Labour to oppose budget surplus rule after U-turn

[bots]

Labour has withdrawn its support for plans to force future governments to keep a budget surplus, prompting anger among some of its MPs.

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell told MPs they would oppose the chancellor's plan in Wednesday's vote, despite previously saying they would back it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34508959

------------

What a shambles they are :laugh:

[MTVN]

Joke of a party

[smudgie]

:joker: Now the fun begins.

[kirklancaster]

I think that a few of us on here predicted this. It is fecking sad really. It used to be a valid party when I was a kid.

[Kizzy]

Calm down, they changed their minds is all, like there have been plenty of U turns of late from this and the previous govt.

[bots]

Calm down, they changed their minds is all, like there have been plenty of U turns of late from this and the previous govt.

its a pretty fundamental change of heart. They are basically saying when they get in to government, they want to be able to put the country in debt. Only 2 weeks ago the shadow chancellor was saying that labour are responsible and wouldn't put the country in debt. Therefore, by definition, they now want to be irresponsible. Great way to gain the confidence of voters .... not

[arista]

Calm down, they changed their minds is all, like there have been plenty of U turns of late from this and the previous govt.


For Sure Kizzy

[joeysteele]

I don't see the need for Osbornes plan for such a level of a budget surplus.

I certainly don't want to see a budget surplus that is in fact unnecessary built on the creation of more hardships of the most vulnerable sick and disabled in the UK.

I welcome this move, it is time the opposition to this heartless govt planned to oppose more not help give it more and more blank cheques.

[smudgie]

The sooner we get a surplus the better, isn't there another recession just around the corner?

[Kizzy]

No! It's is a brilliant time to buy a house... go on! you don't need a silly deposit. Deflation?..pffft ignore that, come on borrowwwwwwwwww.

When people are cold and starving and services languishing in one of the richest countries do you think they want a budget surplus?...

[joeysteele]

No! It's is a brilliant time to buy a house... go on! you don't need a silly deposit. Deflation?..pffft ignore that, come on borrowwwwwwwwww.

When people are cold and starving and services languishing in one of the richest countries do you think they want a budget surplus?...

Seems some people do want it Kizzy, even it that is to the total detriment of sick, disabled and vulnerable citizens on the UK.

It seems it doesn't matter if they cannot afford to heat their homes as long as the govt can build a surplus on the backs of those weakest in society.

Frankly I would be sick to the stomach of a govt having a surplus while sick and disabled and vulnerable people were being denied care and help by the heartless cuts this govt is making and has been making for over 5 years now.

[Kizzy]

Just today they went back on their promise not to sell the 13% stake in Royal mail, they have and that's nicely in the coffers ... maybe they'll buy a nice shiny nuclear sub who knows?

[JoshBB]

This isn't a U-turn.

McDonnell changed the policy, it never should have been in favour of the fiscal charter because Harriet was not an elected leader and she never will be. Lmao what kind of world do you people want to live in where ideas never change?

[bots]

This isn't a U-turn.

McDonnell changed the policy, it never should have been in favour of the fiscal charter because Harriet was not an elected leader and she never will be. Lmao what kind of world do you people want to live in where ideas never change?

he made the announcement to support the government at the labour conference 2 weeks ago though .... if that's not a u turn, i don't know what is :laugh:

[JoshBB]

de the announcement to support the government at the labour conference 2 weeks ago though .... if that's not a u turn, i don't know what is :laugh:

I don't think that would have been any of the top team saying that..

[bots]

I don't think that would have been any of the top team saying that..

it was the shadow chancellor that said it ... the same man who u turned now :laugh:

[JoshBB]

it was the shadow chancellor that said it ... the same man who u turned now :laugh:

In which case, I assume it was a case of policy not yet being properly formed and so he didn't question it.

It would only have been a U-turn really though if he had come out saying it was an amazing idea that would fully be supported and then announce he wouldn't. All he was doing was following what he was told until policy was changed - and it's not like McDonell has ever been pro-austerity, let's face it.

