Labour going from strength to strength

[Kizzy]

20 new appointments for the Labour front bench, some supporters some not.. onwards and upwards!! :D

Jeremy Corbyn has made a raft of appointments to Labour's front bench as he seeks to unite the party after strengthening his position as leader.

The Labour leader has given jobs to 20 MPs, including a number that have been openly critical of his leadership.

Among those to be brought back into the fold include former shadow cabinet minister Gloria de Piero, who was the second to resign from the shadow cabinet last May citing concerns about Mr Corbyn's leadership.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-jeremy-corbyn-latest-shadow-frontbench-cabinet-mps-gloria-de-piero-chris-williamson-a7821071.html

[Alf]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD_6O-fXsAEtCC1.jpg:large

[Kizzy]

Right... now let's have the national debt please.

[Alf]

Crikey



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD_5nwRXUAM39Pw.jpg:large

[Marsh.]

Pretty colours. :love:

[Alf]

Pretty colours. :love:I just thought the thread needed a make-over. It was being neglected.

[smudgie]

Crikey



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD_5nwRXUAM39Pw.jpg:large

Strewth.

[the truth]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD_6O-fXsAEtCC1.jpg:large

yep so the entire country is actually better off under the tories lol

[Tom4784]

Labour leaving their haters shook! :clap1:

[DemolitionRed]

yep so the entire country is actually better off under the tories lol

Do you have any understanding of mainstream economics at all?

When a government doesn't spend it leaves its country in the doldrums. When its spending less than it gets back in taxes its actually doing the economy a massive disservice because its taking money out of the economy. If you take lots of money in and only put part of that money back, it can only mean one thing; we earn less and things cost more. It makes no economic sense and its completely unjustified.

Neoliberal ideology is to have a small state. They don’t want the state interfering with our health, teaching and education. They want to sell all those public sector things off to the private sector and this is the only reason we are now being squeezed so hard by the Tories. Its collusive corruption that isn't being reported by mainstream media.

Its disaster capitalism in order to strip the country of its assets. (http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/07/06/the-national-debt-costs-us-in-net-terms-precisely-nothing-a-year-but-thats-apparently-too-costly-for-the-next-generation-to-bear/)

[MTVN]

Do you have any understanding of mainstream economics at all?

When a government doesn't spend it leaves its country in the doldrums. When its spending less than it gets back in taxes its actually doing the economy a massive disservice because its taking money out of the economy. If you take lots of money in and only put part of that money back, it can only mean one thing; we earn less and things cost more. It makes no economic sense and its completely unjustified.

Neoliberal ideology is to have a small state. They don’t want the state interfering with our health, teaching and education. They want to sell all those public sector things off to the private sector and this is the only reason we are now being squeezed so hard by the Tories. Its collusive corruption that isn't being reported by mainstream media.

Its disaster capitalism in order to strip the country of its assets. (http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/07/06/the-national-debt-costs-us-in-net-terms-precisely-nothing-a-year-but-thats-apparently-too-costly-for-the-next-generation-to-bear/)

Well not when you have a massive budget deficit, ours is one of the highest in Europe

[Brillopad]

Well not when you have a massive budget deficit, ours is one of the highest in Europe

Precisely - Labour - the tax and spend Party - no changes there then! :shrug:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11576801/Did-New-Labour-spend-too-much-in-government.html

[smudgie]

Do you have any understanding of mainstream economics at all?

When a government doesn't spend it leaves its country in the doldrums. When its spending less than it gets back in taxes its actually doing the economy a massive disservice because its taking money out of the economy. If you take lots of money in and only put part of that money back, it can only mean one thing; we earn less and things cost more. It makes no economic sense and its completely unjustified.

Neoliberal ideology is to have a small state. They don’t want the state interfering with our health, teaching and education. They want to sell all those public sector things off to the private sector and this is the only reason we are now being squeezed so hard by the Tories. Its collusive corruption that isn't being reported by mainstream media.

Its disaster capitalism in order to strip the country of its assets. (http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/07/06/the-national-debt-costs-us-in-net-terms-precisely-nothing-a-year-but-thats-apparently-too-costly-for-the-next-generation-to-bear/)

We are not spending less than we get back in taxes.
The Tories have cut the Deficit by two thirds, until they get the other third paid off we are still living beyond our means.
Until we stop living beyond our means there is no chance of paying off any of the National debt.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Angus Robertson spent 93% of that on whisky

[joeysteele]

Right... now let's have the national debt please.

