FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Mark this moment - Labour's promises on taxes now really matter and could crumble in government
Mark this moment - Labour's promises on taxes now really matter and could crumble in government
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Says a political pundit. https://news.sky.com/story/mark-this-moment-labours-promises-on-taxes-now-really-matter-and-could-crumble-in-government-13144601 ***If they get into power, do they squeeze public services for five years using the plans developed by Jeremy Hunt - and risk disappointing voters and an expectation the party will fund public services more - or do they borrow more, and risk breaking newly announced and eye-wateringly severe fiscal rules? Or do they do what voters have long associated with Labour, and turn to tax rises?***" Probably all three. A bit more funding, more borrowing and more taxes. If you work in the public sector you may be slightly better off in the short term. For the rest of us it is dire. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
" Our debt (which the Tories virtually tripled in the last 14 years) won't suddenly dissappear on 5th July! " Interest at £9bn a month The flagship pledge to ban the non dom scheme will raise a reported £3.2bn Equivalent to 10 days interest on the national debt | |||
| |||
"Says a political pundit. https://news.sky.com/story/mark-this-moment-labours-promises-on-taxes-now-really-matter-and-could-crumble-in-government-13144601 ***If they get into power, do they squeeze public services for five years using the plans developed by Jeremy Hunt - and risk disappointing voters and an expectation the party will fund public services more - or do they borrow more, and risk breaking newly announced and eye-wateringly severe fiscal rules? Or do they do what voters have long associated with Labour, and turn to tax rises?***" They are going to close all tax loopholes, scare away non-doms and tax private schools…. Job done apparently  | |||
"Says a political pundit. https://news.sky.com/story/mark-this-moment-labours-promises-on-taxes-now-really-matter-and-could-crumble-in-government-13144601 ***If they get into power, do they squeeze public services for five years using the plans developed by Jeremy Hunt - and risk disappointing voters and an expectation the party will fund public services more - or do they borrow more, and risk breaking newly announced and eye-wateringly severe fiscal rules? Or do they do what voters have long associated with Labour, and turn to tax rises?*** They are going to close all tax loopholes, scare away non-doms and tax private schools…. Job done apparently "£1.6bn private school fee VAT grab £3.2bn non dom £4.8bn a year. Or 0.004% of Government spending (£1.2TRN this last year) | |||
| |||
"Says a political pundit. https://news.sky.com/story/mark-this-moment-labours-promises-on-taxes-now-really-matter-and-could-crumble-in-government-13144601 ***If they get into power, do they squeeze public services for five years using the plans developed by Jeremy Hunt - and risk disappointing voters and an expectation the party will fund public services more - or do they borrow more, and risk breaking newly announced and eye-wateringly severe fiscal rules? Or do they do what voters have long associated with Labour, and turn to tax rises?*** They are going to close all tax loopholes, scare away non-doms and tax private schools…. Job done apparently
£1.6bn private school fee VAT grab
£3.2bn non dom
£4.8bn a year.
Or 0.004% of Government spending (£1.2TRN this last year)
"plus 5bn from going after unpaid taxes. Still small fry in the scheme of things, but they will claim that they aren't making wholesale spending commitments either. Labour are bring fairly clear how each initiative is funded. Believable or not. I couldn't tell you how the gap from Tory policy is funded. | |||
"Says a political pundit. https://news.sky.com/story/mark-this-moment-labours-promises-on-taxes-now-really-matter-and-could-crumble-in-government-13144601 ***If they get into power, do they squeeze public services for five years using the plans developed by Jeremy Hunt - and risk disappointing voters and an expectation the party will fund public services more - or do they borrow more, and risk breaking newly announced and eye-wateringly severe fiscal rules? Or do they do what voters have long associated with Labour, and turn to tax rises?***" Look at it this way, voting Liarbour and expecting to keep more of what you earn that you pay in tax and sensible, targetted spending on defence, security, law and order, education, and then everything else in descending orders of priority is like turkeys voting for Christmas in the hope they will see in the New Year. Eventually it will end up in fiscal drag puling more lower-middle earners into high tax rates, tax raids on pension funds and savings, high corporate taxes that get passed onto consumers in the cost of living, low productivity and in and out of recession while spaffing huge sums on sheer barking mad nonesense. And ideological vanity schemes (if you think GB Energy will work, lok at the failed models that went before it lik Robin Hood Energy that bankrupted Notts County Council). A few years from now you’ll be looking at the financial wasteland of the economy, a returned Tory government that will give you more of the same but in slightly slower time while we enter an economic death spiral of high tax, low growth and high spend, meanwhile the Leftwaffe of useful idiots will screaming “auuuuussssterrrrriteeee” when it becomes self evident you cannot spend money you don’t have but the reality deniers refuse to accept it. And so the cycle goes on while we all get fucked like a cheap Parisian whore. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The sinusoidal wave of the cycle of life lol. It's always the same with Politics and you can see it in every cycle. The first thing, I suppose, is to see how our country, along with many other countries, have gone into financial debt. First the Covid pandemic, yes I know there are many conspiracy theories around this lol, which caused massive lending by the Government and then the war in Ukraine. All these were by chance and Fortunately it all happened when the Tories were in power. I can't imagine the massive explosion of poverty caused if the liar, ag sorry labor party were in charge at those times. The cycle of Politics seems to be always the same. Labor in power and push the economy through the floor boards and then the Tories come back and get it all back on track. Then for some strange reasons, yes I've heard them all, everyone wants to put labor back in power. The same cycle happening over and over. I contracted in Oz for a long time and saw exactly the same thing happen over there with their Politics and labor. Just talk to anyone in Oz now, since labor got back into power, the exact same thing happened as when the labor were in power the last time. Massive hike in the cost of living, cost of housing, long waiting times for treatment in hospitals and massive drop in employment. I've never understood how anyone thinks the labor party can do any differently. Just listening to them in their speeches on TV and it's absolutely obvious they have no idea what they are going to do to make the promises they are making. One qualification is crucial to becoming a Politician and that is the ability to Lie lol but the Labor party can't even do that convincingly lol. What ever Politician's say you can bet it will turn differently, it's just a fact of life things change. But I suppose it's why I think making promises without a clear thought out process should never be looked at. Hence why I would never vote labor." Bonus points for word of the day “sinusoidal” and totally agree we have a repeating cycle. What I have to challenge (and I am not a Labour or Conservative supporter - very much a floater, lol) is why you give the Tories a pass for economic challenges due to exogenous events (pandemic, war in Ukraine) but do not extend the same level of understanding to Labour and the2007/8 global financial crisis? It comes across as partisan. Also it is somewhat a myth that Labour are worse at managing the economy than the Conservatives. It is a popularised trope hammered home by Tory supporting media. I’ll jump off for a few minutes then come back with some facts… | |||
| |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.”" How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? " How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own?" They don't pay nearly as much according to your data, so the question is legitimate, where do labour get the money from. | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? They don't pay nearly as much according to your data, so the question is legitimate, where do labour get the money from." Not giving contracts for millions £ to their mates maybe .  | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? They don't pay nearly as much according to your data, so the question is legitimate, where do labour get the money from." Not my data, let’s be clear. When you say “they” who are you referring to? Are you trying to set the bear trap of “oh they raise taxes” as the reality is that no govt has any money without taxes (current govt have discovered) and QE leads to inflation. Which is more prudent, to find a way to pay down your debt or let the debt (and interest) just continue to grow and be someone else’s problem in future? This is not me saying Labour are great with the economy. Just challenging the trope they are worse than the Conservatives. I think all govts are p  igate with our money and inefficient. But it lazy and inaccurate to say Labour bad Conservatives Good. More like both bad! | |||
igate gets an emoji…
P r o f l i g a t e | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? " some ideas: stop paying interest on BoE reserves. Save 5 in every 100 spent eg halve consultant bills in NHS, and get rid of office managers. | |||
"Exactly the same applies if the Tories form the next government. Our debt (which the Tories virtually tripled in the last 14 years) won't suddenly dissappear on 5th July! Unless the next government can get the economy growing again, it's going to be dire for everyone." It isn't our debt, try not to let them trick you into thinking it is. | |||
"Not sure why p igate gets an emoji…
P r o f l i g a t e"R.O.F.L. | |||
"Not sure why p igate gets an emoji…
P r o f l i g a t e
R.O.F.L."Aha! | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? They don't pay nearly as much according to your data, so the question is legitimate, where do labour get the money from. Not my data, let’s be clear. When you say “they” who are you referring to? Are you trying to set the bear trap of “oh they raise taxes” as the reality is that no govt has any money without taxes (current govt have discovered) and QE leads to inflation. Which is more prudent, to find a way to pay down your debt or let the debt (and interest) just continue to grow and be someone else’s problem in future? This is not me saying Labour are great with the economy. Just challenging the trope they are worse than the Conservatives. I think all govts are p igate with our money and inefficient. But it lazy and inaccurate to say Labour bad Conservatives Good. More like both bad! "The pot of money is the same regardless of which party holds office. To pay off more of the debt they must be making savings elsewhere or increasing taxes. My point, ref it is not their money, means we are paying off the debt. If the economy improves and more tax £'s are flowing great, otherwise something somewhere is being squeezed. | |||
"Exactly the same applies if the Tories form the next government. Our debt (which the Tories virtually tripled in the last 14 years) won't suddenly dissappear on 5th July! Unless the next government can get the economy growing again, it's going to be dire for everyone. It isn't our debt, try not to let them trick you into thinking it is." Indeed. Capitalism always embraces Socialism when company’s backs are against the wall demanding handouts and support from the state (taxpayers) using the leverage of “people will lose their jobs” but then baulk at paying higher corporate taxes to pay it back using the leverage of “we won’t be competitive/profitable” | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? They don't pay nearly as much according to your data, so the question is legitimate, where do labour get the money from. Not my data, let’s be clear. When you say “they” who are you referring to? Are you trying to set the bear trap of “oh they raise taxes” as the reality is that no govt has any money without taxes (current govt have discovered) and QE leads to inflation. Which is more prudent, to find a way to pay down your debt or let the debt (and interest) just continue to grow and be someone else’s problem in future? This is not me saying Labour are great with the economy. Just challenging the trope they are worse than the Conservatives. I think all govts are p igate with our money and inefficient. But it lazy and inaccurate to say Labour bad Conservatives Good. More like both bad!
