The 2017 General Election

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by alanbjames

If the Tories were so good at making cuts to pay off the deficit why are we now borrowing more than when Labour was in power?

That was all Osbournes doing, phaps he needs lessons in Maths.

Economics trails politics by some time and to be fair to any chancellor he can't control what happens elsewhere in the world or even in their own country. Demand/supply/costs all can change and adversely affect budgeting. And the other side will not always act in ways to assist.

All said though Labour does tend to spend and Tories save so it's not unusual for Tories to bring in "tough" cuts and for Labour to reverse them.

The Tories put off their balanced budget target to 2025 so they took the deficit issue off the table this election. Makes it even weirder how little their manifesto had to offer

Originally Posted by alanbjames

If the Tories were so good at making cuts to pay off the deficit why are we now borrowing more than when Labour was in power?

That was all Osbournes doing, phaps he needs lessons in Maths.

I have to laugh whenever this is thrown out because it shows people's up for the lack of understanding of economics.

In 'cash terms', yes Tories have borrowed more than 33 years of combined Labour governments. However, with a much stronger economy, the government tends borrow more.

So in essence. In terms of total borrowing versus GDP, Labour's total time in office borrowed 70% of GDP, since 2010, when Tories came to power it's been only 40% of GDP.

(Drops mic and walks off stage.)

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Please, that's what they want you to believe, the worst of Maggie thatchers privatisations and cuts came at the end of her reign and whilst we're at it look at the mess john major left the countries finances in, that was as big a car crash as any.

Please 'nothing'. Complete rubbish. Labour are simply not to be trusted with the nations finances and given all Jezza promised before the election last week, he would have left a massive hole that would need future generations to pay off, he obviously lives in a 'buy now, pay much much later' world.

It's not about believing, it's about the facts and your obsession with Mrs T, is astounding, I would not be surprised if you still had a dartboard with a picture of her stuck across it.

I think you need to bring yourself forward, she has been out of office since early 90's and she made some difficult choices and I know you are not going to agree, but when she came to power, she actually saved this country from the brink and brought those trade unions down a peg or two and stopped them bringing this country to it's knees with increasing demands and crippling strikes, in essence, back in the 70's during Labour led governments, they simply had too much power, something else that would return under a Corbyn/Momentum led Government.

I do not think anybody wants to go back to an era of trash piling up in the streets and the dead being unburied, electricity black outs etc etc.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Mick

Please 'nothing'. Complete rubbish. Labour are simply not to be trusted with the nations finances and given all Jezza promised before the election last week, he would have left a massive hole that would need future generations to pay off, he obviously lives in a 'buy now, pay much much later' world.

It's not about believing, it's about the facts and your obsession with Mrs T, is astounding, I would not be surprised if you still had a dartboard with a picture of her stuck across it.

I think you need to bring yourself forward, she has been out of office since early 90's and she made some difficult choices and I know you are not going to agree, but when she came to power, she actually saved this country from the brink and brought those trade unions down a peg or two and stopped them bringing this country to it's knees with increasing demands and crippling strikes, in essence, back in the 70's during Labour led governments, they simply had too much power, something else that would return under a Corbyn/Momentum led Government.

I do not think anybody wants to go back to an era of trash piling up in the streets and the dead being unburied, electricity black outs etc etc.

I'd like to know how much of the borrowing undertaken Tory governments over the years has been as a direct result of Labour's profligacy when it comes to spending and PFI. Someone always has to pay for Labour's debts and mishandling of the economy.

Corbyn did what Labour always do - promise to spend money. Remember their note to the new Chancellor back in 2010? That just about sums up their MO and why those who vote for them can't see through it yet is beyond me.

Did anyone really think McDonnell had changed his ideological spots?

John McDonnell and Ian Lavery are to celebrate Labour’s better-than-expected election defeat at a Cuba Solidarity Campaign party next week...

... as well as a tribute to Fidel Castro, before giving speeches in praise of the communist Cuban regime. For voters, a look at what you could have won. Of course Fidel never gave himself the opportunity to lose an election…

https://order-order.com/2017/06/13/m...#disqus_thread

I suppose he could be planning to honour the promise to resign, along with his loony mate Corbyn, after the communist party is over...

Originally Posted by Mick

I have to laugh whenever this is thrown out because it shows people's up for the lack of understanding of economics.