[Johnnyuk123]

https://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/no-comment-queen-corbyn.jpg?w=540&h=364
:joker::joker::joker:

[Johnnyuk123]

Farage responds upon hearing about the U turn. :joker::joker::joker:

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/POLITICS-Ukip-165814-400985.jpg

[DemolitionRed]

Mr Osborne said Labour's economic policy had "lurched from chaos to incredibility".

"Two weeks ago ‎they said they were going to vote for a surplus - now we know they want to keep on borrowing forever. That would be a grave threat to the economic security of working people‎," he said.

This has to be the best quote on that link because it relies on public stupidity.


A government in surplus can only mean one thing... the private sector goes into debt.

Its simple accounting

[Kizzy]

Mr Osborne said Labour's economic policy had "lurched from chaos to incredibility".

"Two weeks ago ‎they said they were going to vote for a surplus - now we know they want to keep on borrowing forever. That would be a grave threat to the economic security of working people‎," he said.

This has to be the best quote on that link because it relies on public stupidity.


A government in surplus can only mean one thing... the private sector goes into debt.

Its simple accounting

Oh well it's perfect then because we have plenty of stupid public!

[Johnnyuk123]

Jeremy Corbyn telling Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia... may the farce be with you. :joker::joker::joker:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/03/article-1326274-0BE5BF2F000005DC-437_634x335.jpg

[bots]

In which case, I assume it was a case of policy not yet being properly formed and so he didn't question it.

It would only have been a U-turn really though if he had come out saying it was an amazing idea that would fully be supported and then announce he wouldn't. All he was doing was following what he was told until policy was changed - and it's not like McDonell has ever been pro-austerity, let's face it.

Josh, read the article and the events as they happened. Each time I have responded to you, its been because your excuses don't match the events laid out in the article. The statement was made by the shadow chancellor at labours annual conference.

Its a clear U-turn and a pretty bloody awful one at that

[Kizzy]

It's not that awful, he is dedicated to budget responsibility while maintaining an anti austerity stance.
How can we very well be amassing a ruddy great surplus while the NHS is on the verge of collapse, where is the civil responsibility?

[bots]

It's not that awful, he is dedicated to budget responsibility while maintaining an anti austerity stance.
How can we very well be amassing a ruddy great surplus while the NHS is on the verge of collapse, where is the civil responsibility?

Because by getting in to a position of surplus, it means we are not having to service debt interest payments, which means that all the uk hard earned income can go toward extra funding of things like the NHS rather than being wasted paying interest

[DemolitionRed]

Its a clear U-turn and a pretty bloody awful one at that

Why do you think the U-turn is a bloody awful one?

[Kizzy]

And if the books are balanced then there will be no debt repayments will there? That is what he agreed to do, why then the need for a surplus?
''We will support the charter on the basis we are going to want to balance the books, we do want to live within our means and we will tackle the deficit.”

Here is a link with an interview of him stating this on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34519164

There seems to be some confusion as to the term 'normal times' I just hope it isn't the times that aren't 'war times' :/

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/25/john-mcdonnell-labour-will-match-osborne-and-live-within-our-means

[JoshBB]

I think regardless of what Labour policy is on this now, because the media seems to be saying different things, it is clear that McDonnell is a principled man - like corbyn - and his ideas are still more or less the same.

[DemolitionRed]

All surplus will do is push debt into the private sector which will only hurt domestic growth.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/12/academics-attack-george-osborne-budget-surplus-proposal
Its worth reading the comments on this page as well.


It turns out that our Chancellor didn't even study economics. He studied modern history at Oxford. Our economy is being driven by the wilfully ignorant.

[JoshBB]

The chancellor's economic policy is so weak and simple.. just cut at things and make sure we have a surplus.. yeah great one george.

Whereas McDonnell has talked about a more varied and set-out plan on responsible quantitive easing, progressive taxation, investment in jobs and architecture.. it's just clearly so much more geared towards growth. Where Osbourne fails is that you cant just cut your way to economic prosperity, and that's without all the human misery his austerity agenda has caused.

[MTVN]

All surplus will do is push debt into the private sector which will only hurt domestic growth.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/12/academics-attack-george-osborne-budget-surplus-proposal
Its worth reading the comments on this page as well.


It turns out that our Chancellor didn't even study economics. He studied modern history at Oxford. Our economy is being driven by the wilfully ignorant.

