-time president of the Oxford University Conservative Association – replied ‘Yes’ and said that he had written to colleagues expressing his grievances.

The experience of austerity in the UK has been relatively mild compared to nations like Portugal, Spain and, worst of all, Greece. They have suffered particularly badly under the austerity fever that swept the eurozone after the financial crash. But not every country took the path of swingeing spending cuts. As the austerity narrative amplified across Europe, Iceland showed that another way was possible. It is an interesting story that has been largely ignored by the press. An effective media would have drawn on this test case to challenge the prevailing narrative.

According to The Economist, ‘Iceland’s banking collapse is the biggest, relative to the size of an economy, that any country has ever suffered.’ Its financial industry imploded, the stock market fell by 90 per cent, and investments worth many times the output of the nation were wiped out in a single week. Desperate for money, the government turned to the IMF for $2.1 billion in loans. The loans came with conditions: the government would have to slash public spending and use half its income to repay investors who had lost money on their private investments. In effect, Iceland’s taxpayers were being asked to foot the bill for the bad investment decisions of its banking elite.

On the back of riots and protests, the Icelandic president granted the people a referendum. Nine out of ten voters said ‘no’ to paying off bankers’ debts and instead demanded increased investment in their fragile economy. Taking this on board, the government rejected the IMF conditions, allowed its banks to default, imposed urgent capital controls and raised spending on public welfare. Universal education and healthcare were protected, social security was strengthened for those most in need, and many people had their mortgage debts written off. As for the bankers, the worst offenders were prosecuted and sent to prison. In other words, Iceland ignored every principle in the financial industry’s rulebook.

The stock markets reacted negatively to the vote, and Iceland was widely condemned. Yet, by 2012, this tiny country was outperforming the US and many European nations with an economy growing by 3 per cent a year and with unemployment levels falling below 5 per cent. Iceland went further and adopted a new crowd-sourced national constitution to safeguard its future. By 2015, even the IMF had to admit that Iceland had achieved economic recovery ‘without compromising its welfare model’. In fact, it became the first crisis-struck European nation to top its pre-crisis peak of economic output and is close to repaying many of the debts it owed to other nations. In response to the question, ‘What is the reason for Iceland’s recovery?’, President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson famously answered: ‘We were wise enough not to follow the traditional prevailing orthodoxies of the Western financial world in the last 30 years. We introduced currency controls, we let the banks fail, we provided support for the poor, and we didn’t introduce austerity measures like you’re seeing in Europe.’

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

The other half of the problem with this country is people thinking by saying everything is going to be fine, everything is going to be fine.

 

All economic forecasts look gash, our government is an absolute shambles and our main opposition is no better.

 

I’m pretty sick of seeing Government ministers using soundbites like, ‘stop doing this country down’ and ‘Brexit is a great opportunity’ blah blah blah.  I want them to get the **** on with it.  Pay whatever they want, start talking trade and deals and come up with something better for the country other than cuts and tightening of belts.

 

Just to take Cornwall as an example.  The EU money has helped industry here no end.  Businesses have started and wealth created.  Existing business have been able to access grants for training and improving their staff thus aiding their growth.

 

We need the government to gaurantee the funding and put measures in place now to give the county confidence.  In general, it’s a pretty low wage economy down here but the living costs are sky high.  

 

The country would be a hell of a lot more confident and optimistic if they actually had something concrete to hang their hat on.

 

Much as a shitter as it would be, this has to start with the Tory government.  People are expecting May to go.  The Tories should make his happen, put a credible leader in charge, call a GE, win it and end the uncertainty about the government.

That money put into Cornwall was our money to start with. Cornwall is still one of the poorest areas in the country and Cornwall voted out by a large majority so that shows what the locals thought of the EU.

[Rogstanley]

42 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But not every country took the path of swingeing spending cuts. As the austerity narrative amplified across Europe, Iceland showed that another way was possible. It is an interesting story that has been largely ignored by the press. An effective media would have drawn on this test case to challenge the prevailing narrative.