In 'cash terms', yes Tories have borrowed more than 33 years of combined Labour governments. However, with a much stronger economy, the government tends borrow more.

So in essence. In terms of total borrowing versus GDP, Labour's total time in office borrowed 70% of GDP, since 2010, when Tories came to power it's been only 40% of GDP.

(Drops mic and walks off stage.)

Kind of confused by that metic? Surely the reason the Conservatives have borrowed more is because the deficit still exists and, especially after 2008, it would have been especially high and you need additional borrowing to cover it. The Tories have reduced the deficit.

What are you measuring against when you compare the borrowing vs GDP? Is that the total debt as of now? GDP fluctuates so if we were to hit a recession tomorrow that 40% would instantly shoot up without the Government haven, yet, taken additional borrowing.

[denphone]

John Major urges Theresa May to pull out of DUP deal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7787681.html

In a dramatic intervention, the former Conservative prime minister warned the peace process is “fragile” and could fall part if the British government is no longer seen as “impartial”.

“People shouldn’t regard it as a given. It’s not certain, it’s under stress, it’s fragile,” Sir John said.

May faces down Tory MPs for first time since election humiliation
He urged the Prime Minister to pursue a minority government without “the baggage” of an agreement with the DUP.

Originally Posted by Damien

Kind of confused by that metic? Surely the reason the Conservatives have borrowed more is because the deficit still exists and, especially after 2008, it would have been especially high and you need additional borrowing to cover it. The Tories have reduced the deficit.

What are you measuring against when you compare the borrowing vs GDP? Is that the total debt as of now? GDP fluctuates so if we were to hit a recession tomorrow that 40% would instantly shoot up without the Government haven, yet, taken additional borrowing.

I agree with the fluctuations taking in to account inflation going either up or down.

I am trying to find the source that I have seen the figures I posted above, the 70% and 40% total borrowing vs all the years of a Labour government vs. current Tory in last 7 years...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39999460

The claim: The governments since 2010 have borrowed more than all the Labour governments in history.

Reality Check verdict: That's true in cash terms but not when you take into account the growing economy.

Among the more eye-catching claims of the campaign so far has been Jeremy Corbyn's repeated assertion that the Conservative-led governments since 2010 have borrowed more money than all Labour governments in history.

<Snip>

The simplest way to examine this claim is to compare the amounts in cash terms, add up the amounts borrowed by all Labour governments and compare the total with the amount borrowed since 2010.

By this calculation, the combined Labour governments borrowed a little more than £500bn over their 33 years while the governments since 2010 have borrowed a bit more than £670bn.

So a better comparison to make is government borrowing as a proportion of GDP, which is a measure of everything produced in the economy.

By that measure it turns out that all Labour governments borrowed about 70% of GDP while the governments since 2010 borrowed about 40% of GDP, which is a very different picture.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mick

I have to laugh whenever this is thrown out because it shows people's up for the lack of understanding of economics.

In 'cash terms', yes Tories have borrowed more than 33 years of combined Labour governments. However, with a much stronger economy, the government tends borrow more.

So in essence. In terms of total borrowing versus GDP, Labour's total time in office borrowed 70% of GDP, since 2010, when Tories came to power it's been only 40% of GDP.

(Drops mic and walks off stage.)

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 ----------



Please 'nothing'. Complete rubbish. Labour are simply not to be trusted with the nations finances and given all Jezza promised before the election last week, he would have left a massive hole that would need future generations to pay off, he obviously lives in a 'buy now, pay much much later' world.

It's not about believing, it's about the facts and your obsession with Mrs T, is astounding, I would not be surprised if you still had a dartboard with a picture of her stuck across it.

I think you need to bring yourself forward, she has been out of office since early 90's and she made some difficult choices and I know you are not going to agree, but when she came to power, she actually saved this country from the brink and brought those trade unions down a peg or two and stopped them bringing this country to it's knees with increasing demands and crippling strikes, in essence, back in the 70's during Labour led governments, they simply had too much power, something else that would return under a Corbyn/Momentum led Government.

I do not think anybody wants to go back to an era of trash piling up in the streets and the dead being unburied, electricity black outs etc etc.

