General Election June 8th

[inchy14]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40201908/media-scuffle-outside-polling-station

What were they hoping to get the first sight of, him crying ffs.

 

[Ban-jani]

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?

Not me, SWP called you out.

You've done it twice by ignoring the discussion on borrowing, come on keep up.

 

[Ban-jani]

I do always wonder who stupid thinks he's with.............. ;0).

Corbyn? Abbott?

 

[Magicpole]

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.

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,

 

[Chris in London]

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!

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.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Anyone know which company is responsible for counting election votes ?

Your local authority. No company involvement at all.

 

[mcfc1632]

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.

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

 

[SWP's back]

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?

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.

 

[SWP's back]

For once.

Cheeky twat :-)

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

Your local authority. No company involvement at all.

Thanks