According to The Economist, ‘Iceland’s banking collapse is the biggest, relative to the size of an economy, that any country has ever suffered.’ Its financial industry imploded, the stock market fell by 90 per cent, and investments worth many times the output of the nation were wiped out in a single week. Desperate for money, the government turned to the IMF for $2.1 billion in loans. The loans came with conditions: the government would have to slash public spending and use half its income to repay investors who had lost money on their private investments. In effect, Iceland’s taxpayers were being asked to foot the bill for the bad investment decisions of its banking elite.

On the back of riots and protests, the Icelandic president granted the people a referendum. Nine out of ten voters said ‘no’ to paying off bankers’ debts and instead demanded increased investment in their fragile economy. Taking this on board, the government rejected the IMF conditions, allowed its banks to default, imposed urgent capital controls and raised spending on public welfare. Universal education and healthcare were protected, social security was strengthened for those most in need, and many people had their mortgage debts written off. As for the bankers, the worst offenders were prosecuted and sent to prison. In other words, Iceland ignored every principle in the financial industry’s rulebook.

The stock markets reacted negatively to the vote, and Iceland was widely condemned. Yet, by 2012, this tiny country was outperforming the US and many European nations with an economy growing by 3 per cent a year and with unemployment levels falling below 5 per cent. Iceland went further and adopted a new crowd-sourced national constitution to safeguard its future. By 2015, even the IMF had to admit that Iceland had achieved economic recovery ‘without compromising its welfare model’. In fact, it became the first crisis-struck European nation to top its pre-crisis peak of economic output and is close to repaying many of the debts it owed to other nations. In response to the question, ‘What is the reason for Iceland’s recovery?’, President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson famously answered: ‘We were wise enough not to follow the traditional prevailing orthodoxies of the Western financial world in the last 30 years. We introduced currency controls, we let the banks fail, we provided support for the poor, and we didn’t introduce austerity measures like you’re seeing in Europe.’

Great write up. Just to add to the Iceland story as well - real wages there have been absolutely flying, averaging around 8% for years, one year even topping 10%. It's a fantastic success story from a country who were brave enough to stand up to the financial sector, instead of bending over and letting them shaft us like the Tories have done here.

[Buce]

 

Australia knocks UK Brexit trade plan:

 

Australia has criticised the UK's post-Brexit trade plans to split quotas of food imports from around the world.

EU rules allow for a certain amount of goods to be brought in from countries outside of the Union without charging full tariffs.

After Brexit, the UK and EU want to split these quotas, based on where the goods are mostly consumed.

But Australian trade minister Steven Ciobo said it would impose unacceptable restrictions on their exports.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The point is that you have a choice about where you place your quota at the moment.

 

"Therefore, given that you could put it in the UK or you could put it into continental Europe, why would we accept a proposition that would see a decline in the quota available because of the Brexit decision?"

The US, New Zealand, Brazil and Canada are also said to have their doubts about the new deal, believing it could hit them financially.

A spokesman for the UK's Department of International Trade told Today the government wanted to minimise disruption to trading relationships and would engage with other members of the World Trade Organisation in an "open, inclusive way".

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42121442

[Webbo]

John McDonnell doesn’t seem to understand how government debt works

 

Labour’s shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, was unable to put a figure on how much his party’s plans to invest around £50 billion would add to the national debt.

And the answer he did give suggests he doesn’t understand how government debt actually works.

FactCheck takes a look.

The claim

In an interview on the Today programme on Thursday, Mr McDonnell was asked, given that servicing the national debt costs about £48 billion a year: “how much would it cost under Labour?”.

He said: “We would ensure that day to day spending was not paid for by borrowing, that we would only invest for our infrastructure and that investment would pay for itself through the growth that’s achieved, and that’s a one-for-one return.”

Asked again how much his plans would add to the national debt, he said: “Immediately that infrastructure [investment] puts more people back into work, they pay their taxes and as a result of that you recover your costs.”

