Government & Post Election Discussion

[1andrew1]

Bit of a wake-up call here from the IMF on the UK's finances.

Britain is languishing close to the bottom of the international league table for the strength of its public finances, the IMF said on Wednesday, with only Portugal’s long-term position deeper in the red.
The new figures, which compare the assets available to government with its long-term liabilities, show the UK government having less than £3tn in assets and £5tn of liabilities, indicating a negative net worth of more than £2tn.
Countries with deep negative net worth are likely to have to tax more heavily in future and run budget surpluses to bring assets back into line with liabilities.
The UK’s poor position reflects the fact that the government owns few assets compared with other countries after a wave of privatisation in the 1980s and 1990s, but has big public debts and future pension liabilities to finance in the decades ahead.

https://www.ft.com/content/3ee09db6-...6-b9069bde0956

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Bit of a wake-up call here from the IMF on the UK's finances.

https://www.ft.com/content/3ee09db6-...6-b9069bde0956

Expect the response. Experts! IMF! What do they know?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Bit of a wake-up call here from the IMF on the UK's finances.

https://www.ft.com/content/3ee09db6-...6-b9069bde0956

You'd better not vote Labour, then, if these figures worry you!

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You'd better not vote Labour, then, if these figures worry you!

But l don't give a diddly squat about Labour as we are talking about the incumbent government who have had plenty of time to sort things out but alas you come out with your usual predictable default Theresa May waving response to anybody who is critical of HMG as they are the government now end of..

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

But l don't give a diddly squat about Labour as we are talking about the incumbent government who have had plenty of time to sort things out but alas you come out with your usual predictable default Theresa May waving response to anybody who is critical of HMG as they are the government now end of..

I think I've done more than enough to explain my position on this, Den - it will get very boring if I have to keep saying the same things to justify my arguments.

However, it is relevant to look at what Labour did before and what it would do under Corbyn. Our economic position is complex to deal with, but it would be in a much worse state under Corbyn. We have seen some of his spending plans and they are absolutely mind boggling. If he went through with these under a Labour Government, he would create a situation where today's figures look like Utopia.

Of course the figures are bad - there was this banking crisis, you see, and Labour had no money put by in case of an emergency. Gordon Brown spent all the reserves on a massive spending spree so when the credit crunch came, there was no money to spare.

It fell to the Conservatives, with no money left, hampered in what they could do with the Lib Dems in coalition, to sort that mess out. They could have done it more quickly of course, but that would have increased austerity. That does not appear to be what you and many others like you would have wanted.

Those people who argue we should have borrowed even more in a vain attempt to put a sticking plaster over the nation's finances should not be allowed credit cards of their own.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You'd better not vote Labour, then, if these figures worry you!

They do worry me but I don't take a partisan view on proceedings. It's interesting that the IMF seems to lay some of the blame at the UK selling off the family silver through privatisation so we have nothing for the bad times.
A bit like companies like MG Rover who sold off their land and IP to pay the day-to-day bills but eventually had no assets left to sell. Those privatisation sales were Conservative not Labour policies.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

They do worry me but I don't take a partisan view on proceedings. It's interesting that the IMF seems to lay some of the blame at the UK selling off the family silver through privatisation so we have nothing for the bad times.
A bit like companies like MG Rover who sold off their land and IP to pay the day-to-day bills but eventually had no assets left to sell. Those privatisation sales were Conservative not Labour policies.

Isn't that a rather strange argument? If we sell, we are making money, which can be used to pay off debt. We pay it at that point to reduce the interest we are paying on the debt. If we sell it later rather than earlier, we are in a worse position because of all the additional interest we have paid.

It is also worth mentioning that privatised companies generally make more money than nationalised ones, and the government reaps the benefit of the increased profits made through taxation. The eastern rail franchise was a remarkable exception to that general principle.

As an aside, and before anyone else points this out, some contracts for services and the resulting franchises have been extremely badly managed, resulting in collapses and poor levels of service in some areas. Lessons must be learned from this in the future, because each collapse and each evidence of poor service brings the system into disrepute, despite the benefits that can be seen in those areas that are managed properly.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think I've done more than enough to explain my position on this, Den - it will get very boring if I have to keep saying the same things to justify my arguments.

However, it is relevant to look at what Labour did before and what it would do under Corbyn. Our economic position is complex to deal with, but it would be in a much worse state under Corbyn. We have seen some of his spending plans and they are absolutely mind boggling. If he went through with these under a Labour Government, he would create a situation where today's figures look like Utopia.

Of course the figures are bad - there was this banking crisis, you see, and Labour had no money put by in case of an emergency. Gordon Brown spent all the reserves on a massive spending spree so when the credit crunch came, there was no money to spare.

