Tories don't need a magic money tree!

[SirGalahad]

Breakdown of Bretton Woods and the rise of uncontrolled fiat money and neo liberalism starting in the 80s has compounded the situation.

 

[JP_]

Data from the Office for National Statistics below shows the percentages of National Debt (excluding public sector banks) to GDP at each date of each general election dates.

Labour: 1945 (243.8%) to 1951 (178.3%)
Conservative: 1951 (178.3%) to 1955 (139.3%) to 1959 (112.5%) to 1964 (88.9%)
Labour: 1964 (88.9%) to 1966 (80.8%) to 1970 (59.5%)
Conservative: 1970 (59.5%) to 1974 (57.0%)
Labour: 1974 (57.0%) to 1979 (45.1%)
Conservative: 1979 (45.1%) to 1983 (41.5%) to 1987 (34.3%) to 1992 (28.1%) to 1997 (38.4%)
Labour: 1997 (38.4%) to 2001 (29.1%) to 2005 (35.4%) to 2010 (71.7%)
Conservative/LibDem: 2010 (71.7%) to 2015 (84.9%)
Conservative: 2015 (84.9%) to 2017 (86.1%)

Debt ratio has increased for 3 conservative governments and 2 labour governments - the most recent the financial crisis in 2008-10.

Must be fake news! How could the Daily Mail and Express misinterpret these clear facts?!? It's an outrage! The tories want you to be richer, they're the best, vote tory!

 

[Notch7]

I can see how the free money for almost everyone is attractive, but the borrowed money is just loading the next generation up with massive debts. We are already subsidising the 'boomer generation who did not contribute anything like the amount needed to prop up their defined benefits pensions which is burning companies and therefore consumers, are we to expect the next generation to do the same for us?

The state needs to be sized within the country's means. Sometimes you can stimulate growth through investment but these spending plans are eye watering. They will bankrupt the UK.

So how come the Tories have had austerity and debt has still increased?
It doesnt seem to have worked......well the rich have got much richer during austerity -it is no surprise that 1/3 of UK billionaires are Tory donors.

A criticism of the Conservative Coalition government in 2010-12 was not that debt increased, but that they didn’t focus on economic recovery – but prioritised deficit reduction at the wrong time. The deflationary fiscal policy proved a drag on the recovery, making it one of the slowest on record.

 

[Brigadier]

So I asked filly to defend his point re debt and that somehow means I need to justify labour time in office.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I was only asking you a question, in no way related to any point previously-made.

 

[JP_]

Economists and academics back Labour spending plans
163 signatories to letter say party ‘deserves to form the next government’
https://www.ft.com/content/d29b4cbe...T7SK91Cu1_z7FOHAGVPdF5lA6TJekETlGHSHBzEud8FTc

But don't believe the experts, believe tabloid journalists who are paid to make up stories to support the tories.

Full article:


The Labour party received a boost on Tuesday when 163 economists signed a public letter offering broad support for its proposals for higher public investment to kick start growth and raise productivity.

The letter published in the Financial Times lamented Britain’s poor economic performance of the past decade, called for “a serious injection of public investment” and said Britain would benefit from greater state involvement in national economic management.

Although most of the signatories are left-leaning academics, their support for the proposals for radical measures will come as a boost for Labour at a time when the Conservatives, who have led the government since 2010, are attacking the party’s manifesto as likely to cause an economic crisis within months.

“It seems clear to us that the Labour party has not only understood the deep problems we face, but has devised serious proposals for dealing with them. We believe it deserves to form the next government,” the letter said.

Michael Jacobs, professor of political economy at Sheffield university, who co-ordinated the letter, said it had been surprisingly easy to find economists willing to sign. “The easiest thing for academic economists to do is sit on the fence,” he said, adding that “although academics generally do not go out on a limb, most had been willing to say that the UK faced a big choice and that enough of Labour’s programme accords with their own views”.

Five who took the lead in promoting the letter included David Blanchflower, professor of economics at Dartmouth College, in the US, who publicly fell out with Jeremy Corbyn, writing in 2016 that under Mr Corbyn: “Labour does not seem to have a credible economic plan.”

The others were Victoria Chick, emeritus professor of economics at University College London; Meghnad Desai, emeritus professor of economics at the London School of Economics; Stephany Griffith-Jones, emeritus professorial fellow at the Institute of Development Studies; and Simon Wren-Lewis, emeritus professor of economics at Merton College, University of Oxford.

The letter challenged the Conservative claim that it had run a “strong economy” since 2010, saying there had been “10 years of near zero productivity growth”, stagnant corporate investment, low wage growth and increasingly strained public services.