He said that because interest rates were low, the cost in terms of the national debt would be “minimal”.

Mr McDonnell seems to be conflating GDP growth with tax revenue

Mr McDonnell has cited “one-for-one multipliers” to help explain his answer. These are the kind of economicky words that would impress even Michael Gove.

“Multipliers” are measures that help the government to work out how much GDP will grow as a result of spending.

For example, a multiplier of one-to-four means that for every pound of government spending, GDP will grow by four pounds. Different types of spending will have different multipliers.

Mr McDonnell is right that spending to invest in the economy has a multiplier of about one-for-one.

In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility puts it at slightly more than that: it estimates that if the government invests an extra £1 in the economy, GDP will grow by £1.10.

So in that sense, Mr McDonnell is right that Labour’s planned investment would “pay for itself in terms of growth.”

But remember, the question is how much Labour’s plans would add to the national debt. And the key to answering that is working out how much their investment would yield in tax revenue.

Mr McDonnell said “immediately that infrastructure [investment] puts more people back into work, they pay their taxes and as a result of that you recover your costs.”

At first glance, that seems plausible.

It’s true that as GDP rises, the government can expect to receive more in taxes as consumers spend more (which provides VAT revenue) and as workers earn more (and pay more income tax).

But for every pound added to GDP, the government only gets about 35p more in tax revenue.

The chief economist at the Institute of Economic Affairs, Julian Jessop, pointed out this problem in an article earlier this year.

He says that for increased government spending to fund itself through taxes, “the fiscal multiplier would have to be implausibly high”. He estimates that the multiplier would have to be about one-to-three, “assuming a tax/GDP ratio of 35 per cent”.

Put simply, Mr McDonnell said that his planned investment won’t add to the government debt because he seems to think that:

£1 of government investment = £1 of GDP growth = £1 tax revenue
When in fact, the formula looks like this:

£1 of government investment = £1 of GDP growth = £0.35 of tax revenue
FactCheck verdict

John McDonnell said that his Labour’s planned investment in the economy would “pay for itself through the growth that’s achieved”. That part of his claim is correct: for every £1 of government investment, GDP will grow by £1 (or even slightly more).

But he was answering a question about how much it his plans would add to the national debt.

He suggested that for every extra pound the government spends on investment, it will get the same back in tax revenue “immediately” because it “puts more people back into work, they pay their taxes and as a result of that you recover your costs.”

Mr McDonnell said the increase in debt payments under Labour would be “minimal”.

But that’s based on a false assumption that every pound of government investment will bring in an extra pound in tax revenue. In fact, for every £1 of additional investment, the government can only expect about 35p more in tax revenue.

On that basis, we can’t see how Mr McDonnell can sustain the claim that Labour’s plans will pay for themselves through taxes.

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-john-mcdonnell-doesnt-seem-to-understand-how-government-debt-works

[Realist Guy In The Room]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

That money put into Cornwall was our money to start with. Cornwall is still one of the poorest areas in the country and Cornwall voted out by a large majority so that shows what the locals thought of the EU.

Yes it is ours to begin with.  Which is why I cannot understand why the money hasnt been gauranteed to still be available in the long term.  

 

The Cornish vote to leave was mostly made up of the thick racist vote.  Living here and talking to people there is little doubt on that.  Industry and business are tearing their hair out with how the government is handling it and the funding is a small part.

 

As an example, one firm I work with are a renewable energy firm and have EU funding to provide 3 year training courses for locals to be engineers.  The trainers come from Holland and are all going back as the programme and funding cannot be gauranteed beyond 2019 so there’s little point in starting another round now.  The programme hired 150 locals that currently have little to no skills or prospects.  They’ll just now continue on benefits until Lidl hire a batch of shelf stackers.

 

The local Tory MP is too busy getting his end away with his secretary to do anything about it, meanwhile the Labour candidates are making noise and promises which are turning peoples heads.