History grads are renowned for their all round expertise mind you :pipe2:

[DemolitionRed]

The chancellor's economic policy is so weak and simple.. just cut at things and make sure we have a surplus.. yeah great one george.

Whereas McDonnell has talked about a more varied and set-out plan on responsible quantitive easing, progressive taxation, investment in jobs and architecture.. it's just clearly so much more geared towards growth. Where Osbourne fails is that you cant just cut your way to economic prosperity, and that's without all the human misery his austerity agenda has caused.

Well said Josh

Politicians were catering to a public that doesn’t understand the rationale for deficit spending, that tends to think of the government budget via analogies with family finances.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

[DemolitionRed]

History grads are renowned for their all round expertise mind you :pipe2:

Oh come on :joker: This guy is playing Doctor Doom with our economy.

[Kizzy]

He's trying to change the law, why I don't know if both sides are agreed that the deficit needs to be cleared and the books balanced then why the need for new legislation?

[JoshBB]

He's trying to change the law, why I don't know if both sides are agreed that the deficit needs to be cleared and the books balanced then why the need for new legislation?

It's almost like they're setting a trap so that if a Labour government goes to repeal it, then they can scream that they're not being economically responsible like they have done for the last 5 years.

[bots]

Oh come on :joker: This guy is playing Doctor Doom with our economy.

so thats why the uk is seen as having the best performing economy in europe? If thats what incompetence yields, bring more of it on.


As the originator of this thread, all I've seen in defence of the shadow chancellor is deflection and even denial that the events took place, even blaming it on poor Harriet :laugh:

The point is that these guys can't even hold on to a principle for 2 weeks let alone 2 months or 2 years. What we are seeing is another manifestation of why labour, under Corbyn leadership is unelectable. These are but the first instances, there will be lots more before Corbyn gets the boot i'm sure

[empire]

labour have in the last five years, lost its core support in its heartland, it has suffered in the last two elections, in a bigger defeat than the election of 83, if you look at the election maps of 2010 and 2015, and look at the 2005 map, you can see how much loyal support that they have lost in the last five years, the percentage of ex grassroot supporters to go back to vote for them is very low for 2020, they face being in the wilderness years, or face being a dead wood party,

[Kizzy]

Can someone explain this to me please?..

'Unemployment down to 5.4%, but claimant count up

Here are the headline unemployment figures.

Unemployment fell by 79,000 between June and August to 1.7m, or 5.4%.
The number of people on the claimant count last month increased by 4,600 to 796,200, said the Office for National Statistics.'

McDonnell says Labour MPs won't rebel over fiscal charter as he admits leaving them 'confused'

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, was doorstepped by the BBC as he left home this morning. He jokingly admitted that his policy U-turn had been confusing to MPs, but he said he would “clarify everything” today.

He also predicted that Labour MPs would ignore George Osborne’s suggestion that they should vote with the Tories on the fiscal charter.

Here is a full transcript of McDonnell’s brief exchange with the reporter.

Q: Is Labour’s economic policy in chaos?

JM: No. I’ll set it out today. It will be fairly clear.

Q: Do you think you’ve confused MPs?

JM: Well (laughs) most probably yes, but we’ll make it clear today. We’ve had to change position on a couple of issues but today will clarify everything.

Q: The chancellor is calling for your MPs to rebel. What do you have to say about that?

JM: That’s on Osborne stunt, isn’t it? I don’t think anyone will rise to it. They will see it for what it’s worth. It’s just another stunt. We are trying to get on to serious economic debate today, not those sort of political stunts.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/oct/14/pmqs-fiscal-charter-debate-live-debate

[kirklancaster]

so thats why the uk is seen as having the best performing economy in europe? If thats what incompetence yields, bring more of it on.


As the originator of this thread, all I've seen in defence of the shadow chancellor is deflection and even denial that the events took place, even blaming it on poor Harriet :laugh:

The point is that these guys can't even hold on to a principle for 2 weeks let alone 2 months or 2 years. What we are seeing is another manifestation of why labour, under Corbyn leadership is unelectable. These are but the first instances, there will be lots more before Corbyn gets the boot i'm sure

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Some 'Shepherd', some 'Flock' - on the road to nowhere.

