Labour going from strength to strength
 

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...-a7821071.html

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

Crikey



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

Pretty colours. :love:

I just thought the thread needed a make-over. It was being neglected.

Strewth.

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

Labour leaving their haters shook! :clap1:

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.

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/gene...overnment.html

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.

Angus Robertson spent 93% of that on whisky

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Chilcott said today Blair acted on belief and not facts

i think that was a very Blair thing

That isn't the issue here is it?

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.