The pot of money is the same regardless of which party holds office.
To pay off more of the debt they must be making savings elsewhere or increasing taxes.
My point, ref it is not their money, means we are paying off the debt. If the economy improves and more tax £'s are flowing great, otherwise something somewhere is being squeezed."And…? Feels like an obvious but moot point to make and doesn’t change the original point being made that it simply isn’t true that when it comes to the economy Labour = Bad and Conservatives = Good. | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? They don't pay nearly as much according to your data, so the question is legitimate, where do labour get the money from. Not my data, let’s be clear. When you say “they” who are you referring to? Are you trying to set the bear trap of “oh they raise taxes” as the reality is that no govt has any money without taxes (current govt have discovered) and QE leads to inflation. Which is more prudent, to find a way to pay down your debt or let the debt (and interest) just continue to grow and be someone else’s problem in future? This is not me saying Labour are great with the economy. Just challenging the trope they are worse than the Conservatives. I think all govts are p igate with our money and inefficient. But it lazy and inaccurate to say Labour bad Conservatives Good. More like both bad!
The pot of money is the same regardless of which party holds office.
To pay off more of the debt they must be making savings elsewhere or increasing taxes.
My point, ref it is not their money, means we are paying off the debt. If the economy improves and more tax £'s are flowing great, otherwise something somewhere is being squeezed.
And…? Feels like an obvious but moot point to make and doesn’t change the original point being made that it simply isn’t true that when it comes to the economy Labour = Bad and Conservatives = Good."it is not moot, you have presented a fact that labour pay off more national debt, I am asking how. The answer to that question is important in understanding why and what are they doing with the money which will lead us onto who is better at running the economy, not who is best at paying off debt. If you are trying to prove a point that it is a myth that labour are not as good at managing the economy as the tories, you need more than they pay off more national debt, in my opinion of course, others might be very happy with this information  | |||
| |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? They don't pay nearly as much according to your data, so the question is legitimate, where do labour get the money from. Not my data, let’s be clear. When you say “they” who are you referring to? Are you trying to set the bear trap of “oh they raise taxes” as the reality is that no govt has any money without taxes (current govt have discovered) and QE leads to inflation. Which is more prudent, to find a way to pay down your debt or let the debt (and interest) just continue to grow and be someone else’s problem in future? This is not me saying Labour are great with the economy. Just challenging the trope they are worse than the Conservatives. I think all govts are p igate with our money and inefficient. But it lazy and inaccurate to say Labour bad Conservatives Good. More like both bad!
The pot of money is the same regardless of which party holds office.
To pay off more of the debt they must be making savings elsewhere or increasing taxes.
My point, ref it is not their money, means we are paying off the debt. If the economy improves and more tax £'s are flowing great, otherwise something somewhere is being squeezed.
And…? Feels like an obvious but moot point to make and doesn’t change the original point being made that it simply isn’t true that when it comes to the economy Labour = Bad and Conservatives = Good.
it is not moot, you have presented a fact that labour pay off more national debt, I am asking how.
The answer to that question is important in understanding why and what are they doing with the money which will lead us onto who is better at running the economy, not who is best at paying off debt.
If you are trying to prove a point that it is a myth that labour are not as good at managing the economy as the tories, you need more than they pay off more national debt, in my opinion of course, others might be very happy with this information "As you say the pot of money is the same. In pure layperson terms: 1. Govt collects taxes to fill the pot 2. Govt can borrow to fill the pot 3. Govt uses the “money” to pay for services to run the country and pay off debt/interest already carrying 4. Govt can reduce services and/or make them more efficient to reduce the cost of providing them Which is better… 1. To raise taxes (the income for the country) to continue providing services AND reduce national debt. 2. Increase borrowing and cut services (arguably also make more efficient but both colour govts can argue that) but then still not pay off as much national debt. Murphy is not explicit on the how just the outcome which indicates Labour clear more national debt while in office than the Conservatives do. | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? They don't pay nearly as much according to your data, so the question is legitimate, where do labour get the money from. Not my data, let’s be clear. When you say “they” who are you referring to? Are you trying to set the bear trap of “oh they raise taxes” as the reality is that no govt has any money without taxes (current govt have discovered) and QE leads to inflation. Which is more prudent, to find a way to pay down your debt or let the debt (and interest) just continue to grow and be someone else’s problem in future? This is not me saying Labour are great with the economy. Just challenging the trope they are worse than the Conservatives. I think all govts are p igate with our money and inefficient. But it lazy and inaccurate to say Labour bad Conservatives Good. More like both bad!
The pot of money is the same regardless of which party holds office.
To pay off more of the debt they must be making savings elsewhere or increasing taxes.
My point, ref it is not their money, means we are paying off the debt. If the economy improves and more tax £'s are flowing great, otherwise something somewhere is being squeezed.
And…? Feels like an obvious but moot point to make and doesn’t change the original point being made that it simply isn’t true that when it comes to the economy Labour = Bad and Conservatives = Good.
it is not moot, you have presented a fact that labour pay off more national debt, I am asking how.
The answer to that question is important in understanding why and what are they doing with the money which will lead us onto who is better at running the economy, not who is best at paying off debt.
If you are trying to prove a point that it is a myth that labour are not as good at managing the economy as the tories, you need more than they pay off more national debt, in my opinion of course, others might be very happy with this information
As you say the pot of money is the same. In pure layperson terms:
1. Govt collects taxes to fill the pot
2. Govt can borrow to fill the pot
3. Govt uses the “money” to pay for services to run the country and pay off debt/interest already carrying
4. Govt can reduce services and/or make them more efficient to reduce the cost of providing them
Which is better…
1. To raise taxes (the income for the country) to continue providing services AND reduce national debt.
2. Increase borrowing and cut services (arguably also make more efficient but both colour govts can argue that) but then still not pay off as much national debt.
Murphy is not explicit on the how just the outcome which indicates Labour clear more national debt while in office than the Conservatives do."Pros: Borrowing can provide immediate funds maintaining services, during economic downturns or crises such as we have seen. Cutting services, if done efficiently, can streamline government spending and improve fiscal sustainability. Cons: Increased borrowing comes with increased interest payments, which may strain future budgets. Cutting services may lead to reduced quality or accessibility of essential services, impacting well-being and society development. The hard part is striking a balance the need for sustainable fiscal management while ensuring the provision of vital services should be wherever possible done without taking extra money out of the pockets of the population. Paying off national debt is the correct thing to do at the right time, not all the time. | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? They don't pay nearly as much according to your data, so the question is legitimate, where do labour get the money from. Not my data, let’s be clear. When you say “they” who are you referring to? Are you trying to set the bear trap of “oh they raise taxes” as the reality is that no govt has any money without taxes (current govt have discovered) and QE leads to inflation. Which is more prudent, to find a way to pay down your debt or let the debt (and interest) just continue to grow and be someone else’s problem in future? This is not me saying Labour are great with the economy. Just challenging the trope they are worse than the Conservatives. I think all govts are p igate with our money and inefficient. But it lazy and inaccurate to say Labour bad Conservatives Good. More like both bad!
The pot of money is the same regardless of which party holds office.
To pay off more of the debt they must be making savings elsewhere or increasing taxes.
My point, ref it is not their money, means we are paying off the debt. If the economy improves and more tax £'s are flowing great, otherwise something somewhere is being squeezed.
And…? Feels like an obvious but moot point to make and doesn’t change the original point being made that it simply isn’t true that when it comes to the economy Labour = Bad and Conservatives = Good.
it is not moot, you have presented a fact that labour pay off more national debt, I am asking how.
The answer to that question is important in understanding why and what are they doing with the money which will lead us onto who is better at running the economy, not who is best at paying off debt.
If you are trying to prove a point that it is a myth that labour are not as good at managing the economy as the tories, you need more than they pay off more national debt, in my opinion of course, others might be very happy with this information
As you say the pot of money is the same. In pure layperson terms:
1. Govt collects taxes to fill the pot
2. Govt can borrow to fill the pot
3. Govt uses the “money” to pay for services to run the country and pay off debt/interest already carrying
4. Govt can reduce services and/or make them more efficient to reduce the cost of providing them
Which is better…
1. To raise taxes (the income for the country) to continue providing services AND reduce national debt.
2. Increase borrowing and cut services (arguably also make more efficient but both colour govts can argue that) but then still not pay off as much national debt.
Murphy is not explicit on the how just the outcome which indicates Labour clear more national debt while in office than the Conservatives do.
Pros: Borrowing can provide immediate funds maintaining services, during economic downturns or crises such as we have seen. Cutting services, if done efficiently, can streamline government spending and improve fiscal sustainability.
Cons: Increased borrowing comes with increased interest payments, which may strain future budgets. Cutting services may lead to reduced quality or accessibility of essential services, impacting well-being and society development.
The hard part is striking a balance the need for sustainable fiscal management while ensuring the provision of vital services should be wherever possible done without taking extra money out of the pockets of the population.
Paying off national debt is the correct thing to do at the right time, not all the time."Except that Murphy’s analysis seems to indicate that the Conservatives think it it never (or hardly ever) the time to pay down national debt! Nothing in life is free so the question comes down to which services we want and then a choice between increased taxes or increased borrowing to pay for them. | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? They don't pay nearly as much according to your data, so the question is legitimate, where do labour get the money from. Not my data, let’s be clear. When you say “they” who are you referring to? Are you trying to set the bear trap of “oh they raise taxes” as the reality is that no govt has any money without taxes (current govt have discovered) and QE leads to inflation. Which is more prudent, to find a way to pay down your debt or let the debt (and interest) just continue to grow and be someone else’s problem in future? This is not me saying Labour are great with the economy. Just challenging the trope they are worse than the Conservatives. I think all govts are p igate with our money and inefficient. But it lazy and inaccurate to say Labour bad Conservatives Good. More like both bad!
The pot of money is the same regardless of which party holds office.
To pay off more of the debt they must be making savings elsewhere or increasing taxes.
My point, ref it is not their money, means we are paying off the debt. If the economy improves and more tax £'s are flowing great, otherwise something somewhere is being squeezed.
And…? Feels like an obvious but moot point to make and doesn’t change the original point being made that it simply isn’t true that when it comes to the economy Labour = Bad and Conservatives = Good.
it is not moot, you have presented a fact that labour pay off more national debt, I am asking how.