 

In the last election, Labour increased vote share in a load of seats.  In my constituency of St Austell and Newquay, if the Lib Dem candidate hadn’t have stood, Labour would have taken the seat.  Already many Lib Dem candidates are saying they wont campaign at all next time meaning a real danger of Labour getting in.

 

On top of that, police stations are closing (including the central base office in Bodmin that hire around 300 people), local hospitals and doctors surgeries are closing, funding for dom care has vanished (2 of my clients in this industry have now gone under) and businesses who were about to open here due to transport link improvements which were EU funded but now on hold, are no longer coming.

 

Governments often after a while start to look like they dont know what they’re doing but this lot?  This lot really dont.

 

May needs to go, a stronger PM needs to come in and wipe Corbyn and Macca out.  Otherwise they will get in and we will be well and truly ****ed.

 

Pointing at them and calling them Marxists isnt going to work for much longer.

[Sharpe's Fox]

John McDonnell is the most able and impressive politician in the house now Alex Salmond has lost his seat. He's a Marxist, a previously untenable position for any politician to have in this country, yet he has the entire government simultaneously living in fear of him and dancing to his tune.

Edited 25 November 2017 by Sharpe's Fox

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

John McDonnell doesn’t seem to understand how government debt works

 

Labour’s shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, was unable to put a figure on how much his party’s plans to invest around £50 billion would add to the national debt.

And the answer he did give suggests he doesn’t understand how government debt actually works.

FactCheck takes a look.

The claim

In an interview on the Today programme on Thursday, Mr McDonnell was asked, given that servicing the national debt costs about £48 billion a year: “how much would it cost under Labour?”.

He said: “We would ensure that day to day spending was not paid for by borrowing, that we would only invest for our infrastructure and that investment would pay for itself through the growth that’s achieved, and that’s a one-for-one return.”

Asked again how much his plans would add to the national debt, he said: “Immediately that infrastructure [investment] puts more people back into work, they pay their taxes and as a result of that you recover your costs.”

He said that because interest rates were low, the cost in terms of the national debt would be “minimal”.

Mr McDonnell seems to be conflating GDP growth with tax revenue

Mr McDonnell has cited “one-for-one multipliers” to help explain his answer. These are the kind of economicky words that would impress even Michael Gove.

“Multipliers” are measures that help the government to work out how much GDP will grow as a result of spending.

For example, a multiplier of one-to-four means that for every pound of government spending, GDP will grow by four pounds. Different types of spending will have different multipliers.

Mr McDonnell is right that spending to invest in the economy has a multiplier of about one-for-one.

In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility puts it at slightly more than that: it estimates that if the government invests an extra £1 in the economy, GDP will grow by £1.10.

So in that sense, Mr McDonnell is right that Labour’s planned investment would “pay for itself in terms of growth.”

But remember, the question is how much Labour’s plans would add to the national debt. And the key to answering that is working out how much their investment would yield in tax revenue.

Mr McDonnell said “immediately that infrastructure [investment] puts more people back into work, they pay their taxes and as a result of that you recover your costs.”

At first glance, that seems plausible.

It’s true that as GDP rises, the government can expect to receive more in taxes as consumers spend more (which provides VAT revenue) and as workers earn more (and pay more income tax).

But for every pound added to GDP, the government only gets about 35p more in tax revenue.

The chief economist at the Institute of Economic Affairs, Julian Jessop, pointed out this problem in an article earlier this year.

He says that for increased government spending to fund itself through taxes, “the fiscal multiplier would have to be implausibly high”. He estimates that the multiplier would have to be about one-to-three, “assuming a tax/GDP ratio of 35 per cent”.

Put simply, Mr McDonnell said that his planned investment won’t add to the government debt because he seems to think that:

£1 of government investment = £1 of GDP growth = £1 tax revenue
When in fact, the formula looks like this:

£1 of government investment = £1 of GDP growth = £0.35 of tax revenue
FactCheck verdict

John McDonnell said that his Labour’s planned investment in the economy would “pay for itself through the growth that’s achieved”. That part of his claim is correct: for every £1 of government investment, GDP will grow by £1 (or even slightly more).