The national debt has gone from one trillion in 2010 to 1.7 trillion now under this lot.
Not a figure Cons want people to see Kizzy.

[Crimson Dynamo]

During the 13 years in which Labour was in power, there was an almost x3 increase in the national debt

[Toy Soldier]

During the 13 years in which Labour was in power, there was an almost x3 increase in the national debt
It's almost as if - - - dun dun dddeeerrrrr - - - it makes absolutely no difference who is in power and it was the inevitable conclusion of global neoliberalism.

Sort of like... There are global political tides that can't be altered no matter who is in Westminster :omgno:, and squabbling over whose "which party's fault" it is is a pointless and fruitless exercise, as the poor continue to get relatively poorer, and the rich continue to laugh their way to the bank.

[Crimson Dynamo]

It's almost as if - - - dun dun dddeeerrrrr - - - it makes absolutely no difference who is in power and it was the inevitable conclusion of global neoliberalism.

Sort of like... There are global political tides that can't be altered no matter who is in Westminster :omgno:, and squabbling over whose "which party's fault" it is is a pointless and fruitless exercise, as the poor continue to get relatively poorer, and the rich continue to laugh their way to the bank.

well yes, individual parties are not going to be able to shield against a global financial crisis regardless of how it happened. The minute our GDP shrinks, the debt becomes, shall we say, a bit of a thing

[Toy Soldier]

The uncomfortable truth is that the world can't support 7 billion-and-increasing people under our current systems of government and finance. It's not working. It's very possible, to be totally frank, that there isn't a system that DOES work.

[Kizzy]

During the 13 years in which Labour was in power, there was an almost x3 increase in the national debt

We were at war, war does that drain resources. Are we at war now?
( plus a recession)

'But if the government spends less than it receives, then of course it would run a budget surplus. This may seem a strange concept in today's economic climate, but between 1998 and 2001 we had four straight years of surplus.'

Labour here reducing the deficit also without doubling debt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653

[Crimson Dynamo]

We were at war, war does that drain resources. Are we at war now?
( plus a recession)

Maybe the war was a bad idea?

[Toy Soldier]

Maybe the war was a bad idea?

Hmm, but it was another thing that was going to happen regardless of who was in power. The "Blair-Bush-Blame" is a total red herring there.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Hmm, but it was another thing that was going to happen regardless of who was in power. The "Blair-Bush-Blame" is a total red herring there.

Chilcott said today Blair acted on belief and not facts

i think that was a very Blair thing

[Kizzy]

Maybe the war was a bad idea?

That isn't the issue here is it?

[Toy Soldier]

Chilcott said today Blair acted on belief and not facts

i think that was a very Blair thing

That's entirely the point though, bigger things than Blair at play. I think if you could write an alternative timeline with another PM in charge, by amazing coincidence, they would have "acted on belief and not facts" too.

In other words, I personally don't believe he was given a whole lot of choice.

[DemolitionRed]

Well not when you have a massive budget deficit, ours is one of the highest in Europe

Deficits matter but what really matters is what your spending on. Italy’s deficit is lower today than Britain. Italy’s deficit has been lower than Germany’s deficit for the last 20 years; what does that tell us? It shows us that the deficit has never been the problem, the problem is Debt to GDP and the question is, what kind of investments will transform the entire economy and enhance the GDP?

We can only achieve long term growth if we stop making spending a false dilemma. If we don’t restore stable growth, the deficit will continue to rise. Fixing market failures will inevitably continue to fail if we don’t have a change in corporate governance and if we don’t form a new relationship between capital and labor.

[DemolitionRed]

Precisely - Labour - the tax and spend Party - no changes there then! :shrug:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11576801/Did-New-Labour-spend-too-much-in-government.html

:facepalm: Says the person who is committed to misunderstanding.

[Livia]

Labour STILL not understanding the figures. In the time since the Tories took over the Labourites have had a few years to sort their excuses... there was a world-wide recession... we would have gone to war under the Tories - which is at best, a matter for conjecture. Two weeks before the General Election Corbyn was a joke. Let's see where he is in five years.

[Toy Soldier]

their excuses... there was a world-wide recession...

:UMM2: W... what? Are we now down to pretending that there wasn't?

[Livia]

:UMM2: W... what? Are we now down to pretending that there wasn't?

I know you think I'm stupid but I am actually not.

Yes there was a world-wide recession... and we were hit particularly hard in this country because the Labour government couldn't then, and have never been able to, balance the books.