The answer to that question is important in understanding why and what are they doing with the money which will lead us onto who is better at running the economy, not who is best at paying off debt.
If you are trying to prove a point that it is a myth that labour are not as good at managing the economy as the tories, you need more than they pay off more national debt, in my opinion of course, others might be very happy with this information
As you say the pot of money is the same. In pure layperson terms:
1. Govt collects taxes to fill the pot
2. Govt can borrow to fill the pot
3. Govt uses the “money” to pay for services to run the country and pay off debt/interest already carrying
4. Govt can reduce services and/or make them more efficient to reduce the cost of providing them
Which is better…
1. To raise taxes (the income for the country) to continue providing services AND reduce national debt.
2. Increase borrowing and cut services (arguably also make more efficient but both colour govts can argue that) but then still not pay off as much national debt.
Murphy is not explicit on the how just the outcome which indicates Labour clear more national debt while in office than the Conservatives do.
Pros: Borrowing can provide immediate funds maintaining services, during economic downturns or crises such as we have seen. Cutting services, if done efficiently, can streamline government spending and improve fiscal sustainability.
Cons: Increased borrowing comes with increased interest payments, which may strain future budgets. Cutting services may lead to reduced quality or accessibility of essential services, impacting well-being and society development.
The hard part is striking a balance the need for sustainable fiscal management while ensuring the provision of vital services should be wherever possible done without taking extra money out of the pockets of the population.
Paying off national debt is the correct thing to do at the right time, not all the time.
Except that Murphy’s analysis seems to indicate that the Conservatives think it it never (or hardly ever) the time to pay down national debt!
Nothing in life is free so the question comes down to which services we want and then a choice between increased taxes or increased borrowing to pay for them. "We can spin this to say that the tories leave labour in a better position than labour leave tories after leaving office, if Murphy’s analysis is correct. | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? They don't pay nearly as much according to your data, so the question is legitimate, where do labour get the money from. Not my data, let’s be clear. When you say “they” who are you referring to? Are you trying to set the bear trap of “oh they raise taxes” as the reality is that no govt has any money without taxes (current govt have discovered) and QE leads to inflation. Which is more prudent, to find a way to pay down your debt or let the debt (and interest) just continue to grow and be someone else’s problem in future? This is not me saying Labour are great with the economy. Just challenging the trope they are worse than the Conservatives. I think all govts are p igate with our money and inefficient. But it lazy and inaccurate to say Labour bad Conservatives Good. More like both bad!
The pot of money is the same regardless of which party holds office.
To pay off more of the debt they must be making savings elsewhere or increasing taxes.
My point, ref it is not their money, means we are paying off the debt. If the economy improves and more tax £'s are flowing great, otherwise something somewhere is being squeezed.
And…? Feels like an obvious but moot point to make and doesn’t change the original point being made that it simply isn’t true that when it comes to the economy Labour = Bad and Conservatives = Good.
it is not moot, you have presented a fact that labour pay off more national debt, I am asking how.
The answer to that question is important in understanding why and what are they doing with the money which will lead us onto who is better at running the economy, not who is best at paying off debt.
If you are trying to prove a point that it is a myth that labour are not as good at managing the economy as the tories, you need more than they pay off more national debt, in my opinion of course, others might be very happy with this information
As you say the pot of money is the same. In pure layperson terms:
1. Govt collects taxes to fill the pot
2. Govt can borrow to fill the pot
3. Govt uses the “money” to pay for services to run the country and pay off debt/interest already carrying
4. Govt can reduce services and/or make them more efficient to reduce the cost of providing them
Which is better…
1. To raise taxes (the income for the country) to continue providing services AND reduce national debt.
2. Increase borrowing and cut services (arguably also make more efficient but both colour govts can argue that) but then still not pay off as much national debt.
Murphy is not explicit on the how just the outcome which indicates Labour clear more national debt while in office than the Conservatives do.
Pros: Borrowing can provide immediate funds maintaining services, during economic downturns or crises such as we have seen. Cutting services, if done efficiently, can streamline government spending and improve fiscal sustainability.
Cons: Increased borrowing comes with increased interest payments, which may strain future budgets. Cutting services may lead to reduced quality or accessibility of essential services, impacting well-being and society development.
The hard part is striking a balance the need for sustainable fiscal management while ensuring the provision of vital services should be wherever possible done without taking extra money out of the pockets of the population.
Paying off national debt is the correct thing to do at the right time, not all the time.
Except that Murphy’s analysis seems to indicate that the Conservatives think it it never (or hardly ever) the time to pay down national debt!
Nothing in life is free so the question comes down to which services we want and then a choice between increased taxes or increased borrowing to pay for them.
We can spin this to say that the tories leave labour in a better position than labour leave tories after leaving office, if Murphy’s analysis is correct.
"How do you draw that conclusion? Actually Murphy’s analysis would argue the exact opposite as national debt is lower when Tories come to power thanks to Labour paying more off! | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? They don't pay nearly as much according to your data, so the question is legitimate, where do labour get the money from. Not my data, let’s be clear. When you say “they” who are you referring to? Are you trying to set the bear trap of “oh they raise taxes” as the reality is that no govt has any money without taxes (current govt have discovered) and QE leads to inflation. Which is more prudent, to find a way to pay down your debt or let the debt (and interest) just continue to grow and be someone else’s problem in future? This is not me saying Labour are great with the economy. Just challenging the trope they are worse than the Conservatives. I think all govts are p igate with our money and inefficient. But it lazy and inaccurate to say Labour bad Conservatives Good. More like both bad!
The pot of money is the same regardless of which party holds office.
To pay off more of the debt they must be making savings elsewhere or increasing taxes.
My point, ref it is not their money, means we are paying off the debt. If the economy improves and more tax £'s are flowing great, otherwise something somewhere is being squeezed.
And…? Feels like an obvious but moot point to make and doesn’t change the original point being made that it simply isn’t true that when it comes to the economy Labour = Bad and Conservatives = Good.
it is not moot, you have presented a fact that labour pay off more national debt, I am asking how.
The answer to that question is important in understanding why and what are they doing with the money which will lead us onto who is better at running the economy, not who is best at paying off debt.
If you are trying to prove a point that it is a myth that labour are not as good at managing the economy as the tories, you need more than they pay off more national debt, in my opinion of course, others might be very happy with this information
As you say the pot of money is the same. In pure layperson terms:
1. Govt collects taxes to fill the pot
2. Govt can borrow to fill the pot
3. Govt uses the “money” to pay for services to run the country and pay off debt/interest already carrying
4. Govt can reduce services and/or make them more efficient to reduce the cost of providing them
Which is better…
1. To raise taxes (the income for the country) to continue providing services AND reduce national debt.
2. Increase borrowing and cut services (arguably also make more efficient but both colour govts can argue that) but then still not pay off as much national debt.
Murphy is not explicit on the how just the outcome which indicates Labour clear more national debt while in office than the Conservatives do.
Pros: Borrowing can provide immediate funds maintaining services, during economic downturns or crises such as we have seen. Cutting services, if done efficiently, can streamline government spending and improve fiscal sustainability.
Cons: Increased borrowing comes with increased interest payments, which may strain future budgets. Cutting services may lead to reduced quality or accessibility of essential services, impacting well-being and society development.
The hard part is striking a balance the need for sustainable fiscal management while ensuring the provision of vital services should be wherever possible done without taking extra money out of the pockets of the population.
Paying off national debt is the correct thing to do at the right time, not all the time.
Except that Murphy’s analysis seems to indicate that the Conservatives think it it never (or hardly ever) the time to pay down national debt!
Nothing in life is free so the question comes down to which services we want and then a choice between increased taxes or increased borrowing to pay for them.
We can spin this to say that the tories leave labour in a better position than labour leave tories after leaving office, if Murphy’s analysis is correct.
How do you draw that conclusion? Actually Murphy’s analysis would argue the exact opposite as national debt is lower when Tories come to power thanks to Labour paying more off!"If labour have money to pay off the national debt it must be because the economy was in a reasonable shape when handed over. Obviously I'm spinning this, because it can be and is, the economy is so complex and open to so much influence it is hard to compare apples for apples at any given time. You said something earlier that was a better way of positioning this.. What services and investments in society are important to individuals. It is a persons right to question and challenge where their tax £'s are spent and the most likely evidence to see the tory - labour divide and assumptions on how the economy is managed. | |||
| |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? They don't pay nearly as much according to your data, so the question is legitimate, where do labour get the money from. Not my data, let’s be clear. When you say “they” who are you referring to? Are you trying to set the bear trap of “oh they raise taxes” as the reality is that no govt has any money without taxes (current govt have discovered) and QE leads to inflation. Which is more prudent, to find a way to pay down your debt or let the debt (and interest) just continue to grow and be someone else’s problem in future? This is not me saying Labour are great with the economy. Just challenging the trope they are worse than the Conservatives. I think all govts are p igate with our money and inefficient. But it lazy and inaccurate to say Labour bad Conservatives Good. More like both bad!
The pot of money is the same regardless of which party holds office.
To pay off more of the debt they must be making savings elsewhere or increasing taxes.
My point, ref it is not their money, means we are paying off the debt. If the economy improves and more tax £'s are flowing great, otherwise something somewhere is being squeezed.
And…? Feels like an obvious but moot point to make and doesn’t change the original point being made that it simply isn’t true that when it comes to the economy Labour = Bad and Conservatives = Good.
it is not moot, you have presented a fact that labour pay off more national debt, I am asking how.
The answer to that question is important in understanding why and what are they doing with the money which will lead us onto who is better at running the economy, not who is best at paying off debt.
If you are trying to prove a point that it is a myth that labour are not as good at managing the economy as the tories, you need more than they pay off more national debt, in my opinion of course, others might be very happy with this information
As you say the pot of money is the same. In pure layperson terms:
1. Govt collects taxes to fill the pot
2. Govt can borrow to fill the pot
3. Govt uses the “money” to pay for services to run the country and pay off debt/interest already carrying
4. Govt can reduce services and/or make them more efficient to reduce the cost of providing them
Which is better…
1. To raise taxes (the income for the country) to continue providing services AND reduce national debt.
2. Increase borrowing and cut services (arguably also make more efficient but both colour govts can argue that) but then still not pay off as much national debt.
