Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016135)

What complete and utter nonsence, jfman. You really do enjoy trying to prove that black is white, don't you?

Here's a nice, easy to read report which shows your comments for the mistruths they are.

https://www.ft.com/content/928f7a7c-...d-04f350474d62

The UK government’s borrowing hit a 17-year low during the past financial year, according to preliminary figures published by the Office for National Statistics on Wednesday. The government spent £24.7bn more than it received between April 2018 and March 2019, down from £41.8bn during the 2017-18 financial year. It was the lowest annual borrowing since 2001-02. The government has been trying to reduce the public sector shortfall since it reached close to a tenth of national income in 2010.

Tax revenues from high-earning City workers collapsed after the 2008 financial crisis while spending on stimulus measures and benefits increased. Borrowing has recently fallen faster than predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the UK’s fiscal watchdog, thanks to rapid growth in tax receipts. Despite sluggish overall growth, stable employment and an increase in wages has helped support both income tax revenues and value added tax receipts, said John Hawksworth, chief economist at advisory firm PwC. “Economic growth has therefore been relatively ‘tax-rich’ over the past year, which has played a key role in bringing the budget deficit down to more sustainable levels,” he said.

Income and value added tax receipts rose 5.8 per cent and 5.6 per cent respectively during the financial year compared with the previous 12 months, while revenue from capital gains tax was 18.6 per cent higher. However, an increase in borrowing during the month of March itself compared with the previous year meant that full-year borrowing was above the £22.8bn predicted by the OBR at the Spring Statement last month.

In their monthly commentary on the figures, the OBR said: “The figures typically take some months to settle down and revisions can be significant.” Borrowing has often been lowered by £3bn in subsequent estimates. Recommended Tax evasion and avoidance UK steps up probe of tax ‘underpayment' by US groups “The year-over-year increase in public borrowing is not a sign that the economy has shifted down a gear,” said Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, a consultancy. “The jump in borrowing compared to the previous March entirely reflected a £1.8bn increase in central government net investment, which is volatile and will boost the economy.”

The ONS said there were “notable” increases in government spending on goods and services during March as well as higher capital spending on infrastructure. Government debt fell for the second consecutive year as a percentage of national income during the past financial year, from 84.6 per cent of gross domestic product to 83.1 per cent. “The historically high deficits since 2008 mean that government debt is almost 50 per cent of national income higher than it was before the financial crisis, and will remain significantly above those levels for the foreseeable future,” said Thomas Pope, research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Doesn't sound like mismanagement of the economy to me.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016179)

You are confusing borrowing - total debt, with net borrowing in a fiscal period also known as a defecit.

I'm trying to prove black is black and white is white to a blind man, it would appear.

The UK national debt has never been higher in straightforward Great British Pounds.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016190)

I am not confusing anything, but you look plenty confused to me.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36016197)

National debt has never been higher.

We are running a defecit.

Two statements of absolute fact.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36016147)

You have a very simplistic view of economic history and who is responsible for what. Here is a very interesting article disproving the myth that Labour is responsible for austerity:

Can Labour be blamed for the economic crisis?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016201)

I can see you are even more confused than I thought. I don't think anyone disagrees with your statement. Are you arguing with yourself?

I would add to those 'absolute statements of fact' that the deficit has been reduced significantly and it was covering that deficit that has led to the increase in the national debt.

I would further add that Labour did not cause the world-wide financial crisis. Of course they didn't. But they are responsible for the failure to prudently keep money aside for emergencies. Had they done so (and not spent all the proceeds from the sale of our gold reserves), there would have been no need for the austerity that the Conservatives had to impose to avoid sinking with the likes of Greece.

These, too, are factual statements that give your factual statements a bit of context.

I am sure that there will be arguments galore about this during the election campaign, and around in circles we shall go.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36016201)

I can see you are even more confused than I thought. I don't think anyone disagrees with your statement. Are you arguing with yourself?

I would add to those 'absolute statements of fact' that the deficit has been reduced significantly and it was covering that deficit that has led to the increase in the national debt.

I would further add that Labour did not cause the world-wide financial crisis. Of course they didn't. But they are responsible for the failure to prudently keep money aside for emergencies. Had they done so (and not spent all the proceeds from the sale of our gold reserves), there would have been no need for the austerity that the Conservatives had to impose to avoid sinking with the likes of Greece.

These, too, are factual statements that give your factual statements a bit of context.

I am sure that there will be arguments galore about this during the election campaign, and around in circles we shall go.

---------- Post added at 19:16 ---------- Previous post was at 19:01 ----------



:D

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? But wait a minute, did you actually miss the most significant admission of Labour's ineptitude in this piece? Even the author had to admit:

One argument is that if the UK had run a balanced budget in the 2000s, public sector debt would have been lower and the UK would have had more room for manoeuvre in pursuing expansionary fiscal policy when the recession hit and we needed expansionary fiscal policy.

There is some credence to this, with a balanced budget and lower public sector debt to start with, governments may have felt greater confidence to borrow even more in the recession – when the UK economy needed expansionary fiscal policy.

Thank you for the confirmation of what I have been saying all this time.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36016223)

You appear to have accidentally missed out the following paragraphs, which clarified his position...

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36016158)

General Election Nowcast (05/11):

CON: 368 (-10), 37.8% (+1.2)
LAB: 184 (+12), 26.9% (+2.4)
SNP: 50 (=), 3.2% (=)
LDM: 25 (-3), 15.9% (-2.0)

CON Working Majority of 91 (-20).

See the graphics for the full results.
Changes w/ 29/10.

Support me on http://ko-fi.com/electionmapsuk

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36016227)

More news on that slur story against Jo Swinson.

How a misleading story about Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson went viral