Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Guest MattP

FT General Election Poll 2019

FT General Election 2019  

501 members have voted

  1. 1. Which party will be getting your vote?

    • Conservative
      155
    • Labour
      188
    • Liberal Democrats
      93
    • Brexit Party
      17
    • Green Party
      26
    • Other
      22


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Beechey said:

But it is disingenuous to say "look at the debt the Tory's added!" then saying "Labour had no control over the deficit they left". They are directly related.

Obviously inheriting a £150bn+ deficit is going go be problematic and cause an increase in the debt, no matter if Labour caused it (they didn't cause it) or not.

 

Let's not forget Labour pledged themselves to a very severe austerity plan as well, to the tune of ~£80bn to £100bn of cuts and tax increases in the 2010-2015 Parliament during the election.

Lest we forget that Andy Burnham called the Conservatives irresponsible for not backing cuts to the NHS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't think the Tories ever planned to reduce the debt - to reduce debt you need to run a surplus and that wasn't happening anytime soon running a deficit of that percentage to GDP.

Just opened up the 2010 Conservative Manifesto and the first policy page is 'Ensuring Fiscal Stability - Urgent Action to Reduce Debt'.

 

"It was always right to reduce the national debt and I pledge as prime minister to continue to reduce the national debt” is a quote from Johnson this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Well, to be honest I was referring to the cuts and the consequences thereof rather than the debt added by the Conservatives.

 

I don't disagree that a deficit of over 150 billion quid is going to be problematic but my question, as it was before, is if that amount of money - or indeed any other amount - justifies the lack of opportunity, suffering and (very occasionally) death of those who had next to no part in it to begin with?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50719386

 

See Ecuador and Peru's plans to see what sort of damage debt can do. Do we really want to get to a point like that? I don't think so. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bmt said:

Just opened up the 2010 Conservative Manifesto and the first policy page is 'Ensuring Fiscal Stability - Urgent Action to Reduce Debt'.

 

"It was always right to reduce the national debt and I pledge as prime minister to continue to reduce the national debt” is a quote from Johnson this year.

If he's said that he clearly means deficit at this time - and that's not happening either as both parties are being irresponsible with fiscal policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50719386

 

See Ecuador and Peru's plans to see what sort of damage debt can do. Do we really want to get to a point like that? I don't think so. 

Our deficit wasn't that high until the global crash though, and would probably have reduced far quicker with some Keynesian stimulus rather than very severe austerity. Furthermore, austerity unfairly hits the poor.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bmt said:

Our deficit wasn't that high until the global crash though, and would probably have reduced far quicker with some Keynesian stimulus rather than very severe austerity. Furthermore, austerity unfairly hits the poor.

We were still running a fairly big deficit given we were at the end of the largest credit boom the World has ever seen. We really should have been running closer to a surplus or at least similar to the Thatcher years.

 

Screenshot_2018-08-03-14-10-18.png

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MattP said:

We were still running a fairly big deficit given we were at the end of the largest credit boom the World has ever seen. We really should have been running a surplus.

 

 

Yeah not going to argue with that, we probably should have been doing slightly better. But relatively speaking it isn't too bad. That graph should be in % of GDP terms too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bmt said:

Just opened up the 2010 Conservative Manifesto and the first policy page is 'Ensuring Fiscal Stability - Urgent Action to Reduce Debt'.

 

"It was always right to reduce the national debt and I pledge as prime minister to continue to reduce the national debt” is a quote from Johnson this year.

Considering debt is only reducing as a percentage of the total economy, it's quite fine to assume he was referring to that rather than absolute terms.

"Continue" being the operative word here. All he has to do to accomplish this is keep economic growth above our deficit as a percentage of GDP.

Edited by Beechey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50719386

 

See Ecuador and Peru's plans to see what sort of damage debt can do. Do we really want to get to a point like that? I don't think so. 

FWIW I think a lot of the world is at that particular point of resource exploitation anyway in less spectacular and showy fashion (the more affluent nations just pay the less affluent ones to do it for them) and most of it is in the name of greed rather than survival - I don't see what may happen there benefiting poor Peruvians or Ecuadorians much materially, if at all.

 

In any case, I'm getting too much dodging on this question but I'll ask again: are economic austerity cuts in order to preserve budgets morally sanctionable if human suffering and death of those who had little to do with the original situation come about as a result of them? Is it really a matter of sacrificing a few for the sake of the many because without it a collapse and resultant suffering of many more people was a certainty? Is this really a situation where the dreadful algebra of necessity (as it is called) needs to be called upon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

FWIW I think a lot of the world is at that particular point of resource exploitation anyway in less spectacular and showy fashion (the more affluent nations just pay the less affluent ones to do it for them) and most of it is in the name of greed rather than survival - I don't see what may happen there benefiting poor Peruvians or Ecuadorians much materially, if at all.

 

In any case, I'm getting too much dodging on this question but I'll ask again: are economic austerity cuts in order to preserve budgets morally sanctionable if human suffering and death of those who had little to do with the original situation come about as a result of them? Is it really a matter of sacrificing a few for the sake of the many because without it a collapse and resultant suffering of many more people was a certainty? Is this really a situation where the dreadful algebra of necessity (as it is called) needs to be called upon?