But he was answering a question about how much it his plans would add to the national debt.

He suggested that for every extra pound the government spends on investment, it will get the same back in tax revenue “immediately” because it “puts more people back into work, they pay their taxes and as a result of that you recover your costs.”

Mr McDonnell said the increase in debt payments under Labour would be “minimal”.

But that’s based on a false assumption that every pound of government investment will bring in an extra pound in tax revenue. In fact, for every £1 of additional investment, the government can only expect about 35p more in tax revenue.

On that basis, we can’t see how Mr McDonnell can sustain the claim that Labour’s plans will pay for themselves through taxes.

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-john-mcdonnell-doesnt-seem-to-understand-how-government-debt-works

But the absolute quantity of national debt is petty much irrelevant. National debt is generally expressed in % of GDP. If GDP rises at 1 to 1.10 then, whilst the absolute debt is rising, the debt as a % of GDP is slightly falling.

[ealingfox]

7 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

John McDonnell is the most able and impressive politician in the house now Alex Salmond has lost his seat. He's a Marxist, a previously untenable position for any politician to have in this country, yet he has the entire government simultaneously living in fear of him and dancing to his tune.

 

Plus he's incredibly #dangerous. The birds love it.

[Webbo]

24 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Yes it is ours to begin with.  Which is why I cannot understand why the money hasnt been gauranteed to still be available in the long term.  

 

The Cornish vote to leave was mostly made up of the thick racist vote.  Living here and talking to people there is little doubt on that.  Industry and business are tearing their hair out with how the government is handling it and the funding is a small part.

 

As an example, one firm I work with are a renewable energy firm and have EU funding to provide 3 year training courses for locals to be engineers.  The trainers come from Holland and are all going back as the programme and funding cannot be gauranteed beyond 2019 so there’s little point in starting another round now.  The programme hired 150 locals that currently have little to no skills or prospects.  They’ll just now continue on benefits until Lidl hire a batch of shelf stackers.

 

The local Tory MP is too busy getting his end away with his secretary to do anything about it, meanwhile the Labour candidates are making noise and promises which are turning peoples heads.

 

In the last election, Labour increased vote share in a load of seats.  In my constituency of St Austell and Newquay, if the Lib Dem candidate hadn’t have stood, Labour would have taken the seat.  Already many Lib Dem candidates are saying they wont campaign at all next time meaning a real danger of Labour getting in.

 

On top of that, police stations are closing (including the central base office in Bodmin that hire around 300 people), local hospitals and doctors surgeries are closing, funding for dom care has vanished (2 of my clients in this industry have now gone under) and businesses who were about to open here due to transport link improvements which were EU funded but now on hold, are no longer coming.

 

Governments often after a while start to look like they dont know what they’re doing but this lot?  This lot really dont.

 

May needs to go, a stronger PM needs to come in and wipe Corbyn and Macca out.  Otherwise they will get in and we will be well and truly ****ed.

 

Pointing at them and calling them Marxists isnt going to work for much longer.

I think it may be the way the EU has wrecked the Cornish fishing industry. Sponsoring a few art projects by the EU isn't going to alleviate that.

[Webbo]

16 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But the absolute quantity of national debt is petty much irrelevant. National debt is generally expressed in % of GDP. If GDP rises at 1 to 1.10 then, whilst the absolute debt is rising, the debt as a % of GDP is slightly falling.

We're already paying £48 billion a year just to service that debt, if borrowing goes up by more than the increase in tax take then that figure will increase. Where will the money come from to pay for the increasing payments? 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We're already paying £48 billion a year just to service that debt, if borrowing goes up by more than the increase in tax take then that figure will increase. Where will the money come from to pay for the increasing payments? 

Firstly, that figure is misleading. The BoE owns around 1/4 of the debt so it isn't really paid anywhere.

 

Secondly, again it depends on what the total expenditure is as to the % of expenditure we're talking about. You're expect debt repayments to become larger in absolute terms as the economy grows in absolute terms.