Murphy is not explicit on the how just the outcome which indicates Labour clear more national debt while in office than the Conservatives do.
Pros: Borrowing can provide immediate funds maintaining services, during economic downturns or crises such as we have seen. Cutting services, if done efficiently, can streamline government spending and improve fiscal sustainability.
Cons: Increased borrowing comes with increased interest payments, which may strain future budgets. Cutting services may lead to reduced quality or accessibility of essential services, impacting well-being and society development.
The hard part is striking a balance the need for sustainable fiscal management while ensuring the provision of vital services should be wherever possible done without taking extra money out of the pockets of the population.
Paying off national debt is the correct thing to do at the right time, not all the time.
Except that Murphy’s analysis seems to indicate that the Conservatives think it it never (or hardly ever) the time to pay down national debt!
Nothing in life is free so the question comes down to which services we want and then a choice between increased taxes or increased borrowing to pay for them.
We can spin this to say that the tories leave labour in a better position than labour leave tories after leaving office, if Murphy’s analysis is correct.
How do you draw that conclusion? Actually Murphy’s analysis would argue the exact opposite as national debt is lower when Tories come to power thanks to Labour paying more off!
If labour have money to pay off the national debt it must be because the economy was in a reasonable shape when handed over.
Obviously I'm spinning this, because it can be and is, the economy is so complex and open to so much influence it is hard to compare apples for apples at any given time.
You said something earlier that was a better way of positioning this.. What services and investments in society are important to individuals. It is a persons right to question and challenge where their tax £'s are spent and the most likely evidence to see the tory - labour divide and assumptions on how the economy is managed. "I am wealthy. There I have said it. Not ashamed of being wealthy as I am totally self made. Would I like to pay zero tax? You betcha! Is there an argument that as I do not use a lot of state/govt services I could resent paying for them? Yep I can see that argument. BUT… I have a moral compass that says some of my wealth is as a result of the society I live in and the labour of others who are less well off than me. My moral compass says “there but for the grace of God go I!” I want a fairer more equitable society where the poor are helped (appropriately) and generally the poor make more use of state/govt services than the rich. So while there is a selfish “it’s my money and I want to keep it” side of me, I accept that to have a functioning society (and happy country) I am going to have to contribute to the provision of those services. So my ask is “use my money wisely and efficiently and do not be pro fli gate (avoiding emoji) | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… “Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years. But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. [note the research has tables and data that cannot be replicated here] Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made. So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest. First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference. Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.” How do labour pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? How do Conservatives pay the national debt, they have no money of their own? They don't pay nearly as much according to your data, so the question is legitimate, where do labour get the money from. Not my data, let’s be clear. When you say “they” who are you referring to? Are you trying to set the bear trap of “oh they raise taxes” as the reality is that no govt has any money without taxes (current govt have discovered) and QE leads to inflation. Which is more prudent, to find a way to pay down your debt or let the debt (and interest) just continue to grow and be someone else’s problem in future? This is not me saying Labour are great with the economy. Just challenging the trope they are worse than the Conservatives. I think all govts are p igate with our money and inefficient. But it lazy and inaccurate to say Labour bad Conservatives Good. More like both bad!
The pot of money is the same regardless of which party holds office.
To pay off more of the debt they must be making savings elsewhere or increasing taxes.
My point, ref it is not their money, means we are paying off the debt. If the economy improves and more tax £'s are flowing great, otherwise something somewhere is being squeezed.
And…? Feels like an obvious but moot point to make and doesn’t change the original point being made that it simply isn’t true that when it comes to the economy Labour = Bad and Conservatives = Good.
it is not moot, you have presented a fact that labour pay off more national debt, I am asking how.
The answer to that question is important in understanding why and what are they doing with the money which will lead us onto who is better at running the economy, not who is best at paying off debt.
If you are trying to prove a point that it is a myth that labour are not as good at managing the economy as the tories, you need more than they pay off more national debt, in my opinion of course, others might be very happy with this information
As you say the pot of money is the same. In pure layperson terms:
1. Govt collects taxes to fill the pot
2. Govt can borrow to fill the pot
3. Govt uses the “money” to pay for services to run the country and pay off debt/interest already carrying
4. Govt can reduce services and/or make them more efficient to reduce the cost of providing them
Which is better…
1. To raise taxes (the income for the country) to continue providing services AND reduce national debt.
2. Increase borrowing and cut services (arguably also make more efficient but both colour govts can argue that) but then still not pay off as much national debt.
Murphy is not explicit on the how just the outcome which indicates Labour clear more national debt while in office than the Conservatives do.
Pros: Borrowing can provide immediate funds maintaining services, during economic downturns or crises such as we have seen. Cutting services, if done efficiently, can streamline government spending and improve fiscal sustainability.
Cons: Increased borrowing comes with increased interest payments, which may strain future budgets. Cutting services may lead to reduced quality or accessibility of essential services, impacting well-being and society development.
The hard part is striking a balance the need for sustainable fiscal management while ensuring the provision of vital services should be wherever possible done without taking extra money out of the pockets of the population.
Paying off national debt is the correct thing to do at the right time, not all the time.
Except that Murphy’s analysis seems to indicate that the Conservatives think it it never (or hardly ever) the time to pay down national debt!
Nothing in life is free so the question comes down to which services we want and then a choice between increased taxes or increased borrowing to pay for them.
We can spin this to say that the tories leave labour in a better position than labour leave tories after leaving office, if Murphy’s analysis is correct.
How do you draw that conclusion? Actually Murphy’s analysis would argue the exact opposite as national debt is lower when Tories come to power thanks to Labour paying more off!
If labour have money to pay off the national debt it must be because the economy was in a reasonable shape when handed over.
Obviously I'm spinning this, because it can be and is, the economy is so complex and open to so much influence it is hard to compare apples for apples at any given time.
You said something earlier that was a better way of positioning this.. What services and investments in society are important to individuals. It is a persons right to question and challenge where their tax £'s are spent and the most likely evidence to see the tory - labour divide and assumptions on how the economy is managed.
I am wealthy. There I have said it. Not ashamed of being wealthy as I am totally self made. Would I like to pay zero tax? You betcha! Is there an argument that as I do not use a lot of state/govt services I could resent paying for them? Yep I can see that argument.
BUT…
I have a moral compass that says some of my wealth is as a result of the society I live in and the labour of others who are less well off than me. My moral compass says “there but for the grace of God go I!” I want a fairer more equitable society where the poor are helped (appropriately) and generally the poor make more use of state/govt services than the rich.
So while there is a selfish “it’s my money and I want to keep it” side of me, I accept that to have a functioning society (and happy country) I am going to have to contribute to the provision of those services. So my ask is “use my money wisely and efficiently and do not be pro fli gate (avoiding emoji)"Ive said it once I will say it again, when labour get in they will blame the tories, they will have to make tough decisions blah blah we have heard it before it is on repeat. 2 party system when will this stop, how do we stop it, this is not a 2 party system it one group pretending to be different whilst at the behest of business like Shell B.P Amazon, you know who runs the world because they simply do not pay tax. | |||
"To add (but without quotes getting too long) it depends on whether we think govt debt and interest payments are good or bad? Not sure if this analogy will work but let’s equate Govt/State to a person (it is more complex I know, especially if you have a sovereign currency)… Larry Labour has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He gets a pay rise to £110k. He chooses to use some of that extra money to pay down his mortgage more quickly reducing the capital owed and overall level of interest he has to pay. The rest he uses to buy nicer food for everyone in the house. Colin Conservative has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He decides to borrow another £10k on his mortgage. He doesn’t pay it off any quicker and now faces more interest payments as he owes £510k. He does use some of the money for nicer food for people in the house but not much as he tells them they owe too much money and need to make sacrifices. What he does with the rest is anybody’s guess?" There are times when it is more favourable to borrow than to pay off. We could spin this around and say Colin Conservative borrowed 10K when the time was right to do so, low interests rates as an example. He invests the 10K in home improvements that increases significantly the value of the house giving him and his family a better standard of living and a great ROI upon sale. Larry Labour attempts to pays off is mortgage quicker, however no investment in his house devalues against Colin Conservative's house. Larry is also holding on to his house and interest rates increase, cancelling gains made. There is a good time to borrow and a bad. | |||
"To add (but without quotes getting too long) it depends on whether we think govt debt and interest payments are good or bad? Not sure if this analogy will work but let’s equate Govt/State to a person (it is more complex I know, especially if you have a sovereign currency)… Larry Labour has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He gets a pay rise to £110k. He chooses to use some of that extra money to pay down his mortgage more quickly reducing the capital owed and overall level of interest he has to pay. The rest he uses to buy nicer food for everyone in the house. Colin Conservative has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He decides to borrow another £10k on his mortgage. He doesn’t pay it off any quicker and now faces more interest payments as he owes £510k. He does use some of the money for nicer food for people in the house but not much as he tells them they owe too much money and need to make sacrifices. What he does with the rest is anybody’s guess? There are times when it is more favourable to borrow than to pay off. We could spin this around and say Colin Conservative borrowed 10K when the time was right to do so, low interests rates as an example. He invests the 10K in home improvements that increases significantly the value of the house giving him and his family a better standard of living and a great ROI upon sale. Larry Labour attempts to pays off is mortgage quicker, however no investment in his house devalues against Colin Conservative's house. Larry is also holding on to his house and interest rates increase, cancelling gains made. There is a good time to borrow and a bad." Good points. However, if the level of growth of govt debt over last 14years is anything to go by, seems like the Tory’s have not fixed the roof while the sun was shining (better economy and low interest rates). So yes a good time to borrow but looks like Tory’s got it wrong! | |||
