General Election June 8th

Who will you vote for at the General Election?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 189 28.8%

  • Labour

    Votes: 366 55.8%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 37 5.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 8 1.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 23 3.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 33 5.0%
  • Total voters
    656
Status
Not open for further replies.
Damocles said:
Borrowing rates are at their cheapest in ages. You'd have to be a fool to not seriously consider borrowing now.
Click to expand...
I would fully accept this and even support the borrowing - if I had the confidence that it would lead to repayment rather than just be left as increased debt at the point in which inflation drives up interest rates

I guess that I simply do not trust the economic plan and track record of Labour at this very difficult time
 
Ban-jani said:
Your post was a direct response to me saying I wanted to keep borrowing down. You didn't post a graph in relation to borrowing did you? So you've moved the goal posts as I said.
Click to expand...
But you said I moved the goalposts after you "called me out" on that post. Now you're saying I moved the goalposts by posting the graph in the first place. So which is it?
 
SWP's back said:
Social care? What they propose is far less damaging than it is now for most people.

And the economy is in good shape, as well you know.

You really think security would be better under the leadership of a man that voted against anti-terror bill for the last 30 years?
Click to expand...
Just how fucking stupidly was that announcement managed !!
 
SWP's back said:
You're both arguing strawmen which I'm not going to engage you in.

I simply explained for those that are obviously very confused on the subject how the debt is at record levels despite the Tories reducing the deficit by 75%.

It's been explained so many times on this forum in the last two years but I'll go again. You take over a failing company, its losses have been growing on a year by year basis before you come in as follows:

Year one: £10,000 loss (10,000 debt)
Year two: £15,000 loss (25,000 debt)
Year three: £20,000 loss (45,000 debt)

You take and get things in control (overheads drop and you start improving your income) and whilst still not turning a profit, you start getting towards it

Year four £12,000 loss (57,000 debt)
Year five £8,000 loss (65,000 debt)
Year six £6,000 loss (72,000 debt)
Click to expand...
Your last sum is a bit wrong there. But in your example, the debt is increasing, but the rate of increase in the debt is decreasing fairly substantially. So why is the same not happening with national debt?
 
mcfc1632 said:
Just how fucking stupidly was that announcement managed !!
Click to expand...
Oh it was completely idiotic.

But most of those attacking it from the other side don't know that your house has to be sold as it is if you're the owner and you go into care.
 
SWP's back said:
You're both arguing strawmen which I'm not going to engage you in.

I simply explained for those that are obviously very confused on the subject how the debt is at record levels despite the Tories reducing the deficit by 75%.

It's been explained so many times on this forum in the last two years but I'll go again. You take over a failing company, its losses have been growing on a year by year basis before you come in as follows:

Year one: £10,000 loss (10,000 debt)
Year two: £15,000 loss (25,000 debt)
Year three: £20,000 loss (45,000 debt)

You take and get things in control (overheads drop and you start improving your income) and whilst still not turning a profit, you start getting towards it

Year four £12,000 loss (57,000 debt)
Year five £8,000 loss (65,000 debt)
Year six £6,000 loss (72,000 debt)

The debt has still doubled even though you've reduced the losses by 75% but with good stewardship your back yourself to start making a profit again now everything is under control.

Ps, how anyone can say that a 75% reduction in something is "barely slowing" fuck only knows. If you're going down the motorway at 100mph and come across road works or heavy traffic and drop your speed to 25 mph then I doubt you'd say you've barely slowed.
Click to expand...
The slight problem with your analogy is if you take too long to eliminate your deficit ( or reduce your losses), then your total debt racks up and ultimately you can't afford to repay the interest and/or the bank caps your overdraft.
At a country level the effect is not much different. The interest payment on the debt becomes so prohibitive the country has to slash public spending ( at the moment interest rates are historically low but they won't always be that way) or we lose our credit rating and/or the Government can then only borrow at high rates.
Ultimately the country can go bust.
PS The amount of time you take to eliminate the deficit or reduce your losses and by how much is crucial.
 