[Kizzy]

Well it worked for Jebus... Maybe more just need to see the light?

[joeysteele]

I say again a surplus is fine, if it comes from true and solid economic growth.

To set out to build a surplus while cutting funds, care and support for the sick, disabled, most vulnerable and elderly is obscene and should have no place in any so called decent society.

Sort that out first, then run a surplus if you can but don't build one on the backs of and to the detriment of the weakest in society.

Labour is now right to oppose this move because it would hold any govt of any party to run a surplus regardless.
That is wrong and the only wrong thing from Labour was that they ever explored supporting this move in the first place for me.

Enacting crippling cuts to mental Health care, social care services for the elderly, home care for the sick and disabled, cutting this benefit and that benefit for the poorest and most vulnerable.
Doing all that and then saying we should run a surplus is a disgrace.

Shocking and disgusting in fact.

[bots]

I say again a surplus is fine, if it comes from true and solid economic growth.

To set out to build a surplus while cutting funds, care and support for the sick, disabled, most vulnerable and elderly is obscene and should have no place in any so called decent society.

Sort that out first, then run a surplus if you can but don't build one on the backs of and to the detriment of the weakest in society.

Labour is now right to oppose this move because it would hold any govt of any party to run a surplus regardless.
That is wrong and the only wrong thing from Labour was that they ever explored supporting this move in the first place for me.

Enacting crippling cuts to mental Health care, social care services for the elderly, home care for the sick and disabled, cutting this benefit and that benefit for the poorest and most vulnerable.
Doing all that and then saying we should run a surplus is a disgrace.

Shocking and disgusting in fact.


The whole point of the measure is to stop the country being put in to debt by over spending during a period of growth. This would ensure that we didnt have a recurrence of what happened in the Blair years where money was squandered and wasted, pushing us into debt and without a capability to deal with the economy when times are tough ... ie saving for a rainy day. We all have to do it, its called being responsible. That's what labour have done the U-turn on supporting. They are basically retaining the right to continue overspending, just like all previous labour governments have done in the past.

Labour didn't get in at the last election primarily because the british public had no confidence in them being able to manage the economy. No lessons have been learned, and labour are heading for another epic fail.

[DemolitionRed]

so thats why the uk is seen as having the best performing economy in europe? If thats what incompetence yields, bring more of it on.


As the originator of this thread, all I've seen in defence of the shadow chancellor is deflection and even denial that the events took place, even blaming it on poor Harriet :laugh:

The point is that these guys can't even hold on to a principle for 2 weeks let alone 2 months or 2 years. What we are seeing is another manifestation of why labour, under Corbyn leadership is unelectable. These are but the first instances, there will be lots more before Corbyn gets the boot i'm sure


You are referring to IMF figures.
Britain’s economic growth started to recover in 2013 and that only happened when coalition essentially stopped imposing those new austerity measures. Osborne took the trophy when he wrongly declared that he'd won the political battle on fiscal spending :shrug:. Conveniently he didn't mention that austerity had been vindicated under the strong arm of a coalition government.
In 2014 we did no fiscal tightening and grew a whopping 2.9%.

People forget that Britain paid a high price in 2010-2012 under Conservative ‘austerity’.

Our economy will continue to grow because the British worker has to work five days a week to earn the same as a French worker who can earn the same in four days. Low wage economies profit companies and reduce unemployment. Many people in the UK work for an un-livable wage but hey, if it makes the treasury look good, why should we get pedantic about it?

The point is that these guys can't even hold on to a principle for 2 weeks let alone 2 months or 2 years. What we are seeing is another manifestation of why labour, under Corbyn leadership is unelectable. These are but the first instances, there will be lots more before Corbyn gets the boot i'm sure

I’m hugely relieved that McDonnell spotted something in this restrictive fiscal charter and lets face it, it really did have a whiff of bad fish about it. If McDonnell sees this as a political stunt and something that is virtually meaningless, instead of rolling over and having his belly tickled like a good dog, he’s sat up and used his moral muscle. In my world that’s called, taking ‘budget responsibility’.