"To add (but without quotes getting too long) it depends on whether we think govt debt and interest payments are good or bad? Not sure if this analogy will work but let’s equate Govt/State to a person (it is more complex I know, especially if you have a sovereign currency)… Larry Labour has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He gets a pay rise to £110k. He chooses to use some of that extra money to pay down his mortgage more quickly reducing the capital owed and overall level of interest he has to pay. The rest he uses to buy nicer food for everyone in the house. Colin Conservative has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He decides to borrow another £10k on his mortgage. He doesn’t pay it off any quicker and now faces more interest payments as he owes £510k. He does use some of the money for nicer food for people in the house but not much as he tells them they owe too much money and need to make sacrifices. What he does with the rest is anybody’s guess? There are times when it is more favourable to borrow than to pay off. We could spin this around and say Colin Conservative borrowed 10K when the time was right to do so, low interests rates as an example. He invests the 10K in home improvements that increases significantly the value of the house giving him and his family a better standard of living and a great ROI upon sale. Larry Labour attempts to pays off is mortgage quicker, however no investment in his house devalues against Colin Conservative's house. Larry is also holding on to his house and interest rates increase, cancelling gains made. There is a good time to borrow and a bad. Good points. However, if the level of growth of govt debt over last 14years is anything to go by, seems like the Tory’s have not fixed the roof while the sun was shining (better economy and low interest rates). So yes a good time to borrow but looks like Tory’s got it wrong!" Everyone got it wrong, Covid saw to that. | |||
"To add (but without quotes getting too long) it depends on whether we think govt debt and interest payments are good or bad? Not sure if this analogy will work but let’s equate Govt/State to a person (it is more complex I know, especially if you have a sovereign currency)… Larry Labour has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He gets a pay rise to £110k. He chooses to use some of that extra money to pay down his mortgage more quickly reducing the capital owed and overall level of interest he has to pay. The rest he uses to buy nicer food for everyone in the house. Colin Conservative has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He decides to borrow another £10k on his mortgage. He doesn’t pay it off any quicker and now faces more interest payments as he owes £510k. He does use some of the money for nicer food for people in the house but not much as he tells them they owe too much money and need to make sacrifices. What he does with the rest is anybody’s guess? There are times when it is more favourable to borrow than to pay off. We could spin this around and say Colin Conservative borrowed 10K when the time was right to do so, low interests rates as an example. He invests the 10K in home improvements that increases significantly the value of the house giving him and his family a better standard of living and a great ROI upon sale. Larry Labour attempts to pays off is mortgage quicker, however no investment in his house devalues against Colin Conservative's house. Larry is also holding on to his house and interest rates increase, cancelling gains made. There is a good time to borrow and a bad. Good points. However, if the level of growth of govt debt over last 14years is anything to go by, seems like the Tory’s have not fixed the roof while the sun was shining (better economy and low interest rates). So yes a good time to borrow but looks like Tory’s got it wrong! Everyone got it wrong, Covid saw to that. " Again so do the Tory’s get a pass for an exogenous event but Labour don’t for the 07/08 financial crisis? And what about 2010-2019? | |||
"You said something earlier that was a better way of positioning this.. What services and investments in society are important to individuals. It is a persons right to question and challenge where their tax £'s are spent and the most likely evidence to see the tory - labour divide and assumptions on how the economy is managed. I am wealthy. There I have said it. Not ashamed of being wealthy as I am totally self made. Would I like to pay zero tax? You betcha! Is there an argument that as I do not use a lot of state/govt services I could resent paying for them? Yep I can see that argument. BUT… I have a moral compass that says some of my wealth is as a result of the society I live in and the labour of others who are less well off than me. My moral compass says “there but for the grace of God go I!” I want a fairer more equitable society where the poor are helped (appropriately) and generally the poor make more use of state/govt services than the rich. So while there is a selfish “it’s my money and I want to keep it” side of me, I accept that to have a functioning society (and happy country) I am going to have to contribute to the provision of those services. So my ask is “use my money wisely and efficiently and do not be pro fli gate (avoiding emoji)" Your position resonates, and I agree with your sentiment regarding some money being used for the good of society. You will also hopefully understand how that can rub the wrong way when it is used poorly. I often feel I'm not getting bang for my tax £. | |||
"To add (but without quotes getting too long) it depends on whether we think govt debt and interest payments are good or bad? Not sure if this analogy will work but let’s equate Govt/State to a person (it is more complex I know, especially if you have a sovereign currency)… Larry Labour has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He gets a pay rise to £110k. He chooses to use some of that extra money to pay down his mortgage more quickly reducing the capital owed and overall level of interest he has to pay. The rest he uses to buy nicer food for everyone in the house. Colin Conservative has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He decides to borrow another £10k on his mortgage. He doesn’t pay it off any quicker and now faces more interest payments as he owes £510k. He does use some of the money for nicer food for people in the house but not much as he tells them they owe too much money and need to make sacrifices. What he does with the rest is anybody’s guess? There are times when it is more favourable to borrow than to pay off. We could spin this around and say Colin Conservative borrowed 10K when the time was right to do so, low interests rates as an example. He invests the 10K in home improvements that increases significantly the value of the house giving him and his family a better standard of living and a great ROI upon sale. Larry Labour attempts to pays off is mortgage quicker, however no investment in his house devalues against Colin Conservative's house. Larry is also holding on to his house and interest rates increase, cancelling gains made. There is a good time to borrow and a bad. Good points. However, if the level of growth of govt debt over last 14years is anything to go by, seems like the Tory’s have not fixed the roof while the sun was shining (better economy and low interest rates). So yes a good time to borrow but looks like Tory’s got it wrong! Everyone got it wrong, Covid saw to that. Again so do the Tory’s get a pass for an exogenous event but Labour don’t for the 07/08 financial crisis? And what about 2010-2019?" Not at all. I have been clear that the economy is very complex and influenced by many things. However labour showed themselves to be out fo their depth in the banking crisis. | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded…" Sadly, Richard Murphy has a habit of picking and choosing which data he uses. Go back to his article and see if you can find the source of the data he claims to have analysed. I doubt he'll provide any sources other than a vague hand-wavey 'official data'. | |||
| |||
"You said something earlier that was a better way of positioning this.. What services and investments in society are important to individuals. It is a persons right to question and challenge where their tax £'s are spent and the most likely evidence to see the tory - labour divide and assumptions on how the economy is managed. I am wealthy. There I have said it. Not ashamed of being wealthy as I am totally self made. Would I like to pay zero tax? You betcha! Is there an argument that as I do not use a lot of state/govt services I could resent paying for them? Yep I can see that argument. BUT… I have a moral compass that says some of my wealth is as a result of the society I live in and the labour of others who are less well off than me. My moral compass says “there but for the grace of God go I!” I want a fairer more equitable society where the poor are helped (appropriately) and generally the poor make more use of state/govt services than the rich. So while there is a selfish “it’s my money and I want to keep it” side of me, I accept that to have a functioning society (and happy country) I am going to have to contribute to the provision of those services. So my ask is “use my money wisely and efficiently and do not be pro fli gate (avoiding emoji) Your position resonates, and I agree with your sentiment regarding some money being used for the good of society. You will also hopefully understand how that can rub the wrong way when it is used poorly. I often feel I'm not getting bang for my tax £. " Ah but THAT is a whole different (admittedly related) topic to whether Labour = bad with economy vs Conservative = good with economy trope  | |||
"To add (but without quotes getting too long) it depends on whether we think govt debt and interest payments are good or bad? Not sure if this analogy will work but let’s equate Govt/State to a person (it is more complex I know, especially if you have a sovereign currency)… Larry Labour has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He gets a pay rise to £110k. He chooses to use some of that extra money to pay down his mortgage more quickly reducing the capital owed and overall level of interest he has to pay. The rest he uses to buy nicer food for everyone in the house. Colin Conservative has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He decides to borrow another £10k on his mortgage. He doesn’t pay it off any quicker and now faces more interest payments as he owes £510k. He does use some of the money for nicer food for people in the house but not much as he tells them they owe too much money and need to make sacrifices. What he does with the rest is anybody’s guess? There are times when it is more favourable to borrow than to pay off. We could spin this around and say Colin Conservative borrowed 10K when the time was right to do so, low interests rates as an example. He invests the 10K in home improvements that increases significantly the value of the house giving him and his family a better standard of living and a great ROI upon sale. Larry Labour attempts to pays off is mortgage quicker, however no investment in his house devalues against Colin Conservative's house. Larry is also holding on to his house and interest rates increase, cancelling gains made. There is a good time to borrow and a bad. Good points. However, if the level of growth of govt debt over last 14years is anything to go by, seems like the Tory’s have not fixed the roof while the sun was shining (better economy and low interest rates). So yes a good time to borrow but looks like Tory’s got it wrong! Everyone got it wrong, Covid saw to that. Again so do the Tory’s get a pass for an exogenous event but Labour don’t for the 07/08 financial crisis? And what about 2010-2019? Not at all. I have been clear that the economy is very complex and influenced by many things. However labour showed themselves to be out fo their depth in the banking crisis." Did they? How so? I have read several articles that actually lauded Gordon Brown and his decisive stance and how it influenced policy around the world. Mervyn King actually went as far as saying Brown pretty much saved us from financial armageddon. Doesn’t mean Brown gets a pass for raiding pensions of flogging off gold though  | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… Sadly, Richard Murphy has a habit of picking and choosing which data he uses. Go back to his article and see if you can find the source of the data he claims to have analysed. I doubt he'll provide any sources other than a vague hand-wavey 'official data'." Quote: “It is often suggested that Labour is pro fligate and the Tories are the naturally ‘safe pair of hands' when it comes to running the economy. The Tories, it is presumed, do not borrow as much as Labour. This is a hypothesis I have tested before. I thought it time to update to the end of the 2020/21 financial year. The analysis that follows is based on government borrowing as reported by the House of Commons Library and other data supplied by the Office for Budget Responsibility.It covers years since 1946, which is the entire post-war period.” | |||
"To add (but without quotes getting too long) it depends on whether we think govt debt and interest payments are good or bad? Not sure if this analogy will work but let’s equate Govt/State to a person (it is more complex I know, especially if you have a sovereign currency)… Larry Labour has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He gets a pay rise to £110k. He chooses to use some of that extra money to pay down his mortgage more quickly reducing the capital owed and overall level of interest he has to pay. The rest he uses to buy nicer food for everyone in the house. Colin Conservative has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He decides to borrow another £10k on his mortgage. He doesn’t pay it off any quicker and now faces more interest payments as he owes £510k. He does use some of the money for nicer food for people in the house but not much as he tells them they owe too much money and need to make sacrifices. What he does with the rest is anybody’s guess? There are times when it is more favourable to borrow than to pay off. We could spin this around and say Colin Conservative borrowed 10K when the time was right to do so, low interests rates as an example. He invests the 10K in home improvements that increases significantly the value of the house giving him and his family a better standard of living and a great ROI upon sale. Larry Labour attempts to pays off is mortgage quicker, however no investment in his house devalues against Colin Conservative's house. Larry is also holding on to his house and interest rates increase, cancelling gains made. There is a good time to borrow and a bad. Good points. However, if the level of growth of govt debt over last 14years is anything to go by, seems like the Tory’s have not fixed the roof while the sun was shining (better economy and low interest rates). So yes a good time to borrow but looks like Tory’s got it wrong! Everyone got it wrong, Covid saw to that. Again so do the Tory’s get a pass for an exogenous event but Labour don’t for the 07/08 financial crisis? And what about 2010-2019? Not at all. I have been clear that the economy is very complex and influenced by many things. However labour showed themselves to be out fo their depth in the banking crisis. Did they? How so? I have read several articles that actually lauded Gordon Brown and his decisive stance and how it influenced policy around the world. Mervyn King actually went as far as saying Brown pretty much saved us from financial armageddon. Doesn’t mean Brown gets a pass for raiding pensions of flogging off gold though "I'm not sure what you have been reading 