 

Third, it depends what you've spent the money on as to whether or not it's a good investment. In the same way as you pay far more than the value of your house when you take on a mortgage. 

 

Fourth, while each pound spent returns 35p on average, you can choose to spend on.areas where the returns are greater.

 

Fifth. I think most off the problem you have with debt is that you keep thinking about debt vs tax returns. You need to think about debt as a % of GDP. If the economy grows from say £1 trillion to £2 trillion clearly £50 billion becomes Moe and more affordable.

 

 

 

[Webbo]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Firstly, that figure is misleading. The BoE owns around 1/4 of the debt so it isn't really paid anywhere.

 

Secondly, again it depends on what the total expenditure is as to the % of expenditure we're talking about. You're expect debt repayments to become larger in absolute terms as the economy grows in absolute terms.

 

Third, it depends what you've spent the money on as to whether or not it's a good investment. In the same way as you pay far more than the value of your house when you take on a mortgage. 

 

Fourth, while each pound spent returns 35p on average, you can choose to spend on.areas where the returns are greater.

 

Fifth. I think most off the problem you have with debt is that you keep thinking about debt vs tax returns. You need to think about debt as a % of GDP. If the economy grows from say £1 trillion to £2 trillion clearly £50 billion becomes Moe and more affordable.

 

 

 

We're paying £48 billion per year in interest payments to so who owns the debt is immaterial. That figure will increase year on year under Labour, so you either have to tax more, which is making working people poorer, reducing their spending power, or borrow more which just piles on more debt.

 

Lets not forget that although they say this money will be spent on infrastructure Labour have said they are going to do away with tuition fees, give everyone in the public sector a good payrise and nationalise Royal Mail and the Railways. That all costs money and we're already running a deficit.

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

We're paying £48 billion per year in interest payments to so who owns the debt is immaterial. That figure will increase year on year under Labour, so you either have to tax more, which is making working people poorer, reducing their spending power, or borrow more which just piles on more debt.

 

Lets not forget that although they say this money will be spent on infrastructure Labour have said they are going to do away with tuition fees, give everyone in the public sector a good payrise and nationalise Royal Mail and the Railways. That all costs money and we're already running a deficit.

No, this is conpletely wrong. You're conflating debt interest and deficit. You basically haven't got a clue what you're talking about but keep on going anyway.

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

No, this is conpletely wrong. You're conflating debt interest and deficit. You basically haven't got a clue what you're talking about but keep on going anyway.

If the deficit goes up we have to borrow more to cover to difference, that's obvious surely?

[Guest]

What had the deficit got to do with debt interest?

 

You borrow at low interest rates and spend in areas that increase growth and productivity.

 

This increases gdp and allows increased overall government expenditure. 

 

The absolute debt interest figure is higher, but it is a smaller proportion of expenditure.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

What had the deficit got to do with debt interest?

 

You borrow at low interest rates and spend in areas that increase growth and productivity.

 

This increases gdp and allows increased overall government expenditure. 

 

The absolute debt interest figure is higher, but it is a smaller proportion of expenditure.

The govt borrows money to cover the deficit, the more you borrow the higher the debt,the more you pay interest, this isn't rocket science

[Rogstanley]

Just now, Webbo said:

The govt borrows money to cover the deficit, the more you borrow the higher the debt,the more you pay interest, this isn't rocket science

You’re right, your understanding of the subject is indeed very simple.

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

The govt borrows money to cover the deficit, the more you borrow the higher the debt,the more you pay interest, this isn't rocket science

I've said in my answer that the absolute figure increases. But it becomes a smaller % of overall expenditure so is more and more affordable.

[Guest]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

You’re right, your understanding of the subject is indeed very simple.

Admitting that you were wrong, especially when the original decision has huge ramifications, is a painful and destabilising experience that the brain tends to resist. Research into this kind of denial has given us concepts such as cognitive dissonanceand confirmation bias.