[Kizzy]

And the reason for the doubling of the national debt is?.......

[Toy Soldier]

I know you think I'm stupid but I am actually not.

I don't, this is entirely your own issue and always has been Livia, but I am getting tired of saying it so carry on believing it if you want :shrug:.

[Livia]

I don't, this is entirely your own issue and always has been Livia, but I am getting tired of saying it so carry on believing it if you want :shrug:.

The clue has always been in the words for me. And it's a shame... because I miss discussing stuff with you.

[Brillopad]

Labour STILL not understanding the figures. In the time since the Tories took over the Labourites have had a few years to sort their excuses... there was a world-wide recession... we would have gone to war under the Tories - which is at best, a matter for conjecture. Two weeks before the General Election Corbyn was a joke. Let's see where he is in five years.

A has-been like Milliband.

[Vicky.]

I know you think I'm stupid but I am actually not.

Yes there was a world-wide recession... and we were hit particularly hard in this country because the Labour government couldn't then, and have never been able to, balance the books.

Books were pretty balanced tbh before the global recession. Also banking crash would have hit us even harder had the Tories been in at the time as they actually wanted less regulation on the banks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-myth-excessive-government-borrowing-got-us-into-this-mess-8601390.html

The overall picture is of a pre-recession Labour government whose borrowing and spending were sustainable and a post-recession Labour government that made more or less the right moves to stave off an even more calamitous downturn.

This is not to say that Gordon Brown et al got everything right. The Labour government presided over an era of irresponsibility in UK banking. However, the numbers show that their approach to spending and borrowing was actually sound. The irony is that Labour gets a lot of criticism for a crime of which they are innocent (spending too much) and hardly any at all for one of which they are guilty (not regulating the banks).

Reckless government borrowing and spending can indeed pitch countries into an economic crisis. But to co-opt this narrative to explain the UK's current situation is economically illiterate. The striking figures on leverage in the UK banking system show that the ones taking historically unprecedented risks with their finances were not politicians, but banking chiefs.

Excessive government borrowing did not get us into this mess. Falsely believing that it does covers all manners of sins when it comes to government spending cuts. Understanding the real causes behind the recession frees our political conversation. No longer should we be arguing about how deep the cuts should be, but whether we should be cutting at all.

Borrowing more and spending more are not the kamikaze strategies the Government would have us think. More government borrowing and spending now won't make things worse. In fact, the numbers suggest, there's a good chance it's the only thing likely to make things any better.

It gets rather annoying seeing Labour be blamed for something that happened worldwide. As if Labour are that powerful D:

Only real criticism I have of Labour is the war. And thats not even a labour thing, its a Blair thing. And Blairs 'New Labour' was closer to the tories than anything tbh. Labour is finally left again IMO. Other criticism thinking about it is not building more social housing, as thats caused a lot of the problems we have today. Selling off council houses (hen not replacing them) was ridiculous, though not sure which party actually started that.

[Livia]

Books were pretty balanced tbh before the global recession. Also banking crash would have hit us even harder had the Tories been in at the time as they actually wanted less regulation on the banks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-myth-excessive-government-borrowing-got-us-into-this-mess-8601390.html



It gets rather annoying seeing Labour be blamed for something that happened worldwide. As if Labour are that powerful D:

Only real criticism I have of Labour is the war. And thats not even a labour thing, its a Blair thing. And Blairs 'New Labour' was closer to the tories than anything tbh. Labour is finally left again IMO. Other criticism thinking about it is not building more social housing, as thats caused a lot of the problems we have today. Selling off council houses (hen not replacing them) was ridiculous, though not sure which party actually started that.

But Labour can't balance the books, generally. They get in, they overspend... they're voted out and the Tories get in... the Tories balance they make cuts and try to get spending under control... then Labour get in and spend all the money again. It's a never ending cycle.

And yeah, I have to agree that Thatcher's idea to sell off council houses was one in a long line of bad moves... and not replacing those that were sold was an even worse move.

[arista]

Labour leaving their haters shook! :clap1:

For Sure Dezzy

[DemolitionRed]

I know you think I'm stupid but I am actually not.

Yes there was a world-wide recession... and we were hit particularly hard in this country because the Labour government couldn't then, and have never been able to, balance the books.