With business investment having fallen for most of the past two years, the authors said higher public investment would help raise growth and productivity on its own as well as “leverag[ing] private finance attracted by the expectation of higher demand”.

All three main parties are offering higher public investment, ranging from £100bn over five years from the Conservatives to £275bn from Labour, in moves that will increase public borrowing but hope to improve longer-term economic performance.

Other economists have questioned whether it will be easy for the government to spend such large amounts quickly without waste and choosing poor investment projects.

 

[Brigadier]

Economists and academics back Labour spending plans
163 signatories to letter say party ‘deserves to form the next government’
https://www.ft.com/content/d29b4cbe...T7SK91Cu1_z7FOHAGVPdF5lA6TJekETlGHSHBzEud8FTc

But don't believe the experts, believe tabloid journalists who are paid to make up stories to support the tories.

Full article:


The Labour party received a boost on Tuesday when 163 economists signed a public letter offering broad support for its proposals for higher public investment to kick start growth and raise productivity.

The letter published in the Financial Times lamented Britain’s poor economic performance of the past decade, called for “a serious injection of public investment” and said Britain would benefit from greater state involvement in national economic management.

Although most of the signatories are left-leaning academics, their support for the proposals for radical measures will come as a boost for Labour at a time when the Conservatives, who have led the government since 2010, are attacking the party’s manifesto as likely to cause an economic crisis within months.

“It seems clear to us that the Labour party has not only understood the deep problems we face, but has devised serious proposals for dealing with them. We believe it deserves to form the next government,” the letter said.

Michael Jacobs, professor of political economy at Sheffield university, who co-ordinated the letter, said it had been surprisingly easy to find economists willing to sign. “The easiest thing for academic economists to do is sit on the fence,” he said, adding that “although academics generally do not go out on a limb, most had been willing to say that the UK faced a big choice and that enough of Labour’s programme accords with their own views”.

Five who took the lead in promoting the letter included David Blanchflower, professor of economics at Dartmouth College, in the US, who publicly fell out with Jeremy Corbyn, writing in 2016 that under Mr Corbyn: “Labour does not seem to have a credible economic plan.”

The others were Victoria Chick, emeritus professor of economics at University College London; Meghnad Desai, emeritus professor of economics at the London School of Economics; Stephany Griffith-Jones, emeritus professorial fellow at the Institute of Development Studies; and Simon Wren-Lewis, emeritus professor of economics at Merton College, University of Oxford.

The letter challenged the Conservative claim that it had run a “strong economy” since 2010, saying there had been “10 years of near zero productivity growth”, stagnant corporate investment, low wage growth and increasingly strained public services.

With business investment having fallen for most of the past two years, the authors said higher public investment would help raise growth and productivity on its own as well as “leverag[ing] private finance attracted by the expectation of higher demand”.

All three main parties are offering higher public investment, ranging from £100bn over five years from the Conservatives to £275bn from Labour, in moves that will increase public borrowing but hope to improve longer-term economic performance.

Other economists have questioned whether it will be easy for the government to spend such large amounts quickly without waste and choosing poor investment projects.

 

[JohnD]

why is it still such a widely - held view?

Because some people see a benefit to themselves by spreading false stories.

And others find it comfortable to believe them.

It works! Brexers wouldn't have won the ref without the "£350 million to the NHS" lie.

Where would Trump and Buffoon be without their own dishonesty, aided by human gullibility?

 

[motorbiking]

So how come the Tories have had austerity and debt has still increased?
It doesnt seem to have worked......well the rich have got much richer during austerity -it is no surprise that 1/3 of UK billionaires are Tory donors.

Imagine in 2010 you earned Net £30K and spent £35K, in 2015 you earned net £25k and spent net £28k, spending down, debt up. Simples.
You could of course, keep spending £5k more than you earn and eventually someone will petition for bankruptcy.

 

[Vinty]

Minimum wage should be raised in order to generate more taxes which in turn means less taxpayer's money spent on subsidising the profits of big businesses.
Even the rich agree on this point
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/12/mos...x-on-wealth-above-50-million-cnbc-survey.html

 

[JohnD]

You could of course, keep spending £5k more than you earn and eventually someone will petition for bankruptcy.

you're talking about Tory policies to chuck money around and increase the deficit.

 

[Notch7]

Imagine in 2010 you earned Net £30K and spent £35K, in 2015 you earned net £25k and spent net £28k, spending down, debt up. Simples.
You could of course, keep spending £5k more than you earn and eventually someone will petition for bankruptcy.

other countries that did not impose austerity recovered more quickly.

Tories have cut taxes: corporation tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax and the bank levy

The rich have significantly increased their wealth since 2010 -yet those at the bottom of the ladder have suffered more.

I dont think it is 'simples'