“When you have a strong view about something, you’re likely to reject information that’s contrary to your view, reject the source of the information and rationalise the information,” says Jane Green, professor of political science at the University of Manchester and co-director of the British Election Study. “We select information that’s consistent with our views, because it’s more comfortable and reaffirming.” In fact, it’s physically pleasurable. Some recent studies of confirmation bias indicate that consuming information that supports our beliefs actually produces a dopamine rush.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

I've said in my answer that the absolute figure increases. But it becomes a smaller % of overall expenditure so is more and more affordable.

How does it become more affordable?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

How does it become more affordable?

[Guest Kopfkino]

4 hours ago, toddybad said:

But not every country took the path of swingeing spending cuts. As the austerity narrative amplified across Europe, Iceland showed that another way was possible. It is an interesting story that has been largely ignored by the press. An effective media would have drawn on this test case to challenge the prevailing narrative.

According to The Economist, ‘Iceland’s banking collapse is the biggest, relative to the size of an economy, that any country has ever suffered.’ Its financial industry imploded, the stock market fell by 90 per cent, and investments worth many times the output of the nation were wiped out in a single week. Desperate for money, the government turned to the IMF for $2.1 billion in loans. The loans came with conditions: the government would have to slash public spending and use half its income to repay investors who had lost money on their private investments. In effect, Iceland’s taxpayers were being asked to foot the bill for the bad investment decisions of its banking elite.

On the back of riots and protests, the Icelandic president granted the people a referendum. Nine out of ten voters said ‘no’ to paying off bankers’ debts and instead demanded increased investment in their fragile economy. Taking this on board, the government rejected the IMF conditions, allowed its banks to default, imposed urgent capital controls and raised spending on public welfare. Universal education and healthcare were protected, social security was strengthened for those most in need, and many people had their mortgage debts written off. As for the bankers, the worst offenders were prosecuted and sent to prison. In other words, Iceland ignored every principle in the financial industry’s rulebook.

The stock markets reacted negatively to the vote, and Iceland was widely condemned. Yet, by 2012, this tiny country was outperforming the US and many European nations with an economy growing by 3 per cent a year and with unemployment levels falling below 5 per cent. Iceland went further and adopted a new crowd-sourced national constitution to safeguard its future. By 2015, even the IMF had to admit that Iceland had achieved economic recovery ‘without compromising its welfare model’. In fact, it became the first crisis-struck European nation to top its pre-crisis peak of economic output and is close to repaying many of the debts it owed to other nations. In response to the question, ‘What is the reason for Iceland’s recovery?’, President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson famously answered: ‘We were wise enough not to follow the traditional prevailing orthodoxies of the Western financial world in the last 30 years. We introduced currency controls, we let the banks fail, we provided support for the poor, and we didn’t introduce austerity measures like you’re seeing in Europe.’

 

I'd love to know where you've copied this post from, one expects it's suspect hence you didn't provide a link. Just looking at the figures for Icelandic government spending, the last year of cuts (which again were far more significant than our non-cuts, again people need to understand austerity) was 2012. Since then, government spending has increased by (inflation in brackets):

2013 - 1.02% (4.19%)

2014 - 1.72% (0.83%)

2015 - 1% (2.01%)

2016 - 1.8% (1.89%)

predicted 2017 - 0.92% (1.86%)

 

6.75% nominal increase since 2012

 

Compared to the UK, which I copy from a previous post:

 

2013 - 2.8%    (1.99%)

2014 - 0.7%   (0.5%)

2015 - 2%       (0.2%)

2016 - 0.1%    (1.6%) 

predicted 2017 - +2.4% (this may well have changed, cba to check) (2.96% last month)

 

8.18% nominal increase since 2012

 

So the UK has had higher growth in nominal govt spending since 2012 when Iceland 'reversed' its actual austerity (compared with our bare austerity) as it also has in real terms. So where is Iceland's show of a different way?

Edited 25 November 2017 by Kopfkino

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

How does it become more affordable?

If you're paying £400 a month on your mortgage and your income doubles, is it more affordable?