In one breath you want to remind us all that you're not stupid and in the next breath you want to remind us that we were hit particularly hard in this country because the Labour government couldn't balance the books. :facepalm:

[Kizzy]

But Labour can't balance the books, generally. They get in, they overspend... they're voted out and the Tories get in... the Tories balance they make cuts and try to get spending under control... then Labour get in and spend all the money again. It's a never ending cycle.

And yeah, I have to agree that Thatcher's idea to sell off council houses was one in a long line of bad moves... and not replacing those that were sold was an even worse move.

How do you consider doubling the national debt not overspending?

[Vicky.]

But Labour can't balance the books, generally. They get in, they overspend... they're voted out and the Tories get in... the Tories balance they make cuts and try to get spending under control... then Labour get in and spend all the money again. It's a never ending cycle.

And yeah, I have to agree that Thatcher's idea to sell off council houses was one in a long line of bad moves... and not replacing those that were sold was an even worse move.

I agree its a never ending cycle, but see it the opposite way to you. Tories cut vital services and take too much away from the poorest in society, then labour get in and restore the funding that should not have been cut in the first place, which looks like they are overspending. Tories in, cuts. Labour in, reversing :laugh:

Austerity is a totally idealistic pile of nonsense. The cuts they are making now aren't needed. The country would have recovered faster without the endless cuts. The country is recovering in spite of the Tories, not because of. Add the Brexit nonsense onto this and we will be ****ed again. It will be ridiculously expensive to get out IMO. This is why I am glad the Tories are still in charge to sort out their own mess. If labour had got in this election...they would have been forever blamed for the huge black hole brexit causes in our finances. Like they are blamed for the global recession.

The main problem I see honestly, that noone seems prepared to begin to tackle (though May did try with her manifesto and was slaughtered for it) is the aging population. The ridiculous promise of triple lock, fuel payments to millionaires and so on. We have too many old people. They are not contributing and the younger taxpayers are strained to pay for them all. I don't know the answer mind, but May was heading in the right direction with the 'cruel dementia tax'. Its unfair to expect younger taxpayers who are already in poverty to pay for older people who can afford to pay for themselves. Yes this may be a step towards privatization...but we simply cannot go on the way we are. Noone will seriously tackle it though as it is election suicide. have to lick up the pensioners arses to even stand a chance, and expect them to pay for something themselves doesn't go down well..as May found out D:

[DemolitionRed]

People really should watch this if they want to understand about deflation and the truth behind government debt. Its American but it works the same way in the UK.

iFDe5kUUyT0

[smudgie]

How do you consider doubling the national debt not overspending?

You can't get the National debt down until you get rid of the deficit.
Hence the more you spend the more debt will go up.
We pay approx £45-£50 billion a year interest, so best try to get it sorted whilst the interest RATE is reasonably low.
So unless we make cuts and live within our means it will just keep going up.:shrug:
I reckon they could hike up the income tax but that would only lead to more moaning so it's a case of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Kizzy]

You can't get the National debt down until you get rid of the deficit.
Hence the more you spend the more debt will go up.
We pay approx £45-£50 billion a year interest, so best try to get it sorted whilst the interest RATE is reasonably low.
So unless we make cuts and live within our means it will just keep going up.:shrug:
I reckon they could hike up the income tax but that would only lead to more moaning so it's a case of stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Main points
General government gross debt was £1,731.4 billion at the end of December 2016, equivalent to 89.3% of gross domestic product (GDP); an increase of £65.4 billion on December 2015.
The latest government debt figure exceeds the reference value of 60% of GDP set out in the Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure; general government gross debt first exceeded the 60% Maastricht reference value at the end of 2009 when it was 64.5% of GDP or £979.8 billion.
General government deficit (or net borrowing) decreased by £24.2 billion to £57.2 billion (equivalent to 3.0% GDP) in 2016, compared with 2015.
The Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure states that general government deficit should not exceed 3% of GDP; this is the first time the UK has met this requirement since 2007 when the deficit was 2.7% of GDP or £40.9 billion.

Then how has the deficit decreased and the debt increased?
This also shows the deficit was within range in 2007 and the debt was not out of the Maastricht reference value until 2009, therefor both well in range up to the end of the last govt.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicspending/bulletins/ukgovernmentdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/octtodec2016

[smudgie]

Then how has the deficit decreased and the debt increased?
This also shows the deficit was within range in 2007 and the debt was not out of the Maastricht reference value until 2009, therefor both well in range up to the end of the last govt.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicspending/bulletins/ukgovernmentdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/octtodec2016

In two words, interest and overspending.
The deficit is coming down due to less of an overspend than before.
The National debt will go up due to the billions we have to pay in interest every year. Plus the difference in the deficit balance we will have to borrow.