Stick your head in the sand if you want but the reason you have to go back to the early nineties is because that's when they last won an election outright until recently and look at the mess they made of it then and the point was that the Conservatives hadn't even bothered to cost their manifesto this time round, whenever corbyn announced a policy the tories would shout how's this going to be paid for and he'd have some made up figures to point at, ask Mrs Mayday how she intended to pay for something and she'd say we're going to build a strong economy, not an answer imo

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Stick your head in the sand if you want but the reason you have to go back to the early nineties is because that's when they last won an election outright until recently and look at the mess they made of it then and the point was that the Conservatives hadn't even bothered to cost their manifesto this time round, whenever corbyn announced a policy the tories would shout how's this going to be paid for and he'd have some made up figures to point at, ask Mrs Mayday how she intended to pay for something and she'd say we're going to build a strong economy, not an answer imo

They had every right to shout how this was going to be paid because there was no money for it! Labour is a buy now, pay for it and bankrupt us later, party.

And as for my head, it is not in the sand, you need to look closer to home to that, to believe Labour's manifesto was fully costed, when it most certainly was not.

[denphone]

Whether it was fully costed remains open to question but the Conservatives manifesto was a absolute disastrous shambles unless you think otherwise? as none of their stuff was costed as well and even people within her own party criticised it massively...

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Mick

They had every right to shout how this was going to be paid because there was no money for it! Labour is a buy now, pay for it and bankrupt us later, party.

And as for my head, it is not in the sand, you need to look closer to home to that, to believe Labour's manifesto was fully costed, when it most certainly was not.

It was fully costed just in the sense that it would have costed a hell of a lot and there's no way their changes to corporation tax etc. would have generated the revenue they claimed. Same old same old Labour...

Originally Posted by denphone

Whether it was fully costed remains open to question but the Conservatives manifesto was a absolute disastrous shambles unless you think otherwise? as none of their stuff was costed as well and even people within her own party criticised it massively...

I don't disagree with that denphone. But Labour's was not costed at all. Yeah sure, to gullible people it seemed like the holy grail. But there is too many holes in it because too much has been promised, that the country cannot afford, sure let's tax the rich, but watch that source of income, i.e the rich, move over seas, leaving a massive black hole.

I just see what has happened in history and history dictates that Labour leave the nations finances in a dire state, every time they leave office via losing power.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mick

I don't disagree with that denphone. But Labour's was not costed at all. Yeah sure, to gullible people it seemed like the holy grail. But there is too many holes in it because too much has been promised, that the country cannot afford, sure let's tax the rich, but watch that source of income, i.e the rich, move over seas, leaving a massive black hole.

I just see what has happened in history and history dictates that Labour leave the nations finances in a dire state, every time they leave office via losing power.

Personally l ain't impressed with any of them as the vast majority of politicians all seem to live on another planet and put their own personal interests and political glory first rather then put the full interests of the nation first and foremost and now we have crucial Brexit talks starting next week and what political chaos which has now unfolded in front of our eyes with the government struggling to survive unless they get the support of the DUC.

What a total utter disaster as Theresa May should have never called a election IMO in the first place as what has unfolded now because she put political glory first rather then governing in the national interest now makes Brexit far far harder to navigate then it ever was before sadly IMO.

[Osem]

Anyway the indisputable fact is that in a general election and in spite of all that Tory nastiness, austerity, dementia tax, NHS privatisation, baby eating etc etc etc. Corbyn's cronies still won 56 less seats. That's about as much a success as Gordon Brown's prudence was but those whose lives are spent sucking up and recirculating fake news on social media won't know that.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mick

They had every right to shout how this was going to be paid because there was no money for it! Labour is a buy now, pay for it and bankrupt us later, party.

And as for my head, it is not in the sand, you need to look closer to home to that, to believe Labour's manifesto was fully costed, when it most certainly was not.

I never said it was accurate or that I believed labours figures, what I said for the third or fourth time is the Conservatives didn't even bother to cost theirs at all, which given their plans for breakfast clubs is probably a good thing as based on that they'd be more laughable than labour's

---------- Post added at 17:02 ---------- Previous post was at 17:01 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Whether it was fully costed remains open to question but the Conservatives manifesto was a absolute disastrous shambles unless you think otherwise? as none of their stuff was costed as well and even people within her own party criticised it massively...

No its not open to question at all, try reading it, it's light on figures throughout