[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/...rplus-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.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...rplus-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

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by MTVN

History grads are renowned for their all round expertise mind you

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

[bots]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Oh come on 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

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

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

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

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

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

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 . 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’.

[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.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/...erity-delusion

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[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/...te-live-debate

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by 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.'

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Yes

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

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?

[bots]

Originally Posted by 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?

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?