It fell to the Conservatives, with no money left, hampered in what they could do with the Lib Dems in coalition, to sort that mess out. They could have done it more quickly of course, but that would have increased austerity. That does not appear to be what you and many others like you would have wanted.

Those people who argue we should have borrowed even more in a vain attempt to put a sticking plaster over the nation's finances should not be allowed credit cards of their own.

Neither Labour or the Conservatives look at finance properly. What should happen is during the good times, taxes should go up and be invested for the bad times, so that taxes can be cut to help people in the lean times.

Instead, taxes are cut when people have spare, and raised when people are short.

Meanwhile, how many years should a government be in power before they stop blaming their predecessors?

Originally Posted by Angua

Neither Labour or the Conservatives look at finance properly. What should happen is during the good times, taxes should go up and be invested for the bad times, so that taxes can be cut to help people in the lean times.

Instead, taxes are cut when people have spare, and raised when people are short.

Meanwhile, how many years should a government be in power before they stop blaming their predecessors?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Angua

Neither Labour or the Conservatives look at finance properly. What should happen is during the good times, taxes should go up and be invested for the bad times, so that taxes can be cut to help people in the lean times.

Instead, taxes are cut when people have spare, and raised when people are short.

Meanwhile, how many years should a government be in power before they stop blaming their predecessors?

Depends on how long it takes to reverse the damage of a mismanaged economy etc.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

[/B]

Depends on how long it takes to reverse the damage of a mismanaged economy etc.

No one seemed to be sufficiently convinced that the Tories were the best party for the job at the last election, but then unstable governments are what is likely with our electoral system and devolved parliaments with parochial political parties.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Angua

No one seemed to be sufficiently convinced that the Tories were the best party for the job at the last election, but then unstable governments are what is likely with our electoral system and devolved parliaments with parochial political parties.

You can always get into politics and and try to change it with the help of like minded people if there are enough of them.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Angua

Neither Labour or the Conservatives look at finance properly. What should happen is during the good times, taxes should go up and be invested for the bad times, so that taxes can be cut to help people in the lean times.

Instead, taxes are cut when people have spare, and raised when people are short.

Meanwhile, how many years should a government be in power before they stop blaming their predecessors?

Indeed how long out of power does a government have to be.

As we all know the mantra 30+ years on is still "It's all Thatchers Fault"

[Angua]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

You can always get into politics and and try to change it with the help of like minded people if there are enough of them.

Been there, done that, bought the T-Shirt.

When even local political groups replace the good councillors who stray from the party line and actually represent their ward, there is neither the money or the will to change anything. In addition, how can anyone change the system when the party currently in power is only delaying reducing the number of MPs (and making their hold on government stronger in the process) because the DUP are holding a gun to their heads.

Until the Conservatives support a decent PR electoral system, nothing will change, their sheep are sufficient in number to prevent them needing to.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Angua

Neither Labour or the Conservatives look at finance properly. What should happen is during the good times, taxes should go up and be invested for the bad times, so that taxes can be cut to help people in the lean times.

Instead, taxes are cut when people have spare, and raised when people are short.

Meanwhile, how many years should a government be in power before they stop blaming their predecessors?

You are right to a degree, but at least the Conservatives put some of the spare money away. Labour just tend to blow it all.

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Angua

Been there, done that, bought the T-Shirt.

When even local political groups replace the good councillors who stray from the party line and actually represent their ward, there is neither the money or the will to change anything. In addition, how can anyone change the system when the party currently in power is only delaying reducing the number of MPs (and making their hold on government stronger in the process) because the DUP are holding a gun to their heads.

Until the Conservatives support a decent PR electoral system, nothing will change, their sheep are sufficient in number to prevent them needing to.

It's hard enough to make decisions now! PR will just make it harder, as a permanent arrangement.

If you want a strong government that is able to make decisions, don't vote for proportional representation!

---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Angua

No one seemed to be sufficiently convinced that the Tories were the best party for the job at the last election, but then unstable governments are what is likely with our electoral system and devolved parliaments with parochial political parties.

Quite clearly, the financial mess, and the austerity measures that were needed to sort that out, was down to Labour.

So yes, 8 years down the line, if Labour think they cannot be blamed for our current situation, they'd better think again!

[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Angua

Neither Labour or the Conservatives look at finance properly. What should happen is during the good times, taxes should go up and be invested for the bad times, so that taxes can be cut to help people in the lean times.

Instead, taxes are cut when people have spare, and raised when people are short.

Meanwhile, how many years should a government be in power before they stop blaming their predecessors?