Last edited:
I'm With Stupid said:
But you said I moved the goalposts after you "called me out" on that post. Now you're saying I moved the goalposts by posting the graph in the first place. So which is it?
Click to expand...

Not me, SWP called you out.

You've done it twice by ignoring the discussion on borrowing, come on keep up.
 
SWP's back said:
I'm not talking shite.

Explain, in your own words, how the debt going up is not connected to the deficit.

And your link backs up my point. You're so confused I don't even know where to begin with you.
Click to expand...
One us the subtraction of earnings against spending. You made the point they reduced the deficit by 75% as if that was a good thing. It would only be good if that reduction was achieved through growth in GNP. It hasn't it was achieved mainly due to cuts. The Opportunity Cost; you live economics so know what that means) of these cuts is that growth is impeded through no multiplier effect.

We can have a surplus of but if that is not achieved through growth then it's a race to the bottom.

You made a bug deal if the reduction, but while that us achieved at the expense of growth through too little stimulus to the economy means we need to look at the debt to see the real story of our economic position.

Deficit reduction achieved through cuts too deep, may reduce your deficit over a period but your borrowing shows wether that strategy is working to stimulate growth.

We have added £900b to the debt the deficit is a snap shot of what we have left after we pay our bills. Bills can reduce through not spending. Deficit easy to reduce by cutting services. Debt the real indicator and if you think reducing the deficit by 75% is good in the context of an increase of £900b debt, then I would advise getting a new economics book,
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I actually believe that under all the political posturing the aim of both major parties is to find a way to remain in the single market without having the rest of the shit that comes with that. I think there will be a financial cost to be paid for that but that shouldn't surprise anyone. Labour & Liberal Democrats are pretty open about that whereas the Tories are saying things like "Brexit means Brexit" and that they'd be prepared to walk away from a bad deal. So I think that the Tories would be least likely to pay something for a good deal but that's just my opinion. We'll see in 2 years!
Click to expand...

It had fucking well better be, Colin, because unless we either remain in the single market (or some compromise version that includes an ability to provide financial services to the other 27 members) or Art 50 is simply revoked, we have got less than 21 months in which to work out how to replace the huge loss of national income that will flow from the end of passporting. If that happens and we revert to WTO rules the effect on the debt, the defecit and the economy generally will make this discussion a bit like the one about where the deck chairs should be placed on the upper deck of the Titanic.
 
Last edited:
BlueRon7 said:
Please visit places like Boston (in Lincolnshire), Crewe in Cheshire to see the impact mass immigration is having on these communities.. it isn't ALL about the CITY !

to some people in the rest of the country, social cohesion is more important and feeling safe.
Click to expand...
I have and do and I agree with you.

I am a passionate supporter of Brexit - but I am also very aware of the importance of the City of London to our economy - it might leave a bad taste but it is a simple fact
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Your last sum is a bit wrong there. But in your example, the debt is increasing, but the rate of increase in the debt is decreasing fairly substantially. So why is the same not happening with national debt?
Click to expand...
Apologies, fat thumbs and sun in my eyes. Changed it to 71,000.

The rate is of national debt increase is decreasing, 75% in seven years, just over 10% reduction in deficit per year. My example shows it faster as it's over a three year period to not lose the attention of the reader.

I'm not being party political on this either. As Damocles points out, we can very much afford our debts levels given the record low coupons we sell our gilts for. I'm just trying to point out the distinction between debt and deficit whilst showing that they are irrevocably linked.

So yes, the debt is at record levels, but it will continue to be whilst we have any sort of deficit. The left thinks it can increase the deficit as an investment and thus bring debt down over time, the right thinks it can keep the country's economy growing whilst cutting the deficit now and thus reduce the debt sooner (once they achieve a surplus).

Both strategies have merit and I'm ashamed (to some extent to say) that if the right Milliband had put forward the Labour manifesto then I'd have been very close to voting for him/it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top