Brown admitted he and the government knew very little to nothing on the complexities of the banking world, and he put all his eggs in one basket with the FSA, that was shutdown due to the banking collapse. | |||
"To add (but without quotes getting too long) it depends on whether we think govt debt and interest payments are good or bad? Not sure if this analogy will work but let’s equate Govt/State to a person (it is more complex I know, especially if you have a sovereign currency)… Larry Labour has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He gets a pay rise to £110k. He chooses to use some of that extra money to pay down his mortgage more quickly reducing the capital owed and overall level of interest he has to pay. The rest he uses to buy nicer food for everyone in the house. Colin Conservative has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He decides to borrow another £10k on his mortgage. He doesn’t pay it off any quicker and now faces more interest payments as he owes £510k. He does use some of the money for nicer food for people in the house but not much as he tells them they owe too much money and need to make sacrifices. What he does with the rest is anybody’s guess? There are times when it is more favourable to borrow than to pay off. We could spin this around and say Colin Conservative borrowed 10K when the time was right to do so, low interests rates as an example. He invests the 10K in home improvements that increases significantly the value of the house giving him and his family a better standard of living and a great ROI upon sale. Larry Labour attempts to pays off is mortgage quicker, however no investment in his house devalues against Colin Conservative's house. Larry is also holding on to his house and interest rates increase, cancelling gains made. There is a good time to borrow and a bad. Good points. However, if the level of growth of govt debt over last 14years is anything to go by, seems like the Tory’s have not fixed the roof while the sun was shining (better economy and low interest rates). So yes a good time to borrow but looks like Tory’s got it wrong! Everyone got it wrong, Covid saw to that. Again so do the Tory’s get a pass for an exogenous event but Labour don’t for the 07/08 financial crisis? And what about 2010-2019? Not at all. I have been clear that the economy is very complex and influenced by many things. However labour showed themselves to be out fo their depth in the banking crisis. Did they? How so? I have read several articles that actually lauded Gordon Brown and his decisive stance and how it influenced policy around the world. Mervyn King actually went as far as saying Brown pretty much saved us from financial armageddon. Doesn’t mean Brown gets a pass for raiding pensions of flogging off gold though
I'm not sure what you have been reading
Brown admitted he and the government knew very little to nothing on the complexities of the banking world, and he put all his eggs in one basket with the FSA, that was shutdown due to the banking collapse."Obviously some will argue otherwise but that is normally a purely political and partisan rather than objective. Google “did gordon brown save us from financial crisis” and you can read multiple articles that support my point (most interestingly from an overseas/foreign POV). | |||
"To add (but without quotes getting too long) it depends on whether we think govt debt and interest payments are good or bad? Not sure if this analogy will work but let’s equate Govt/State to a person (it is more complex I know, especially if you have a sovereign currency)… Larry Labour has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He gets a pay rise to £110k. He chooses to use some of that extra money to pay down his mortgage more quickly reducing the capital owed and overall level of interest he has to pay. The rest he uses to buy nicer food for everyone in the house. Colin Conservative has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He decides to borrow another £10k on his mortgage. He doesn’t pay it off any quicker and now faces more interest payments as he owes £510k. He does use some of the money for nicer food for people in the house but not much as he tells them they owe too much money and need to make sacrifices. What he does with the rest is anybody’s guess? There are times when it is more favourable to borrow than to pay off. We could spin this around and say Colin Conservative borrowed 10K when the time was right to do so, low interests rates as an example. He invests the 10K in home improvements that increases significantly the value of the house giving him and his family a better standard of living and a great ROI upon sale. Larry Labour attempts to pays off is mortgage quicker, however no investment in his house devalues against Colin Conservative's house. Larry is also holding on to his house and interest rates increase, cancelling gains made. There is a good time to borrow and a bad. Good points. However, if the level of growth of govt debt over last 14years is anything to go by, seems like the Tory’s have not fixed the roof while the sun was shining (better economy and low interest rates). So yes a good time to borrow but looks like Tory’s got it wrong! Everyone got it wrong, Covid saw to that. Again so do the Tory’s get a pass for an exogenous event but Labour don’t for the 07/08 financial crisis? And what about 2010-2019? Not at all. I have been clear that the economy is very complex and influenced by many things. However labour showed themselves to be out fo their depth in the banking crisis. Did they? How so? I have read several articles that actually lauded Gordon Brown and his decisive stance and how it influenced policy around the world. Mervyn King actually went as far as saying Brown pretty much saved us from financial armageddon. Doesn’t mean Brown gets a pass for raiding pensions of flogging off gold though
I'm not sure what you have been reading
Brown admitted he and the government knew very little to nothing on the complexities of the banking world, and he put all his eggs in one basket with the FSA, that was shutdown due to the banking collapse.
Obviously some will argue otherwise but that is normally a purely political and partisan rather than objective.
Google “did gordon brown save us from financial crisis” and you can read multiple articles that support my point (most interestingly from an overseas/foreign POV)."I can only find one story using that search that says he did good by the Guardian and then another by the Guardian saying he didn't save the world. I did find this at the top of my search: Boles concludes by saying that Brown did help limit the global crisis but also that he was partly responsible for the conditions that caused it. Pick your poison | |||
"To add (but without quotes getting too long) it depends on whether we think govt debt and interest payments are good or bad? Not sure if this analogy will work but let’s equate Govt/State to a person (it is more complex I know, especially if you have a sovereign currency)… Larry Labour has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He gets a pay rise to £110k. He chooses to use some of that extra money to pay down his mortgage more quickly reducing the capital owed and overall level of interest he has to pay. The rest he uses to buy nicer food for everyone in the house. Colin Conservative has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He decides to borrow another £10k on his mortgage. He doesn’t pay it off any quicker and now faces more interest payments as he owes £510k. He does use some of the money for nicer food for people in the house but not much as he tells them they owe too much money and need to make sacrifices. What he does with the rest is anybody’s guess? There are times when it is more favourable to borrow than to pay off. We could spin this around and say Colin Conservative borrowed 10K when the time was right to do so, low interests rates as an example. He invests the 10K in home improvements that increases significantly the value of the house giving him and his family a better standard of living and a great ROI upon sale. Larry Labour attempts to pays off is mortgage quicker, however no investment in his house devalues against Colin Conservative's house. Larry is also holding on to his house and interest rates increase, cancelling gains made. There is a good time to borrow and a bad. Good points. However, if the level of growth of govt debt over last 14years is anything to go by, seems like the Tory’s have not fixed the roof while the sun was shining (better economy and low interest rates). So yes a good time to borrow but looks like Tory’s got it wrong! Everyone got it wrong, Covid saw to that. Again so do the Tory’s get a pass for an exogenous event but Labour don’t for the 07/08 financial crisis? And what about 2010-2019? Not at all. I have been clear that the economy is very complex and influenced by many things. However labour showed themselves to be out fo their depth in the banking crisis. Did they? How so? I have read several articles that actually lauded Gordon Brown and his decisive stance and how it influenced policy around the world. Mervyn King actually went as far as saying Brown pretty much saved us from financial armageddon. Doesn’t mean Brown gets a pass for raiding pensions of flogging off gold though
I'm not sure what you have been reading
Brown admitted he and the government knew very little to nothing on the complexities of the banking world, and he put all his eggs in one basket with the FSA, that was shutdown due to the banking collapse.
Obviously some will argue otherwise but that is normally a purely political and partisan rather than objective.
Google “did gordon brown save us from financial crisis” and you can read multiple articles that support my point (most interestingly from an overseas/foreign POV).
I can only find one story using that search that says he did good by the Guardian and then another by the Guardian saying he didn't save the world.
I did find this at the top of my search: Boles concludes by saying that Brown did help limit the global crisis but also that he was partly responsible for the conditions that caused it.
Pick your poison "LOL you didn’t scroll very far! There’s plenty but as i said some will argue otherwise. | |||
"To add (but without quotes getting too long) it depends on whether we think govt debt and interest payments are good or bad? Not sure if this analogy will work but let’s equate Govt/State to a person (it is more complex I know, especially if you have a sovereign currency)… Larry Labour has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He gets a pay rise to £110k. He chooses to use some of that extra money to pay down his mortgage more quickly reducing the capital owed and overall level of interest he has to pay. The rest he uses to buy nicer food for everyone in the house. Colin Conservative has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He decides to borrow another £10k on his mortgage. He doesn’t pay it off any quicker and now faces more interest payments as he owes £510k. He does use some of the money for nicer food for people in the house but not much as he tells them they owe too much money and need to make sacrifices. What he does with the rest is anybody’s guess? There are times when it is more favourable to borrow than to pay off. We could spin this around and say Colin Conservative borrowed 10K when the time was right to do so, low interests rates as an example. He invests the 10K in home improvements that increases significantly the value of the house giving him and his family a better standard of living and a great ROI upon sale. Larry Labour attempts to pays off is mortgage quicker, however no investment in his house devalues against Colin Conservative's house. Larry is also holding on to his house and interest rates increase, cancelling gains made. There is a good time to borrow and a bad. Good points. However, if the level of growth of govt debt over last 14years is anything to go by, seems like the Tory’s have not fixed the roof while the sun was shining (better economy and low interest rates). So yes a good time to borrow but looks like Tory’s got it wrong! Everyone got it wrong, Covid saw to that. Again so do the Tory’s get a pass for an exogenous event but Labour don’t for the 07/08 financial crisis? And what about 2010-2019? Not at all. I have been clear that the economy is very complex and influenced by many things. However labour showed themselves to be out fo their depth in the banking crisis. Did they? How so? I have read several articles that actually lauded Gordon Brown and his decisive stance and how it influenced policy around the world. Mervyn King actually went as far as saying Brown pretty much saved us from financial armageddon. Doesn’t mean Brown gets a pass for raiding pensions of flogging off gold though
I'm not sure what you have been reading
Brown admitted he and the government knew very little to nothing on the complexities of the banking world, and he put all his eggs in one basket with the FSA, that was shutdown due to the banking collapse.