It's morally grey. What if the alternative is total economic collapse?

We're wading into hypotheticals with this question.

 

One thing is a certainty though, that a deficit to GDP percentage of 10.5% is utterly unsustainable.

Maybe the areas that were cut that you're referring to were cut too deeply, for example. I'm looking at the macro though, in the main.

Edited by Beechey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

FWIW I think a lot of the world is at that particular point of resource exploitation anyway in less spectacular and showy fashion (the more affluent nations just pay the less affluent ones to do it for them) and most of it is in the name of greed rather than survival - I don't see what may happen there benefiting poor Peruvians or Ecuadorians much materially, if at all.

 

In any case, I'm getting too much dodging on this question but I'll ask again: are economic austerity cuts in order to preserve budgets morally sanctionable if human suffering and death of those who had little to do with the original situation come about as a result of them? Is it really a matter of sacrificing a few for the sake of the many because without it a collapse and resultant suffering of many more people was a certainty? Is this really a situation where the dreadful algebra of necessity (as it is called) needs to be called upon?

To quote spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And while it sucks, it will be that way until (if) we as a race move beyond a monetary system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Beechey said:

It's morally grey. What if the alternative is total economic collapse?

We're wading into hypotheticals with this question.

 

One thing is a certainty though, that a deficit to GDP percentage of 10.5% is utterly unsustainable.

Maybe the areas that were cut that you're referring to were cut too deeply, for example. I'm looking at the macro though, in the main.

Exactly, it's hypotheticals...which is why I take issue with decisions that risk opportunities, health and (sometimes) lives based on a hypothetical about money. Some things are worth risking lives for...that isn't one of them, IMO.

 

Perhaps I am showing a massive lack of respect to the field of economics here but I honestly consider next to no amount of money worth humans suffering and dying for - not when it's not even personal money but national money which is about as illusive and fluid as unicorn urine.

 

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

To quote spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And while it sucks, it will be that way until (if) we as a race move beyond a monetary system. 

Were the threat to the many as realistic as all that then I would agree with you because the idea itself is crucially important...but I am unconvinced that in the field of economics that it now or ever really has to be given how subjective it all is.

 

As above, I don't see a certain, credible danger worth risking lives for in the same way that "harder" scientific dangers are - not when it's based almost entirely on human perception.

 

NB. I do hope that one day we can get beyond the idea of economics based on scarcity, whether natural or human-created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Exactly, it's hypotheticals...which is why I take issue with decisions that risk opportunities, health and (sometimes) lives based on a hypothetical about money. Some things are worth risking lives for...that isn't one of them, IMO.

 

Perhaps I am showing a massive lack of respect to the field of economics here but I honestly consider next to no amount of money worth humans suffering and dying for - not when it's not even personal money but national money which is about as illusive and fluid as unicorn urine.

 

Were the threat to the many as realistic as all that then I would agree with you because the idea itself is crucially important...but I am unconvinced that in the field of economics that it now or ever really has to be given how subjective it all is.

 

As above, I don't see a certain, credible danger worth risking lives for in the same way that "harder" scientific dangers are - not when it's based almost entirely on human perception.

 

NB. I do hope that one day we can get beyond the idea of economics based on scarcity, whether natural or human-created.

What. How can you possibly see no credible danger regarding a countries finances when we've literally just seen millions of people pack up and leave one because it's currency collapsed? Make no mistake, I'm not saying the same would happen to us, but it isn't impossible by any means. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

What. How can you possibly see no credible danger regarding a countries finances when we've literally just seen millions of people pack up and leave one because it's currency collapsed? Make no mistake, I'm not saying the same would happen to us, but it isn't impossible by any means. 

...and in the case of that country the people running the economy evidently valued the money over their people and/or investors and traders from outside did so too (given the collapse, usually caused by devaluation and inflation, yes?) so those people felt that they had to run.

 

My point, and I apologise if I'm making it hamfistedly, is that in something like this that exists only because of human perception, there is always a choice. A nation doesn't have to withhold services from its citizens, and if it doesn't other countries and investors don't have to pass judgement and devalue a currency to the point of collapse because of perceived mismanagement. It's all smoke and mirrors, based on the value that people say it has, nothing more. It's not a danger in the same way that a natural disaster or somesuch that has been exacerbated by humans because it is entirely within the scope of human control and doesn't have to happen.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MattP said:

 Can you show me evidence for this?

 

In addition to the points made by Ferris, Ronnie and others, there's the little matter of the Windrush scandal and the "hostile environment" policy.

 

This didn't just "cause members of a minority community to flee the country", it involved the Tory Govt wrongly having them deported and/or deprived of essential rights to employment, health etc.

 

Yes, I know that was under May and not Johnson - but it was under the Tories. We are not electing a president and despite Johnson's efforts, at times, to run against his own governing party's record, it is that party he is asking us to re-elect.

 

I recognise that you have a point re. issues of anti-semitism in Labour & the failure of Corbyn to deal with it adequately. But you seem to want to use that as a stick to beat Labour with, while turning a blind eye to issues on "your side". 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...