Well it was certainly based on nationalism and a dislike of the English but also because they wanted to be more to the left than the mob in Downing Street.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tony Blair on Nick Robinson's Show
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
Well it was certainly based on nationalism and a dislike of the English but also because they wanted to be more to the left than the mob in Downing Street.
Yeah , I'm not saying it played no part but it was hardly the whole point. Corbyn doesn't have no support in Scotland but as the SNP are already left of the Tories it probably indicates the fact that being far left doesn't really engender much main stream popularity.Well it was certainly based on nationalism and a dislike of the English but also because they wanted to be more to the left than the mob in Downing Street.
Yeah , I'm not saying it played no part but it was hardly the whole point. Corbyn doesn't have no support in Scotland but as the SNP are already left of the Tories it probably indicates the fact that being far left doesn't really engender much main stream popularity.
I wouldn’t disagree with that. I’ll be condemned by the left on this forum for mentioning him again but Blair is the greatest success of anyone outside of the SNP in Scotland, since the 90’s.
Difficult to judge, Brown, Cook and even Darling have all had a decent following .I wouldn’t disagree with that. I’ll be condemned by the left on this forum for mentioning him again but Blair is the greatest success of anyone outside of the SNP in Scotland, since the 90’s.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
What most seem to be missing on all these arguments is that we reside in an enormous pyramid scam where the top less than 1% just take what they want out of the system.
This fucks up the economy for everyone else, especially those at the bottom. It doesn't have to be like this given all the advances in technology.
As people across the globe notice that things are not going well for them individually, they are faced with a choice.
They can blame foreigners or poorer workshy people in their own countries. This is the approach of right wing parties such as the one in Sweden who have done well tonight
Or they can wake up smell the coffee and realize that regardless of our nationalities we are all being taken for a huge ride by the global cspatalist elite.
Some of us have woken up and the first step is to get out of one of the biggest capitalist scams going......the EU!
The multiplier effect is a well-known economic fact taught at A-Level and if you don't understand it you really shouldn't be arguing economics.
It's simple enough to see in practice. If the government spends £100m to build a hospital, a lot of that will go in wages to the people who build it and in turn they'll spend some of that. There will be some 'leakage' as they pay tax (which increases government revenue) or buy imported goods but most will probably be spent locally. And the shops, pubs or restaurants they spend it in will also pay their staff. They might save some meaning banks will be able to lend a multiple of whatever they save. And so the cycle goes on. It's the same money being recycled but that process creates wealth.
But if the government doesn't spend that £100m then they end up paying welfare benefits, which mean much lower consumption and no revenue back in the form of taxes. So it entirely depends what you spend that borrowed money on and whether it's capital investment or paying out benefits.
You are misunderstanding though that your spending plans come from taxes and increased taxes are put there by growth. Currently we take say £1 in tax but we need £1.20, so we borrow the difference, 20p. If you increase spending and do not link that spending to growth then all you are doing is creating a bigger deficit. Yes you are increasing the tax intake but you are doing so not on the basis of growth but on the basis of a false economy funded by borrowing, welcome to Greece.
I won't even go into the fact that for every 1p you borrow you will repay more than that. Even today a big slice of your tax paid goes to absolutely nothing but interest. The current debt repayments are around £48bn a year so just imagine if we halved the national debt and suddenly had £24bn a year to spend... In fact reducing the national debt gives you extra public spending in that sense literally for free.
As I said, look at France, France is biggest public spender in Europe yet its economy is almost completely flat. In this situation would you say France should spend more in its public sector? What about Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece who are all flatlining under massive budgetary debts. Should they all increase public spending to help reduce that debt...... Clearly not.
People often compare Germany to us and the reason we are in a pickle and Germany aren't is because Germany imposed immediate hard austerity upon 2008 hitting which enabled them to keep public debt under control.
They now responsibly spend their way out of the problem by linking that spending to growth. Once borrowing is under control they can do as you say which is to have spending bursts to invest in infrastruture, services etc to supplement that growth however if growth falls, spending falls, it is very simple.
Unfortunately if people want more public spending then you need to get your wallet out and start campaigning for increased taxes.... I can't see that getting far!