Obviously some will argue otherwise but that is normally a purely political and partisan rather than objective.
Google “did gordon brown save us from financial crisis” and you can read multiple articles that support my point (most interestingly from an overseas/foreign POV).
I can only find one story using that search that says he did good by the Guardian and then another by the Guardian saying he didn't save the world.
I did find this at the top of my search: Boles concludes by saying that Brown did help limit the global crisis but also that he was partly responsible for the conditions that caused it.
Pick your poison
LOL you didn’t scroll very far! There’s plenty but as i said some will argue otherwise."I'm not gonna flag off Brown's handling of the crisis, I think most would have come up short. However, are we saying Labour had no part to play in the crisis arising? | |||
"To add (but without quotes getting too long) it depends on whether we think govt debt and interest payments are good or bad? Not sure if this analogy will work but let’s equate Govt/State to a person (it is more complex I know, especially if you have a sovereign currency)… Larry Labour has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He gets a pay rise to £110k. He chooses to use some of that extra money to pay down his mortgage more quickly reducing the capital owed and overall level of interest he has to pay. The rest he uses to buy nicer food for everyone in the house. Colin Conservative has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He decides to borrow another £10k on his mortgage. He doesn’t pay it off any quicker and now faces more interest payments as he owes £510k. He does use some of the money for nicer food for people in the house but not much as he tells them they owe too much money and need to make sacrifices. What he does with the rest is anybody’s guess? There are times when it is more favourable to borrow than to pay off. We could spin this around and say Colin Conservative borrowed 10K when the time was right to do so, low interests rates as an example. He invests the 10K in home improvements that increases significantly the value of the house giving him and his family a better standard of living and a great ROI upon sale. Larry Labour attempts to pays off is mortgage quicker, however no investment in his house devalues against Colin Conservative's house. Larry is also holding on to his house and interest rates increase, cancelling gains made. There is a good time to borrow and a bad. Good points. However, if the level of growth of govt debt over last 14years is anything to go by, seems like the Tory’s have not fixed the roof while the sun was shining (better economy and low interest rates). So yes a good time to borrow but looks like Tory’s got it wrong! Everyone got it wrong, Covid saw to that. Again so do the Tory’s get a pass for an exogenous event but Labour don’t for the 07/08 financial crisis? And what about 2010-2019? Not at all. I have been clear that the economy is very complex and influenced by many things. However labour showed themselves to be out fo their depth in the banking crisis. Did they? How so? I have read several articles that actually lauded Gordon Brown and his decisive stance and how it influenced policy around the world. Mervyn King actually went as far as saying Brown pretty much saved us from financial armageddon. Doesn’t mean Brown gets a pass for raiding pensions of flogging off gold though
I'm not sure what you have been reading
Brown admitted he and the government knew very little to nothing on the complexities of the banking world, and he put all his eggs in one basket with the FSA, that was shutdown due to the banking collapse.
Obviously some will argue otherwise but that is normally a purely political and partisan rather than objective.
Google “did gordon brown save us from financial crisis” and you can read multiple articles that support my point (most interestingly from an overseas/foreign POV).
I can only find one story using that search that says he did good by the Guardian and then another by the Guardian saying he didn't save the world.
I did find this at the top of my search: Boles concludes by saying that Brown did help limit the global crisis but also that he was partly responsible for the conditions that caused it.
Pick your poison
LOL you didn’t scroll very far! There’s plenty but as i said some will argue otherwise.
I'm not gonna flag off Brown's handling of the crisis, I think most would have come up short.
However, are we saying Labour had no part to play in the crisis arising?"Nope. And nowhere have I said that? I think successive govts since Thatcher (in the UK) were complicit in the financial crisis through the deregulation of financial markets. Imagine the outcry if New Labour had tried to reverse the process started by libertarian govts in the UK and USA when the global economy was flourishing! Basically the entire banking and investment sector (globally) was saying “look the good times are rolling and that’s because we regulate ourselves, leave us be” and we know how that worked out! | |||
"To add (but without quotes getting too long) it depends on whether we think govt debt and interest payments are good or bad? Not sure if this analogy will work but let’s equate Govt/State to a person (it is more complex I know, especially if you have a sovereign currency)… Larry Labour has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He gets a pay rise to £110k. He chooses to use some of that extra money to pay down his mortgage more quickly reducing the capital owed and overall level of interest he has to pay. The rest he uses to buy nicer food for everyone in the house. Colin Conservative has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He decides to borrow another £10k on his mortgage. He doesn’t pay it off any quicker and now faces more interest payments as he owes £510k. He does use some of the money for nicer food for people in the house but not much as he tells them they owe too much money and need to make sacrifices. What he does with the rest is anybody’s guess? There are times when it is more favourable to borrow than to pay off. We could spin this around and say Colin Conservative borrowed 10K when the time was right to do so, low interests rates as an example. He invests the 10K in home improvements that increases significantly the value of the house giving him and his family a better standard of living and a great ROI upon sale. Larry Labour attempts to pays off is mortgage quicker, however no investment in his house devalues against Colin Conservative's house. Larry is also holding on to his house and interest rates increase, cancelling gains made. There is a good time to borrow and a bad. Good points. However, if the level of growth of govt debt over last 14years is anything to go by, seems like the Tory’s have not fixed the roof while the sun was shining (better economy and low interest rates). So yes a good time to borrow but looks like Tory’s got it wrong! Everyone got it wrong, Covid saw to that. Again so do the Tory’s get a pass for an exogenous event but Labour don’t for the 07/08 financial crisis? And what about 2010-2019? Not at all. I have been clear that the economy is very complex and influenced by many things. However labour showed themselves to be out fo their depth in the banking crisis. Did they? How so? I have read several articles that actually lauded Gordon Brown and his decisive stance and how it influenced policy around the world. Mervyn King actually went as far as saying Brown pretty much saved us from financial armageddon. Doesn’t mean Brown gets a pass for raiding pensions of flogging off gold though
I'm not sure what you have been reading
Brown admitted he and the government knew very little to nothing on the complexities of the banking world, and he put all his eggs in one basket with the FSA, that was shutdown due to the banking collapse.
Obviously some will argue otherwise but that is normally a purely political and partisan rather than objective.
Google “did gordon brown save us from financial crisis” and you can read multiple articles that support my point (most interestingly from an overseas/foreign POV).
I can only find one story using that search that says he did good by the Guardian and then another by the Guardian saying he didn't save the world.
I did find this at the top of my search: Boles concludes by saying that Brown did help limit the global crisis but also that he was partly responsible for the conditions that caused it.
Pick your poison
LOL you didn’t scroll very far! There’s plenty but as i said some will argue otherwise.
I'm not gonna flag off Brown's handling of the crisis, I think most would have come up short.
However, are we saying Labour had no part to play in the crisis arising?
Nope. And nowhere have I said that? I think successive govts since Thatcher (in the UK) were complicit in the financial crisis through the deregulation of financial markets. Imagine the outcry if New Labour had tried to reverse the process started by libertarian govts in the UK and USA when the global economy was flourishing! Basically the entire banking and investment sector (globally) was saying “look the good times are rolling and that’s because we regulate ourselves, leave us be” and we know how that worked out!"There was a reason I asked a question. At no point did I say you had said it | |||
"To add (but without quotes getting too long) it depends on whether we think govt debt and interest payments are good or bad? Not sure if this analogy will work but let’s equate Govt/State to a person (it is more complex I know, especially if you have a sovereign currency)… Larry Labour has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He gets a pay rise to £110k. He chooses to use some of that extra money to pay down his mortgage more quickly reducing the capital owed and overall level of interest he has to pay. The rest he uses to buy nicer food for everyone in the house. Colin Conservative has a mortgage of £500k on a salary of £100k. He decides to borrow another £10k on his mortgage. He doesn’t pay it off any quicker and now faces more interest payments as he owes £510k. He does use some of the money for nicer food for people in the house but not much as he tells them they owe too much money and need to make sacrifices. What he does with the rest is anybody’s guess? There are times when it is more favourable to borrow than to pay off. We could spin this around and say Colin Conservative borrowed 10K when the time was right to do so, low interests rates as an example. He invests the 10K in home improvements that increases significantly the value of the house giving him and his family a better standard of living and a great ROI upon sale. Larry Labour attempts to pays off is mortgage quicker, however no investment in his house devalues against Colin Conservative's house. Larry is also holding on to his house and interest rates increase, cancelling gains made. There is a good time to borrow and a bad. Good points. However, if the level of growth of govt debt over last 14years is anything to go by, seems like the Tory’s have not fixed the roof while the sun was shining (better economy and low interest rates). So yes a good time to borrow but looks like Tory’s got it wrong! Everyone got it wrong, Covid saw to that. Again so do the Tory’s get a pass for an exogenous event but Labour don’t for the 07/08 financial crisis? And what about 2010-2019? Not at all. I have been clear that the economy is very complex and influenced by many things. However labour showed themselves to be out fo their depth in the banking crisis. Did they? How so? I have read several articles that actually lauded Gordon Brown and his decisive stance and how it influenced policy around the world. Mervyn King actually went as far as saying Brown pretty much saved us from financial armageddon. Doesn’t mean Brown gets a pass for raiding pensions of flogging off gold though
I'm not sure what you have been reading
Brown admitted he and the government knew very little to nothing on the complexities of the banking world, and he put all his eggs in one basket with the FSA, that was shutdown due to the banking collapse.