[Kizzy]

We were at war ( yes illegally) during the Blair years, wars are expensive, that was the hit we took as well as the global recession.
Strangely Cameron seems hell bent on bombing places willy nilly and advocates spending money we don't have on nukes during a time of national austerity, so how are they that different?

[DemolitionRed]

Can someone explain this to me please?..

'Unemployment down to 5.4%, but claimant count up

Here are the headline unemployment figures.

Unemployment fell by 79,000 between June and August to 1.7m, or 5.4%.
The number of people on the claimant count last month increased by 4,600 to 796,200, said the Office for National Statistics.'



By keeping wages low you raise employment but workers who live on a minimum wage need government top ups for sustainable living.

Also remember, the number of people the system now accepts as unemployed has now gone down. All this alternative benefits system is just a cover up for unemployment figures.

[bots]

We were at war ( yes illegally) during the Blair years, wars are expensive, that was the hit we took as well as the global recession.
Strangely Cameron seems hell bent on bombing places willy nilly and advocates spending money we don't have on nukes during a time of national austerity, so how are they that different?

oh come on ... the hit we took was all the squandering of money into the NHS and other schemes. Lots of money paid, but nothing to show for it.

Do I really need to list again all the money that the labour administration squandered leaving us vulnerable to a recession?

[Kizzy]

oh come on ... the hit we took was all the squandering of money into the NHS and other schemes. Lots of money paid, but nothing to show for it.

Do I really need to list again all the money that the labour administration squandered leaving us vulnerable to a recession?

Squandering money on the NHS, how do you envisage the money spent is shown, ask every RTA to log who doesn't die... have mortality charts on ward walls?

Yes list it again, I'll counter with the money IDS wrote of prior to the roll out of universal credit for starters.

[Kizzy]

By keeping wages low you raise employment but workers who live on a minimum wage need government top ups for sustainable living.

Also remember, the number of people the system now accepts as unemployed has now gone down. All this alternative benefits system is just a cover up for unemployment figures.

Yes I get that, that's working tax credits isn't it the thing that is being cut making 1000s 1000s worse off?
My confusion was the suggestion that unemployment was down and yet the claimant count up, how is that possible... is it the claimant count for JSA OR WTC?

[joeysteele]

Squandering money on the NHS, how do you envisage the money spent is shown, ask every RTA to log who doesn't die... have mortality charts on ward walls?

Yes list it again, I'll counter with the money IDS wrote of prior to the roll out of universal credit for starters.

There was plenty funding wasted too by the coalition govt as to carrying out a costly re-organisation and unnecessary one at that, of the NHS.

All govts waste money and the cost of this ones efforts in Libya for example and the mess left there now is more waste of funding.

However I still say, a surplus should not be acceptable to have in place when at the same time old and sick people are being denied care and having their benefits cut.

No decent society should ever accept that in my view, sadly UK society is being led into anything but a decent society anymore by this lot who it seems can get away with anything as long as it hits the weakest.

[DemolitionRed]

oh come on ... the hit we took was all the squandering of money into the NHS and other schemes. Lots of money paid, but nothing to show for it.

Do I really need to list again all the money that the labour administration squandered leaving us vulnerable to a recession?


Lets get beyond the mantras of those headlines we read.
CLAIM 1
The last government left the biggest debt in the developed world. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html

After continuously stating the UK had the biggest debt in the world George Osborne admits to the Treasury Select Committee that he did not know the UK had the lowest debt in the G7? Also, confirmed by the OECD Those who use cash terms (instead of percentages) do so to scare, mislead and give half the story.
Its common sense, in cash terms a millionaire's debt would be greater than most people. Therefore, the UK would have a higher debt and deficit than most countries because, we are the sixth largest economy. Hence, its laughable to compare UK's debt and deficit with Tuvalu's who only have a GDP/Income of £24 million whilst, the UK's income is £1.7 Trillion.
Finally, Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction page 6 ONS Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?

You should go and read claim 2 and claim 3 because surely you deserve to know the truth. If someone shouts a lie loud enough and long enough we can almost guarantee that lie will become our truth. But by believing the lie we protect ourselves from the truth.

[DemolitionRed]

Yes I get that, that's working tax credits isn't it the thing that is being cut making 1000s 1000s worse off?
My confusion was the suggestion that unemployment was down and yet the claimant count up, how is that possible... is it the claimant count for JSA OR WTC?