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I agree that borrowing in a recession has to be for investment, not to provide additional revenue. It’s pointless otherwise.You are misunderstanding though that your spending plans come from taxes and increased taxes are put there by growth. Currently we take say £1 in tax but we need £1.20, so we borrow the difference, 20p. If you increase spending and do not link that spending to growth then all you are doing is creating a bigger deficit. Yes you are increasing the tax intake but you are doing so not on the basis of growth but on the basis of a false economy funded by borrowing, welcome to Greece.
Recent figures suggest that 50 people own the same wealth as the poorest half of the world, roughly 3.5 billion.
That means these 50 are obscenely rich but more importantly they are a problem for the world's economy.
A lot of this wealth is stagnant, offshore, tied up in asset bubbles. In short non productive.
Imagine a scenario where these 50's wealth was redistributed to the 3.5 billion. Their wealth doubles overnight and crucially they will be spending most of it, which has a knock on effect for all the economies where they live.
We have been living in a world where an elite extract wealth from the rest of us. What money they do spend is ploughed into art, racehorses and appartments in Mayfair.
This is a shadow economy that does nothing for the rest of us.
That means these 50 are obscenely rich but more importantly they are a problem for the world's economy.
A lot of this wealth is stagnant, offshore, tied up in asset bubbles. In short non productive.
Imagine a scenario where these 50's wealth was redistributed to the 3.5 billion. Their wealth doubles overnight and crucially they will be spending most of it, which has a knock on effect for all the economies where they live.
We have been living in a world where an elite extract wealth from the rest of us. What money they do spend is ploughed into art, racehorses and appartments in Mayfair.
This is a shadow economy that does nothing for the rest of us.
Recent figures suggest that 50 people own the same wealth as the poorest half of the world, roughly 3.5 billion.
That means these 50 are obscenely rich but more importantly they are a problem for the world's economy.
A lot of this wealth is stagnant, offshore, tied up in asset bubbles. In short non productive.
Imagine a scenario where these 50's wealth was redistributed to the 3.5 billion. Their wealth doubles overnight and crucially they will be spending most of it, which has a knock on effect for all the economies where they live.
We have been living in a world where an elite extract wealth from the rest of us. What money they do spend is ploughed into art, racehorses and appartments in Mayfair.
This is a shadow economy that does nothing for the rest of us.
This economy does a lot for the rest of us, it is why you and me aren't fighting in the street for food and why poverty is now defined by proportion of income spent on housing costs and not whether you have a house at all.
If you look at the last 50 years, has poverty, general wellbeing and opportunity gone up or down? All the facts say that we are richer, medically fitter and generally better off than any time before.
The things you are talking about aren't about equalizing society to make it fair, you want to equalize society so it is unfair and punishes the rich.
If you won the lottery, would you distribute your winnings to the local economy or would you keep it for yourself? I know of no-one who would distribute it so why should business owners who took risks and worked hard to pay for that lottery ticket?
I can see I will have to try harder.
Take a businessman with 99 employees. He has an annual profit of 2 million.
He decides to distribute it amongst himself and his employees equally. 20,000 each.
As it is not a huge salary they spend it on all the usual things, food, booze, petrol, football, clothes etc
One day the businessman thinks why am I paying my staff so much. After all I took all the risk. So he decides to pay his staff 10,000 each.
He now has 1 million for himself so he goes and buys a sketch by Picasso.
Meanwhile the local economy takes a hit. Clothes sales are down. So too bars and restaurants. Season ticket numbers falter as people on their reduced wages can't afford them.
Bar owners lay off staff, ditto clothes shops. Car sales down too. More layoffs
But the fine art market booms.Sotheby's need more staff.
Take a businessman with 99 employees. He has an annual profit of 2 million.
He decides to distribute it amongst himself and his employees equally. 20,000 each.
As it is not a huge salary they spend it on all the usual things, food, booze, petrol, football, clothes etc
One day the businessman thinks why am I paying my staff so much. After all I took all the risk. So he decides to pay his staff 10,000 each.
He now has 1 million for himself so he goes and buys a sketch by Picasso.
Meanwhile the local economy takes a hit. Clothes sales are down. So too bars and restaurants. Season ticket numbers falter as people on their reduced wages can't afford them.
Bar owners lay off staff, ditto clothes shops. Car sales down too. More layoffs
But the fine art market booms.Sotheby's need more staff.