Theresa May

[Chippy_boy]

Just out of interest, how many of their 26 years in power since Margaret Thatcher was first elected have the Tories run a surplus? Presumably if you're demanding if of Labour (after a global financial crash) then the Tories must have a pretty strong record on running a budget surplus?

No, I was merely pointing out primary school maths. If you have A (the debt) and you add B (the deficit) to it every year then A +_B + B + B + B + B... is more than ****ing A.

But Since you mention it, no the Tories' record in this department isn't great either. However they sometimes leave office with the national debt lower than when they came in. Labour NEVER do. (Barring a brief period of a few months about 100 years ago IIRC). A vote for Labour is a vote for putting up public debt, proven countless times.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Catching up on recent posts...

The car analogy is actually flawed, since in the car analogy, debt is actually distance. And deficit is rate of change of distance, i.e. speed.

So the correct analogy is that we wish to stop the car no further forward than at a STOP line which we are speeding towards. Labour are driving and after years of government they have sped past the STOP line, but instead of braking they and continue driving, and in fact they put their foot down, accelerating away past it. The Tories take over the wheel but the car is doing 150 mph. They apply the brakes and after years of slowing, the car is finally only doing about 30 mph.

Labour supporters then have the ****ing cheek of criticising the Tories that the car is further from line than when they left office. OF COURSE IT IS. Only once the car has stopped and started reversing backwards can we get nearer the line.

Who sped past the line? Labour.
Who continued to accelerate? Labour
Who's responsible for us being so far away from it? Labour
Who's fault is it, it is taking so long to stop the car? Labour (because the speed we were going at)
Who's fault is it that we further away than when Labour left office? Labour

 

[robbieh]

Catching up on recent posts...

The car analogy is actually flawed, since in the car analogy, debt is actually distance. And deficit is rate of change of distance, i.e. speed.

So the correct analogy is that we wish to stop the car no further forward than at a STOP line which we are speeding towards. Labour are driving and after years of government they have sped past the STOP line, but instead of braking they and continue driving, and in fact they put their foot down, accelerating away past it. The Tories take over the wheel but the car is doing 150 mph. They apply the brakes and after years of slowing, the car is finally only doing about 30 mph.

Labour supporters then have the ****ing cheek of criticising the Tories that the car is further from line than when they left office. OF COURSE IT IS. Only once the car has stopped and started reversing backwards can we get nearer the line.

Who sped past the line? Labour.
Who continued to accelerate? Labour
Who's responsible for us being so far away from it? Labour
Who's fault is it, it is taking so long to stop the car? Labour (because the speed we were going at)
Who's fault is it that we further away than when Labour left office? Labour

Either you know this is lies and are repeating it for political reasons or you are misinformed.
The deficit during the Blair years was moderate. The deficit soared after the 2008 socialization of the debt problems within the financial system.
Now you can argue about whether we should have rescued said institutions but to suggest as you do that the deficit was caused by Labour overspending on public services is disingenuous.

 

[Damocles]

However they sometimes leave office with the national debt lower than when they came in. Labour NEVER do

This isn't the slam dunk that Tories often think it is.

Labour are the social investment party. If you have tons of social investment and the country is running on a surplus, why would you ever vote them out?

 

[Damocles]

Either you know this is lies and are repeating it for political reasons or you are misinformed.
The deficit during the Blair years was moderate. The deficit soared after the 2008 socialization of the debt problems within the financial system.
Now you can argue about whether we should have rescued said institutions but to suggest as you do that the deficit was caused by Labour overspending on public services is disingenuous.

Yeah to blame Labour in any way for the 2008 collapse is highly partisan nonsense.

 

[robbieh]

Yeah to blame Labour in any way for the 2008 collapse is highly partisan nonsense.

In fact just checked further and from 98 until 02 they were running a surplus. From then on the deficit was similar but nevertheless lower than the Tory deficit during the early to mid 90s.

 

[CityStu]

Yeah to blame Labour in any way for the 2008 collapse is highly partisan nonsense.

Labour weren't at fault for the 2008 collapse, but they were heavily at fault for reducing the country's ability to manage such an event. We should have gone into that recession with a healthy surplus built over a substantial period of good growth, allowing us to maintain and invest in our public services through the recession when investment is needed. Running up any kind of deficit when the economy was performing incredibly well, was incredibly stupid.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Either you know this is lies and are repeating it for political reasons or you are misinformed.
The deficit during the Blair years was moderate. The deficit soared after the 2008 socialization of the debt problems within the financial system.
Now you can argue about whether we should have rescued said institutions but to suggest as you do that the deficit was caused by Labour overspending on public services is disingenuous.

I think you're reading into my post, what you want to hear, rather than what I actually wrote.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Yeah to blame Labour in any way for the 2008 collapse is highly partisan nonsense.

Yes, I agree that would be.

 

[robbieh]

I think you're reading into my post, what you want to hear, rather than what I actually wrote.

Your car analogy was quite clear thanks.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Labour weren't at fault for the 2008 collapse, but they were heavily at fault for reducing the country's ability to manage such an event. We should have gone into that recession with a healthy surplus built over a substantial period of good growth, allowing us to maintain and invest in our public services through the recession when investment is needed. Running up any kind of deficit when the economy was performing incredibly well, was incredibly stupid.

Is the correct answer.

Labour inherit a country in economically good shape with a backdrop of world growth and throughout the good times, instead of paying down debt as prudent economics would have suggested, they continued to increase it, overspending with abandon. And at the same time, taxing anything and everything that moved by the way, to fund their spending habit. Had they not increased the tax burden and made us all poorer in so doing, the deficit would have been even higher. They just cannot stop frittering (other peoples') money away, it's in their DNA.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Your car analogy was quite clear thanks.

Not clear enough, obviously.