Obviously some will argue otherwise but that is normally a purely political and partisan rather than objective.
Google “did gordon brown save us from financial crisis” and you can read multiple articles that support my point (most interestingly from an overseas/foreign POV).
I can only find one story using that search that says he did good by the Guardian and then another by the Guardian saying he didn't save the world.
I did find this at the top of my search: Boles concludes by saying that Brown did help limit the global crisis but also that he was partly responsible for the conditions that caused it.
Pick your poison
LOL you didn’t scroll very far! There’s plenty but as i said some will argue otherwise.
I'm not gonna flag off Brown's handling of the crisis, I think most would have come up short.
However, are we saying Labour had no part to play in the crisis arising?
Nope. And nowhere have I said that? I think successive govts since Thatcher (in the UK) were complicit in the financial crisis through the deregulation of financial markets. Imagine the outcry if New Labour had tried to reverse the process started by libertarian govts in the UK and USA when the global economy was flourishing! Basically the entire banking and investment sector (globally) was saying “look the good times are rolling and that’s because we regulate ourselves, leave us be” and we know how that worked out!
There was a reason I asked a question. At no point did I say you had said it "Fair enough 
| |||
| |||
"I expect the Tories to continue with the same position regarding Labour and the economy but so far it's not making a difference. The country just want rid of the Tories. Apparently one poll from you gov predict a Labour landslide bigger than Blair's in 97. Although Labour have ruled out tax rises ( but not public sector cuts) they have not ruled out introducing new taxes. Some suggestions say inheritance tax changes are possible, some even as far as tax on gifts throughout a lifetime. Doubt that's even possible to police. Tax free savings could be reduced and changes to ISA rules. Also changes to private pensions are also ways to raise money from anyone who tries to do the right thing. " gifting will probs be done thru SA. There must be ways as we tax gifts if within 7 years if death. Pensions have lovely tax breaks already. Tax on pensions is more about limiting the value of reliefs than raising money from doing the right thing. That said as we move to DC, we can look at ways of limiting tax reliefs on way in. Pissing about with tax on the way out undermines confidence. | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded…" "Sadly, Richard Murphy has a habit of picking and choosing which data he uses. Go back to his article and see if you can find the source of the data he claims to have analysed. I doubt he'll provide any sources other than a vague hand-wavey 'official data'." "Quote: “It is often suggested that Labour is pro fligate and the Tories are the naturally ‘safe pair of hands' when it comes to running the economy. The Tories, it is presumed, do not borrow as much as Labour. This is a hypothesis I have tested before. I thought it time to update to the end of the 2020/21 financial year. The analysis that follows is based on government borrowing as reported by the House of Commons Library and other data supplied by the Office for Budget Responsibility.It covers years since 1946, which is the entire post-war period.”" Yup, that sounds like him, "I have 78 years worth of data which I trawled from official sources, many of which aren't on the internet, and I'm not going to publish that data, or give you any clues as to how you can find it for yourself, you'll just have to trust me". | |||
"I expect the Tories to continue with the same position regarding Labour and the economy but so far it's not making a difference. The country just want rid of the Tories. Apparently one poll from you gov predict a Labour landslide bigger than Blair's in 97. Although Labour have ruled out tax rises ( but not public sector cuts) they have not ruled out introducing new taxes. Some suggestions say inheritance tax changes are possible, some even as far as tax on gifts throughout a lifetime. Doubt that's even possible to police. Tax free savings could be reduced and changes to ISA rules. Also changes to private pensions are also ways to raise money from anyone who tries to do the right thing. gifting will probs be done thru SA. There must be ways as we tax gifts if within 7 years if death. Pensions have lovely tax breaks already. Tax on pensions is more about limiting the value of reliefs than raising money from doing the right thing. That said as we move to DC, we can look at ways of limiting tax reliefs on way in. Pissing about with tax on the way out undermines confidence. " Forgive my ignorance but not sure what SA is. Taxing gifts throughout every lifetime seems difficult but take your word that it can be done. Bottom line is people will pay more. Same with pensions and savings. My post is about ways they can raise money while still sticking to the no tax increase pledge. | |||
"Says a political pundit. https://news.sky.com/story/mark-this-moment-labours-promises-on-taxes-now-really-matter-and-could-crumble-in-government-13144601 ***If they get into power, do they squeeze public services for five years using the plans developed by Jeremy Hunt - and risk disappointing voters and an expectation the party will fund public services more - or do they borrow more, and risk breaking newly announced and eye-wateringly severe fiscal rules? Or do they do what voters have long associated with Labour, and turn to tax rises?***" We are paying MORE tax then ANYWHERE ELSE in Europe and the biggest tax Burdon since the last war so tax is used as a bogeyman to protect the people who SHOULD be taxed-the RICH. | |||
"I am sure people can find an argument but Richard Murphy (yes he is left wing) has done some very interesting and compelling research and concluded… Sadly, Richard Murphy has a habit of picking and choosing which data he uses. Go back to his article and see if you can find the source of the data he claims to have analysed. I doubt he'll provide any sources other than a vague hand-wavey 'official data'. Quote: “It is often suggested that Labour is pro fligate and the Tories are the naturally ‘safe pair of hands' when it comes to running the economy. The Tories, it is presumed, do not borrow as much as Labour. This is a hypothesis I have tested before. I thought it time to update to the end of the 2020/21 financial year. The analysis that follows is based on government borrowing as reported by the House of Commons Library and other data supplied by the Office for Budget Responsibility.It covers years since 1946, which is the entire post-war period.” Yup, that sounds like him, "I have 78 years worth of data which I trawled from official sources, many of which aren't on the internet, and I'm not going to publish that data, or give you any clues as to how you can find it for yourself, you'll just have to trust me"." I’d suggest that the HoC library and OBR are all publicly available. Also there is plenty of data in the article but I can’t replicate table and graphs on Fab | |||
"As soon as labour get in, open oven door put head in turn gass on." you can afford gas ! | |||
"I expect the Tories to continue with the same position regarding Labour and the economy but so far it's not making a difference. The country just want rid of the Tories. Apparently one poll from you gov predict a Labour landslide bigger than Blair's in 97. Although Labour have ruled out tax rises ( but not public sector cuts) they have not ruled out introducing new taxes. Some suggestions say inheritance tax changes are possible, some even as far as tax on gifts throughout a lifetime. Doubt that's even possible to police. Tax free savings could be reduced and changes to ISA rules. Also changes to private pensions are also ways to raise money from anyone who tries to do the right thing. gifting will probs be done thru SA. There must be ways as we tax gifts if within 7 years if death. Pensions have lovely tax breaks already. Tax on pensions is more about limiting the value of reliefs than raising money from doing the right thing. That said as we move to DC, we can look at ways of limiting tax reliefs on way in. Pissing about with tax on the way out undermines confidence. Forgive my ignorance but not sure what SA is. Taxing gifts throughout every lifetime seems difficult but take your word that it can be done. Bottom line is people will pay more. Same with pensions and savings. My post is about ways they can raise money while still sticking to the no tax increase pledge." self assessment, laziness on my part. I agree they will find places to tax. Tho both parties seem to have it out for tax dodging smaller companies. | |||
"I expect the Tories to continue with the same position regarding Labour and the economy but so far it's not making a difference. The country just want rid of the Tories. Apparently one poll from you gov predict a Labour landslide bigger than Blair's in 97. Although Labour have ruled out tax rises ( but not public sector cuts) they have not ruled out introducing new taxes. Some suggestions say inheritance tax changes are possible, some even as far as tax on gifts throughout a lifetime. Doubt that's even possible to police. Tax free savings could be reduced and changes to ISA rules. Also changes to private pensions are also ways to raise money from anyone who tries to do the right thing. " The simplest way for the next Government to raise taxes will be to remove the ideological barriers that this Government has attached to Brexit. Increasing GDP by improving the human and trade environments between ourselves and our closest neighbours will see an organic increase in tax revenue. Clawing back even some of the 4% loss of GDP will be something of a windfall. | |||
"I expect the Tories to continue with the same position regarding Labour and the economy but so far it's not making a difference. The country just want rid of the Tories. Apparently one poll from you gov predict a Labour landslide bigger than Blair's in 97. Although Labour have ruled out tax rises ( but not public sector cuts) they have not ruled out introducing new taxes. Some suggestions say inheritance tax changes are possible, some even as far as tax on gifts throughout a lifetime. Doubt that's even possible to police. Tax free savings could be reduced and changes to ISA rules. Also changes to private pensions are also ways to raise money from anyone who tries to do the right thing. The simplest way for the next Government to raise taxes will be to remove the ideological barriers that this Government has attached to Brexit. Increasing GDP by improving the human and trade environments between ourselves and our closest neighbours will see an organic increase in tax revenue. Clawing back even some of the 4% loss of GDP will be something of a windfall." Shhhh none of the country’s economic challenges are because of Brexit. It’s all the fault of Labour 14 years ago, the Pandemic, war in Ukraine (oh and also don’t mention Truss/Kwartang - thanks)  | |||
"I expect the Tories to continue with the same position regarding Labour and the economy but so far it's not making a difference. The country just want rid of the Tories. Apparently one poll from you gov predict a Labour landslide bigger than Blair's in 97. Although Labour have ruled out tax rises ( but not public sector cuts) they have not ruled out introducing new taxes. Some suggestions say inheritance tax changes are possible, some even as far as tax on gifts throughout a lifetime. Doubt that's even possible to police. Tax free savings could be reduced and changes to ISA rules. Also changes to private pensions are also ways to raise money from anyone who tries to do the right thing. gifting will probs be done thru SA. There must be ways as we tax gifts if within 7 years if death. Pensions have lovely tax breaks already. Tax on pensions is more about limiting the value of reliefs than raising money from doing the right thing. That said as we move to DC, we can look at ways of limiting tax reliefs on way in. Pissing about with tax on the way out undermines confidence. Forgive my ignorance but not sure what SA is. Taxing gifts throughout every lifetime seems difficult but take your word that it can be done. Bottom line is people will pay more. Same with pensions and savings. My post is about ways they can raise money while still sticking to the no tax increase pledge.self assessment, laziness on my part. I agree they will find places to tax. Tho both parties seem to have it out for tax dodging smaller companies. " Thanks | |||