[Vicky.]

Is it actually true that we just owe the debt to...ourselves? If so, why the hell worry about paying it back? I know the economy is not as simple as doing a household budget...I don't really understand how it all works as until recently I did think we owed the debt to other countries...as I was wondering how the bloody hell near every country could be ion debt :laugh:

I feel a lot of spending is actually needed. Especially on public services. These flats that were built with unsafe materials, the councils should be given more cash to sort it rather than be told that they have to find the money themselves. Need attractive bursaries and such for nursing students to encourage more into the profession. Need to reverse the savage disability cuts and scrap the bedroom tax (until there are enough smaller properties available. I don't have an issue when people have the option to move to not have 'spare' rooms). Need to replace the police that have been cut...and so on. I am sure May said that austerity was over. Unless that was just more soundbytes to cling onto her job

[Kizzy]

In two words, interest and overspending.
The deficit is coming down due to less of an overspend than before.
The National debt will go up due to the billions we have to pay in interest every year. Plus the difference in the deficit balance we will have to borrow.

Sorry that makes no sense we reduced the deficit by 24 billion in a year but accrued 65 billion in debt?... nah :/

[smudgie]

Sorry that makes no sense we reduced the deficit by 24 billion in a year but accrued 65 billion in debt?... nah :/

You have to differentiate between the two.
We still spend more than we get in, in taxes etc, but we are not spending as much more than we used to, hence the deficit is coming down.

We accrue the National debt with interest on the loans, gilt and bonds that we borrow on. Plus the difference on the deficit.

We still haven't cleared the full deficit, only approx two thirds, so we still have to borrow the difference each year, so if we reduced it by 24 million in a year that is 24 million less we have to borrow to pay our way the next year.

[Alf]

Poor people are just not good with money.

Name me a poor person that's good with money?

[Vicky.]

Poor people are just not good with money.

Name me a poor person that's good with money?

Jack Monroe

You don't have examples of poor people in the news and stuff really, so this question is a bit odd. Near everyone who is spoken about is loaded :laugh: Even jack is now, but she wasn't.

[smudgie]

Is it actually true that we just owe the debt to...ourselves? If so, why the hell worry about paying it back? I know the economy is not as simple as doing a household budget...I don't really understand how it all works as until recently I did think we owed the debt to other countries...as I was wondering how the bloody hell near every country could be ion debt :laugh:

I feel a lot of spending is actually needed. Especially on public services. These flats that were built with unsafe materials, the councils should be given more cash to sort it rather than be told that they have to find the money themselves. Need attractive bursaries and such for nursing students to encourage more into the profession. Need to reverse the savage disability cuts and scrap the bedroom tax (until there are enough smaller properties available. I don't have an issue when people have the option to move to not have 'spare' rooms). Need to replace the police that have been cut...and so on. I am sure May said that austerity was over. Unless that was just more soundbytes to cling onto her job

No.
We owe about 35% abroad, and then to the private sector.
The government sell gilts and bonds to garner loans.
They do borrow some from themselves.
If we don't pay our debts then we will lose our ratings and be downgraded, therefore having to pay extra interest on what we owe.

[Alf]

Jack Monroe

You don't have examples of poor people in the news and stuff really, so this question is a bit odd. Near everyone who is spoken about is loaded :laugh: Even jack is now, but she wasn't.Well if Jack Monroe is good with money, then she won't be poor.

[Vicky.]

Well if Jack Monroe is good with money, then she won't be poor.
She isn't now :smug:

[Kizzy]

No.
We owe about 35% abroad, and then to the private sector.
The government sell gilts and bonds to garner loans.
They do borrow some from themselves.
If we don't pay our debts then we will lose our ratings and be downgraded, therefore having to pay extra interest on what we owe.

Shouldn't that be guns and bombs? :idc:

[Brillopad]

Shouldn't that be guns and bombs? :idc:

That's Blair!

[JTM45]

That's Blair!

I think this thread is about current things which would mean 'Guns & Bombs' would be the current answer to the question 'What does Theresa May like to sell to saudi Arabia ?' , right ?

[Kizzy]

I think this thread is about current things which would mean 'Guns & Bombs' would be the current answer to the question 'What does Theresa May like to sell to saudi Arabia ?' , right ?

Right!