 

[robbieh]

Is the correct answer.

Labour inherit a country in economically good shape with a backdrop of world growth and throughout the good times, instead of paying down debt as prudent economics would have suggested, they continued to increase it, overspending with abandon. And at the same time, taxing anything and everything that moved by the way, to fund their spending habit. Had they not increased the tax burden and made us all poorer in so doing, the deficit would have been even higher. They just cannot stop frittering (other peoples') money away, it's in their DNA.

Other people's money. It's our tax, our money and it is spent on the NHS and other essentials.
Promising to cut taxes sounds lovely and fools vote for it until such time as they notice public services are not what they were.

The rich of course love it as they don't use public services anything like as much as the poor.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Is the correct answer.

Labour inherit a country in economically good shape with a backdrop of world growth and throughout the good times, instead of paying down debt as prudent economics would have suggested, they continued to increase it, overspending with abandon. And at the same time, taxing anything and everything that moved by the way, to fund their spending habit. Had they not increased the tax burden and made us all poorer in so doing, the deficit would have been even higher. They just cannot stop frittering (other peoples') money away, it's in their DNA.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Other people's money. It's our tax, our money and it is spent on the NHS and other essentials.
Promising to cut taxes sounds lovely and fools vote for it until such time as they notice public services are not what they were.

The rich of course love it as they don't use public services anything like as much as the poor.

What really fucks me off Robbieh, is that people like you seem to think that in order to pay for better services, it's OK to take whatever arbitrarily large amount of money off "the rich" - as you call them - and that this is perfectly acceptable, perfectly morally justified.

That someone on say £120k per year should pay 15 times more tax and NI than someone on £20k per year, is not enough. The the £46k the "rich" person puts in should be much more than that - why not £50k or £60k or £70k, when the "poor" person is putting £3k in. And that simply because there are more people on less, and more votes from people on less than taking even more money off the better off is perfectly fine. And I am not even counting the fact that the person on £20k probably gets much of their £3k in tax and NI back in benefits, which the "rich" person doesn't get.

People go to work, and through either hard graft or good fortune, they earn what they earn. The state takes what is supposed to be a "reasonable" amount off them, to pay for infrastructure and public services. But what is "reasonable"? We have differing views about what reasonable is.

Not to mention the fact that putting up tax rates too far is counterproductive and doesn't actually increase tax revenues.

 

[Fame Monster]

Labour weren't at fault for the 2008 collapse, but they were heavily at fault for reducing the country's ability to manage such an event. We should have gone into that recession with a healthy surplus built over a substantial period of good growth, allowing us to maintain and invest in our public services through the recession when investment is needed. Running up any kind of deficit when the economy was performing incredibly well, was incredibly stupid.

I don't disagree with you but a little more context is needed. Yes, the economy was doing great but the UK also had the cost of fighting two expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well. The Tories supported the Afghanistan war and also voted, in a greater percentage than Labour, to go to war with Iraq. Also, when Labour ran a surplus in the late 90s, the Tories called on Labour to actually spend more. So while Labour fucked over the country by spending when they should have been saving (or investing rather than spending), would the Tories have been any better?

 

[robbieh]

What really fucks me off Robbieh, is that people like you seem to think that in order to pay for better services, it's OK to take whatever arbitrarily large amount of money off "the rich" - as you call them - and that this is perfectly acceptable, perfectly morally justified.

That someone on say £120k per year should pay 15 times more tax and NI than someone on £20k per year, is not enough. The the £46k the "rich" person puts in should be much more than that - why not £50k or £60k or £70k, when the "poor" person is putting £3k in. And that simply because there are more people on less, and more votes from people on less than taking even more money off the better off is perfectly fine. And I am not even counting the fact that the person on £20k probably gets much of their £3k in tax and NI back in benefits, which the "rich" person doesn't get.

People go to work, and through either hard graft or good fortune, they earn what they earn. The state takes what is supposed to be a "reasonable" amount off them, to pay for infrastructure and public services. But what is "reasonable"? We have differing views about what reasonable is.

Not to mention the fact that putting up tax rates too far is counterproductive and doesn't actually increase tax revenues.

We do have differing views on what is reasonable. As is well known not least because he told everybody Warren Buffet pays less tax percentage wise than his secretary. I'm not talking about people on 150k a year. To all intents and purposes they are in the same boat as the rest of us. Yes they should pay a higher rate than someone on 50k. But I'm not talking about soaking them. They like everybody else are only one redundancy away from financial meltdown.

I'm talking about super wealth that cannot be meaningfully quantified.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I'm not talking about people on 150k a year. To all intents and purposes they are in the same boat as the rest of us. Yes they should pay a higher rate than someone on 50k. But I'm not talking about soaking them. They like everybody else are only one redundancy away from financial meltdown.

Well have a word with Corbyn then, who wants to fleece anyone who earns more than £85k a year.

 

[SWP's back]

Just out of interest, how many of their 26 years in power since Margaret Thatcher was first elected have the Tories run a surplus? Presumably if you're demanding if of Labour (after a global financial crash) then the Tories must have a pretty strong record on running a budget surplus?

The Tories don’t subscribe to Keynesian economics so your argument is totally invalid.

 

[SWP's back]

Now you can argue about whether we should have rescued said institutions but to suggest as you do that the deficit was caused by Labour overspending on public services is disingenuous.

Not at all. Labour ran a deficit during record boom years whilst maintaining a false premise of prudence. Brown and the left supposedly subscribed to Keynesian economics which would mean public infrastructure spending during lean years (as opposed to austerity), but Keynes also states that one should run a surplus when the going is good to ensure there’s sufficient money available for a rainy day.

Labour didn’t. They continued increasing public spending on ideological grounds to ensure they were voted in repeatedly.