Yes

[DemolitionRed]

The whole point of the measure is to stop the country being put in to debt by over spending during a period of growth. This would ensure that we didnt have a recurrence of what happened in the Blair years where money was squandered and wasted, pushing us into debt and without a capability to deal with the economy when times are tough ... ie saving for a rainy day. We all have to do it, its called being responsible. That's what labour have done the U-turn on supporting. They are basically retaining the right to continue overspending, just like all previous labour governments have done in the past.

Labour didn't get in at the last election primarily because the british public had no confidence in them being able to manage the economy. No lessons have been learned, and labour are heading for another epic fail.

Unfortunately, most people look at the fiscal budget the same way they look at their personal domestic budget. Osborne relies on us doing just that because it’s a guaranteed way of making ‘budget surplus’ look like a good thing.

To have a government surplus we would have to push debt into the private sector and that will hurt growth and increase our personal debt.

[bots]

Unfortunately, most people look at the fiscal budget the same way they look at their personal domestic budget. Osborne relies on us doing just that because it’s a guaranteed way of making ‘budget surplus’ look like a good thing.

To have a government surplus we would have to push debt into the private sector and that will hurt growth and increase our personal debt.

Playing with words. There are always borrowers and lenders. For the prosperity of the country, you run at a surplus. Anything else is pure codswallop

[DemolitionRed]

Playing with words. There are always borrowers and lenders. For the prosperity of the country, you run at a surplus. Anything else is pure codswallop

How do you think they get to that surplus? Do you have any links you are reading that I haven't managed to find? Creating a surplus means a fall in your net assets and will create huge private sector deficits. Government budget surplus has to equal private Sector deficit.
............Private/ Government/ Total
Income... £1000/ £100/ £1100
Spending... £1100/ £0/ £1100
Balance... -£100/ +£100/ £0

[Kizzy]

Yes

:laugh: which one? if it's JSA then how can that show a rise in employment if 4000 have claimed this benefit?

[Kizzy]

Vid by McDonnell on the subject on here ...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/oct/14/pmqs-fiscal-charter-debate-live-debate

[Kizzy]

'Labour’s Jonathan Reynolds says this fiscal charter is “moronic’. It would stop the government borrowing to invest. That is why no sensible economist backs it.

McDonnell says he could not have put that better himself.'

[DemolitionRed]

:laugh: which one? if it's JSA then how can that show a rise in employment if 4000 have claimed this benefit?

You can earn up to £6,000 and still get JSA

[DemolitionRed]

Thanks Kizzy, this is an interesting link :)

James Cleverly, a Conservative MP, says the wording of the charter has not changed in the last two weeks. What changed? Had McDonnell not read the charter two weeks ago?

McDonnell says, before an MP intervenes in a debate, it is best to have listened to it first, so that one can be sure one is adding something to the sum of human knowledge.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative, says McDonnell says he wants to eliminate the deficit. But he opposes all cuts. So how could that happen?

McDonnell says he will get to that in his speech. (I'm so looking forward to this!)

He then went on to say: The Tories have persuaded the public that the crash was caused by Labour spending. That has been one of the most successful attempts to rewrite history in recent times. He will correct that tonight. The Tories backed Labour spending until Northern Rock. And it was not hiring doctors and nurses that caused the crash. The deficit was not the cause of the crash. It was the consequence of it.

Lets get the fireworks out!!

[JoshBB]

Idk if anyone has seen this, but a quick google will find it..

George Osbourne was fiercly opposed to Labour originally intending to introduce a bill like this in 2010 near the end of their term.. quite funny it's the same arguments used too

[Kizzy]

You can earn up to £6,000 and still get JSA

Ah right, I thought any job paid or unpaid saw you hauled off JSA to keep the figures low.

[Kizzy]

George Osborne has used a 90-minute debate on the charter for budget responsibility, committing the government to running a permanent budget surplus in normal times after 2019, to attack Labour as a party of “fiscal irresponsibility”. In his first parliamentary outing against Osborne, John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, rejected this claim, saying Labour was committed to reducing the deficit in a way that was fair. McDonnell was mocked for his U-turn on this issue this week, but he insisted that he had only changed his mind on tactics not policy. As I write, the full voting figures are not available, but Labour says fewer than 30 MPs chose to abstain rather than to support the party line and vote against the government. That represents a blow to Jeremy Corbyn’s authority, but a relatively minor one because, in parliamentary terms, an abstention does not normally count as a proper rebellion.

[DemolitionRed]

http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

[Kizzy]

Yes the nation is in debt, big deal... Ethical economists would be looking for a way to balance the books with the least impact on the welfare of citizens.
It depends on what your interpretation of fiscal irresponsibility is as to which party is guilty of it.

[DemolitionRed]

Yes the nation is in debt, big deal... Ethical economists would be looking for a way to balance the books with the least impact on the welfare of citizens.
It depends on what your interpretation of fiscal irresponsibility is as to which party is guilty of it.

Its alarming that our national debt has soured up by £850 billion in the last five and a half years. That's significantly more than Blair and Brown added in 11 years.

What frightens me is, the government are now going to start squeezing money out of its population.

What do these new budget rules actually mean to the population of Britain?

[joeysteele]

George Osborne has used a 90-minute debate on the charter for budget responsibility, committing the government to running a permanent budget surplus in normal times after 2019, to attack Labour as a party of “fiscal irresponsibility”. In his first parliamentary outing against Osborne, John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, rejected this claim, saying Labour was committed to reducing the deficit in a way that was fair. McDonnell was mocked for his U-turn on this issue this week, but he insisted that he had only changed his mind on tactics not policy. As I write, the full voting figures are not available, but Labour says fewer than 30 MPs chose to abstain rather than to support the party line and vote against the government. That represents a blow to Jeremy Corbyn’s authority, but a relatively minor one because, in parliamentary terms, an abstention does not normally count as a proper rebellion.

Just into the 20s was the figure Kizzy and had they not done so this bill would still have got passed comfortably.
Where everyone else was is a mystery to me.
Labour and the SNP alone have nearly 290 MPs, yet only 258 voted against this bill.

It is simply a wrong policy at this time and I am yet to be convinced this govt will be running at any surplus by the time 2019 comes around anyway.
If anything they have presided over worse than what they took over in 2010.

Hence why they came crawling back in 2015 needing, they say, the same time to do the same things to achieve the same targets set in 2010 but failed to reach.
It would not surprise me to hear that argument again in 2020.

[Kizzy]

Its alarming that our national debt has soured up by £850 billion in the last five and a half years. That's significantly more than Blair and Brown added in 11 years.

What frightens me is, the government are now going to start squeezing money out of its population.

What do these new budget rules actually mean to the population of Britain?

I'm really annoyed thinking about it with Milliband, for not getting angrier and highlighting any of this during the election, he should've been shining a torch on all the dark recesses that the tories like to keep hidden. Corbyn comes across like a deputy headmaster at PMQs, it's better than it was but I really want him to go for the jugular.
I don't know what they mean, nobody seems to know what they mean that's the odd thing. Osborne raved on that voting against showed 'fiscal irresponsibility' what did voting for show? social irresponsibility as far as I can see.
I have a theory as to why this money is being clawed together in this manner, I think we're going to war.

[DemolitionRed]

In 2010 Labour brought in the Fiscal Responsibility Act which promised to halve the deficit by the end of 2014. This was repealed in 2011. Here is what Osborne had to say

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbLMccuA6P0
Instead of an opposition bench, they should just have a tv monitor playing back what he said in the past.

[DemolitionRed]

I'm really annoyed thinking about it with Milliband, for not getting angrier and highlighting any of this during the election, he should've been shining a torch on all the dark recesses that the tories like to keep hidden. Corbyn comes across like a deputy headmaster at PMQs, it's better than it was but I really want him to go for the jugular.
I don't know what they mean, nobody seems to know what they mean that's the odd thing. Osborne raved on that voting against showed 'fiscal irresponsibility' what did voting for show? social irresponsibility as far as I can see.
I have a theory as to why this money is being clawed together in this manner, I think we're going to war.

I feel your frustration Kizzy because I know exactly what you mean!

My husband said exactly that to me this morning...about war that is :sad: